This is one long final greeting!
vs 1
Ahh, the TNIV - breaking rules all over the shop! It's the only translation I read that translates the word diakonos as deacon in this instance. How irresponsible!
vs 2
Phoebe is apparently travelling around and may come to Rome. Exactly what I would expect of some sort of servant. Just as long as they help her as much as if she were a deacon, I guess.
vs 3
Oh dear, another faux pas! Why did you put this woman before her husband, Paul? Bad form!
Priscilla and Aquilla, the rhyming pair, are mentioned pretty often. Apparently they are either currently at Rome, or will cycle through at some stage.
vs 4
They must do a lot of work. That's a pretty cool thing to have written of you. I wonder if the risking life for Paul was riding through a ring of fire or something else equally exciting?
vs 5
Priscilla and Aquilla have churches in every house they have. Not surprising we hear as much as we do.
Epenetus must have migrated to Rome. It's so interesting reading about the very first convert from Asia. Imagine how many "first converts from" there have been.
vs 6
Is this one of the famous Marys? Who knows. But she works hard regardless. Yes, that's another woman. You could almost be forgiven for thinking that the Roman church was somewhat cosmopolitan.
vs 7
Is Apostle here being used in the sense of "one who followed Christ when he was still walking around?" It seems to fit the bill. Paul does his shout out to his Jewish compadres. I guess it makes sense that a lot of the people Paul would have met over his travels would end up at least for some time in Rome. Big cities do that.
vs 8
Ampilatus was blessed with a name that sounds like the removal of limbs.
vs 9
You could be forgiven for thinking that Paul had met pretty much everyone in the Roman church one by one given the length of his greetings. Still, he is only greeting those whom he has a special word for it seems - as dear friends or co-workers etc.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Romans chapter 15
vs 23
If you are familiar with Paul's letters, you can sense the winding down as the topic changes to himself and his movements. While I wouldn't go so far as to say Paul's closing remarks of his letters are chock full of stuff to learn and reflect on, they are noneltheless valuable.
So here, Paul is talking about a winding down in his work. The idea that there is for Paul no more work in a region seems a bit wrong, so I am assuming he is referring to the work of building where there has been no other foundation placed. Frontiers always diminish.
vs 24
But hey, if it means that the Romans get a visit from Paul, and Paul gets the support of the Roman church, then there's nothing wrong with that. Paul had his eyes set on Spain - that's a bit of a new frontier for him, being the other side of Europe.
vs 25
I think he's talking about the gifts for the church there, which had found itself in a poverty type situation, possibly from disaster, possibly from bad management.
vs 26
Hmmm, can you hear the silent pull on the purse strings? It could be that Paul is simply stating fact and explaining that he needs to go to Jerusalem because these churches gave money, and someone has to take it.
If that is the case, then I might point out that the church, in wanting to send a bit of relief aid, didn't just send it with any old messenger - they sent it with an Apostle, Paul. Quite encouraging, I think.
vs 27
I think this is a truth that cannot be denied. The question is, are there places in the world that are more spiritually blessed than the western world (probably) and are we prepared to do a trade? Probably not. Oh, we're happy to send aid to help poor people (well, if you look at the actual numbers of the finance, not that happy), but we don't want to import in that crazy spirituality from backwards poor countries.
vs 28
Travel plans, first century AD style.
vs 29
Who knows what that's meant to mean.
vs 30
This isn't the only place that Paul sees prayer as a joining in on the struggle for something. Those of you who are resistance fighters or rebels at heart should be attracted to prayer, because it's the way you can be there on the front lines with those struggling for Christ, even if you're unable to get there and contribute physically. I must admit, I have always found praying for those people who are on the coalface of some sort of struggle a lot easier.
vs 31
Ok, the first prayer point makes sense. The Jews are not Paul's best friends. But the second one is kind of odd. You would hope that the Jerusalem church would be happy to receive some money.
vs 32
The idea seems to be that if they aren't, Paul may not make it to Rome.
vs 33
No, wait, there's another chapter to go. False alarm.
If you are familiar with Paul's letters, you can sense the winding down as the topic changes to himself and his movements. While I wouldn't go so far as to say Paul's closing remarks of his letters are chock full of stuff to learn and reflect on, they are noneltheless valuable.
So here, Paul is talking about a winding down in his work. The idea that there is for Paul no more work in a region seems a bit wrong, so I am assuming he is referring to the work of building where there has been no other foundation placed. Frontiers always diminish.
vs 24
But hey, if it means that the Romans get a visit from Paul, and Paul gets the support of the Roman church, then there's nothing wrong with that. Paul had his eyes set on Spain - that's a bit of a new frontier for him, being the other side of Europe.
vs 25
I think he's talking about the gifts for the church there, which had found itself in a poverty type situation, possibly from disaster, possibly from bad management.
vs 26
Hmmm, can you hear the silent pull on the purse strings? It could be that Paul is simply stating fact and explaining that he needs to go to Jerusalem because these churches gave money, and someone has to take it.
If that is the case, then I might point out that the church, in wanting to send a bit of relief aid, didn't just send it with any old messenger - they sent it with an Apostle, Paul. Quite encouraging, I think.
vs 27
I think this is a truth that cannot be denied. The question is, are there places in the world that are more spiritually blessed than the western world (probably) and are we prepared to do a trade? Probably not. Oh, we're happy to send aid to help poor people (well, if you look at the actual numbers of the finance, not that happy), but we don't want to import in that crazy spirituality from backwards poor countries.
vs 28
Travel plans, first century AD style.
vs 29
Who knows what that's meant to mean.
vs 30
This isn't the only place that Paul sees prayer as a joining in on the struggle for something. Those of you who are resistance fighters or rebels at heart should be attracted to prayer, because it's the way you can be there on the front lines with those struggling for Christ, even if you're unable to get there and contribute physically. I must admit, I have always found praying for those people who are on the coalface of some sort of struggle a lot easier.
vs 31
Ok, the first prayer point makes sense. The Jews are not Paul's best friends. But the second one is kind of odd. You would hope that the Jerusalem church would be happy to receive some money.
vs 32
The idea seems to be that if they aren't, Paul may not make it to Rome.
vs 33
No, wait, there's another chapter to go. False alarm.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Romans chapter 15
vs 12
Either Paul is targuming this verse, or he's remembering it slightly off wordwise, or he's quoting the LXX. The verse itself speaks for itself really. And that about wraps up the idea that the promises to the patriarchs culminate in the salvation of the gentiles.
vs 13
That's a nice little doxological wrapup there. These are all much better things than arguing over vegetarians.
vs 14
That's a pretty good compliment, especially when Paul's never actually been to the church before. Compare that with the Corinthians, who are still sucking milk - and Paul taught there for two years!
vs 15-16
So even though Paul didn't start this church, and even though they seem to be going along well and even he has confidence that they can instruct each other, he still writes to them, because that's his job! This part of the letter, I guess, is to make it so that they don't think he's patronising them, but rather showing his love for them an that he wants to do his best. Romans is a preventative measure, then.
vs 17
He serves Christ, so as a servant, the glory goes to his master, and that in turn glorifies him. Who wants to work for an inglorious master?
vs 18
Why speak about anything else? After all, results shows that God is with him and that Christ is working to his will.
vs 19
It is interesting to see what miraculous signs and wonders had to do with Paul's ministry success. I mean, it gets mentioned over and over - in Acts, here, Corinthians. Interestingly, though, miraculous signs doesn't appear in the list of gifts that Paul gives the Romans.
That's a lot of area he covered, too. That's a miracle.
vs 20
This pioneering spirit is the meat and drink of many missionaries, who trailblaze into dark jungles and barren lands to find people and tell them the gospel for the first time. People get excited about that stuff. Unfortunately, it's more difficult to get people excited about reaching nominal Christians who are all talk and no faith, or to work in discipling people who are now Christians. But Paul didn't differentiate - to him, all that was part of his work - he maintained what he grew.
vs 21
What an interesting verse to drive you on to reach the unreached! That is the kind of verse that I would read "Oh, yeah, God will do that. Yay God!" instead of reading it like Paul did, "Hey, I can be a part of God doing that work. Awesome!" Yes, Paul regularly said awesome.
vs 22
Unfortunately, Paul is not omnipresent, so he had to skip somewhere. Rome may have been a great ministry spot in one way, but for Paul it could have also meant early arrest and death. Not only that, but churches kept popping up under his feet, what was he to do?
Either Paul is targuming this verse, or he's remembering it slightly off wordwise, or he's quoting the LXX. The verse itself speaks for itself really. And that about wraps up the idea that the promises to the patriarchs culminate in the salvation of the gentiles.
vs 13
That's a nice little doxological wrapup there. These are all much better things than arguing over vegetarians.
vs 14
That's a pretty good compliment, especially when Paul's never actually been to the church before. Compare that with the Corinthians, who are still sucking milk - and Paul taught there for two years!
vs 15-16
So even though Paul didn't start this church, and even though they seem to be going along well and even he has confidence that they can instruct each other, he still writes to them, because that's his job! This part of the letter, I guess, is to make it so that they don't think he's patronising them, but rather showing his love for them an that he wants to do his best. Romans is a preventative measure, then.
vs 17
He serves Christ, so as a servant, the glory goes to his master, and that in turn glorifies him. Who wants to work for an inglorious master?
vs 18
Why speak about anything else? After all, results shows that God is with him and that Christ is working to his will.
vs 19
It is interesting to see what miraculous signs and wonders had to do with Paul's ministry success. I mean, it gets mentioned over and over - in Acts, here, Corinthians. Interestingly, though, miraculous signs doesn't appear in the list of gifts that Paul gives the Romans.
That's a lot of area he covered, too. That's a miracle.
vs 20
This pioneering spirit is the meat and drink of many missionaries, who trailblaze into dark jungles and barren lands to find people and tell them the gospel for the first time. People get excited about that stuff. Unfortunately, it's more difficult to get people excited about reaching nominal Christians who are all talk and no faith, or to work in discipling people who are now Christians. But Paul didn't differentiate - to him, all that was part of his work - he maintained what he grew.
vs 21
What an interesting verse to drive you on to reach the unreached! That is the kind of verse that I would read "Oh, yeah, God will do that. Yay God!" instead of reading it like Paul did, "Hey, I can be a part of God doing that work. Awesome!" Yes, Paul regularly said awesome.
vs 22
Unfortunately, Paul is not omnipresent, so he had to skip somewhere. Rome may have been a great ministry spot in one way, but for Paul it could have also meant early arrest and death. Not only that, but churches kept popping up under his feet, what was he to do?
Monday, August 25, 2008
Romans chapter 15
vs 1
Don't think that I don't agree with this sentiment. The fact is that doing something for your own pleasure to the detriment of another is wrong. It's not Christ-like, even if doing the thing in and of itself is fine.
However, It is not the only responsibility of the Christian.
vs 2
In this verse, for example - pleasing your neighbours might sound like a really good thing to do, but you should be pleasing them for their growth, to build them up. You don't go and engage in their orgy just because that will please them. But when you do something that is for someone's benefit, that will please them and build them up. Teaching weaker Christians to be stronger in their faith will be pleasing and help their growth.
vs 3
I was going to say that I would have picked a NT reference for that quote - but then, I guess Paul didn't have it handy (although he does quote Luke in Timothy).
The idea of this quote is that Christ did not come to do things that selfish. After all, Christ did please himself, because in pleasing God he himself was pleased. To retaliate to insults may have just been a selfish and useless exercise, so Christ did not take part in it. In fact, Christ went so far as to wear the insults that were made to his disciples, because of course they were being insulted because of Christ.
vs 4
Hope is one of the main messages of the Bible. But it is a hope that comes through endurance. If we can't endure, our hope is fruitless.
vs 5
Thankfully, we don't have to go it alone. It is God who empowers our endurance, just like everything else.
vs 6
The purpose, as always, is the glory of God. This can only come through unity. That is why Paul is writing these words in this chapter and the last. Through the unity of the church we will find our hope, and we will glorify God appropriately.
vs 7
What I said above. This is just now the imperative version.
vs 8
This verse tends to suggest to me that some of the major divisions in the church at Rome were along the Jew/gentile divide. Christ became a servant to the Jews (lit circumcision), because God had promised to the patriarchs.
vs 9
But before you get all cocky (haha, pun), It is for the sake of the promise, not the patriarchs, that Christ became a servant. And that promise was that the gentiles might glorify God. You will remember the promise to Abraham that all nations would be blessed through him. Start there if you like.
vs 10 & 11
Lots of verses. They're not all exactly what we have in the OT, but they're pretty good.
Don't think that I don't agree with this sentiment. The fact is that doing something for your own pleasure to the detriment of another is wrong. It's not Christ-like, even if doing the thing in and of itself is fine.
However, It is not the only responsibility of the Christian.
vs 2
In this verse, for example - pleasing your neighbours might sound like a really good thing to do, but you should be pleasing them for their growth, to build them up. You don't go and engage in their orgy just because that will please them. But when you do something that is for someone's benefit, that will please them and build them up. Teaching weaker Christians to be stronger in their faith will be pleasing and help their growth.
vs 3
I was going to say that I would have picked a NT reference for that quote - but then, I guess Paul didn't have it handy (although he does quote Luke in Timothy).
The idea of this quote is that Christ did not come to do things that selfish. After all, Christ did please himself, because in pleasing God he himself was pleased. To retaliate to insults may have just been a selfish and useless exercise, so Christ did not take part in it. In fact, Christ went so far as to wear the insults that were made to his disciples, because of course they were being insulted because of Christ.
vs 4
Hope is one of the main messages of the Bible. But it is a hope that comes through endurance. If we can't endure, our hope is fruitless.
vs 5
Thankfully, we don't have to go it alone. It is God who empowers our endurance, just like everything else.
vs 6
The purpose, as always, is the glory of God. This can only come through unity. That is why Paul is writing these words in this chapter and the last. Through the unity of the church we will find our hope, and we will glorify God appropriately.
vs 7
What I said above. This is just now the imperative version.
vs 8
This verse tends to suggest to me that some of the major divisions in the church at Rome were along the Jew/gentile divide. Christ became a servant to the Jews (lit circumcision), because God had promised to the patriarchs.
vs 9
But before you get all cocky (haha, pun), It is for the sake of the promise, not the patriarchs, that Christ became a servant. And that promise was that the gentiles might glorify God. You will remember the promise to Abraham that all nations would be blessed through him. Start there if you like.
vs 10 & 11
Lots of verses. They're not all exactly what we have in the OT, but they're pretty good.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Romans chapter 14
You know, for all the wonderfulness of FireFox, binding a command to ctrl+u was not a good idea, guys.
vs 13
Judgment bad. Loving and assisting brothers and sisters good. I will point out that helping a brother or sister to become stronger in the faith is in fact loving.
vs 14
This is the thing - Paul is convinced, and Paul is an Apostle. So why not listen to him? Because if he hasn't been able to persuade you about it, then he just hasn't been able to! So if you need more persuading, then keep doing what you're doing for the time being, but continue to allow yourself instruction by the Apostle.
If you read this any other way, you honestly are totally setting up the church for a major, major problem. Why? Because Paul has chosen as his example something which is clearly set out in Scripture! All food is clean. It's biblical. If you then say 'but I am not convinced about it, so I'm going to do it my way and not take biblical instruction on it', then what's to say that someone can't say 'well, I know the bible says that sleeping with prostitutes is wrong, but I'm not entirely convinced about it in my own conscience, so I'm going to keep doing it until I have received instruction'?
vs 15
Causing distress by your actions to another person is wrong. I will co-opt a principle from 1 Corinthians here, though, as Paul points out there that you can happily eat, just not in front of your brother or sister who has the problem.
vs 16
I think this verse can be far more widely applied than it is usually. Ok, so don't eat it in front of them, or whatever. That's one method. Correcting your brother or sister who is weaker in the faith (I really can't stress that enough) is another method of ensuring that what you do will not be spoken about as evil.
vs 17
Grammatical question - is it a matter of peace and righteousness on their own, but joy in the Holy Spirit, or all three in the Holy Spirit? I'm going for the latter, as it sounds more spiritual.
vs 18
Normally, Paul doesn't care two cents about human approval. But in this case he shows that it is important. Doing things out of love for people is generally approved of. I wonder, though, if you tell someone "I'm not eating meat because I don't want to stumble you as a weaker brother" if that is the loving equivalent of heaping burning coals on their head - which, I might point out, is also seen as a loving thing to do.
vs 19
So instead of focussing on these things, let's forget about them unless they raise themself as an issue, and focus on those things which create good things. That we can all agree on. Like... you know... Christ.
vs 20
It is also wrong for that person to judge the person who eats. But Paul is giving a command to those who are strong in faith, becuase the weak in faith? Well, they're weak. We don't expect them to obey commands.
vs 21
Remember, we aren't just talking about something that will upset someone, or make them tetchy of whinge. Paul says don't do things that will make them "fall". His language has been strong - don't "destroy" your brother/sister. Don't make them stumble. Don't make them fall. The word "fall" here is apparently literally the word 'proskopto', which means stumble. It's used earlier in chapter 9. The word used earlier is pretty much the same - 'Proskomma'. So with that in mind, all the different translations use different words for pretty much the same word here, just to mix things up a bit I guess.
vs 22
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this is Paul's command to not eat in front of the other person. I don't think he's going so far as to say "don't share your belief about it with the other person". As Paul says in the next verse...
vs 23
...actions are done in faith. So just as the person who can't eat should not eat, and that by faith, those that can eat should eat, again by faith, but should keep that faithful action between them and God. If we keep a practice of faith to ourselves, that's fine. But were we to keep discussions of faith from our weaker siblings, then we are surely condemned.
Oh, and remember - if you're thinking with disagreeing with me on this point, then you're actually not allowed to tell me. Keep it between you and God. :P
vs 13
Judgment bad. Loving and assisting brothers and sisters good. I will point out that helping a brother or sister to become stronger in the faith is in fact loving.
vs 14
This is the thing - Paul is convinced, and Paul is an Apostle. So why not listen to him? Because if he hasn't been able to persuade you about it, then he just hasn't been able to! So if you need more persuading, then keep doing what you're doing for the time being, but continue to allow yourself instruction by the Apostle.
If you read this any other way, you honestly are totally setting up the church for a major, major problem. Why? Because Paul has chosen as his example something which is clearly set out in Scripture! All food is clean. It's biblical. If you then say 'but I am not convinced about it, so I'm going to do it my way and not take biblical instruction on it', then what's to say that someone can't say 'well, I know the bible says that sleeping with prostitutes is wrong, but I'm not entirely convinced about it in my own conscience, so I'm going to keep doing it until I have received instruction'?
vs 15
Causing distress by your actions to another person is wrong. I will co-opt a principle from 1 Corinthians here, though, as Paul points out there that you can happily eat, just not in front of your brother or sister who has the problem.
vs 16
I think this verse can be far more widely applied than it is usually. Ok, so don't eat it in front of them, or whatever. That's one method. Correcting your brother or sister who is weaker in the faith (I really can't stress that enough) is another method of ensuring that what you do will not be spoken about as evil.
vs 17
Grammatical question - is it a matter of peace and righteousness on their own, but joy in the Holy Spirit, or all three in the Holy Spirit? I'm going for the latter, as it sounds more spiritual.
vs 18
Normally, Paul doesn't care two cents about human approval. But in this case he shows that it is important. Doing things out of love for people is generally approved of. I wonder, though, if you tell someone "I'm not eating meat because I don't want to stumble you as a weaker brother" if that is the loving equivalent of heaping burning coals on their head - which, I might point out, is also seen as a loving thing to do.
vs 19
So instead of focussing on these things, let's forget about them unless they raise themself as an issue, and focus on those things which create good things. That we can all agree on. Like... you know... Christ.
vs 20
It is also wrong for that person to judge the person who eats. But Paul is giving a command to those who are strong in faith, becuase the weak in faith? Well, they're weak. We don't expect them to obey commands.
vs 21
Remember, we aren't just talking about something that will upset someone, or make them tetchy of whinge. Paul says don't do things that will make them "fall". His language has been strong - don't "destroy" your brother/sister. Don't make them stumble. Don't make them fall. The word "fall" here is apparently literally the word 'proskopto', which means stumble. It's used earlier in chapter 9. The word used earlier is pretty much the same - 'Proskomma'. So with that in mind, all the different translations use different words for pretty much the same word here, just to mix things up a bit I guess.
vs 22
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this is Paul's command to not eat in front of the other person. I don't think he's going so far as to say "don't share your belief about it with the other person". As Paul says in the next verse...
vs 23
...actions are done in faith. So just as the person who can't eat should not eat, and that by faith, those that can eat should eat, again by faith, but should keep that faithful action between them and God. If we keep a practice of faith to ourselves, that's fine. But were we to keep discussions of faith from our weaker siblings, then we are surely condemned.
Oh, and remember - if you're thinking with disagreeing with me on this point, then you're actually not allowed to tell me. Keep it between you and God. :P
Monday, August 18, 2008
Break in posting
I am finding that with hebrew requiring far more time that it once did for translating, and with a sermon coming up too, my morning reading time is becoming more valuable to me as a time to do these things.
Still a good use of time, I think.
Still a good use of time, I think.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Romans chapter 14
vs 1
This letter is framed in the context of acceptance. Disputes are not to be the norm - acceptance is.
vs 2
I want you to note, here, as you read - Paul makes it absolutely clear that this is not some matter in which the truth is not known! One man is strong in the faith, another is weak in the faith. This is not a muddy water. There is an obviously right answer.
vs 3
Please, for the love of all that is holy, read both halves of this verse. Everyone always concentrates on the first half - the strong not treating the weak with contempt. Perhaps that is because everyone believes they are strong. But there is a message here for the weak too, which means you have to be prepared to identify yourself as weak in the faith sometimes.
So, next time you are in one of these matters, look at yourself and the action you are showing? Are you treating someone with contempt? Then you're strong in the faith on this matter, so stop it. Are you judging them (what I would say is far more prevalent in our society)? Oh, look, you're actually weak.
vs 4
In fact, the message to those who are weak in the faith is that much more potent - a whole extra verse added to it, because judging each other is wrong! It is God who judges.
vs 5
Paul now moves to the question of conscience. Does this make this matter of sacred days an actual disputable issue? I would actually say not, but let's leave our judgment on it until a verse tells us particularly and clearly. The point of the moment is that Paul has brought in conscience.
vs 6
The point here being that whether you are strong or weak, your actions should bring glory to God. Even weak actions bring glory to God, because God glorifies himself through weakness.
vs 7
Although it's completely out of context, this verse instantly reminds me of suicide - when you die, your death never just affects you alone. Suicide is selfish.
Paul is using this concept far more broadly - all of our actions affect others. Globalisation circa 50AD.
vs 8
It's not just about our effect on each other, though. As Christians, we live and die for God. We must not forget the importance of our actions in reflecting God, and that God has a love for us that we should consider before we do stupid things.
vs 9
The resurrection is proof that God is God over the living and the dead. Death does not allow us to escape God, nor does it mean the end of his love.
vs 10
Our actions towards each other will be judged - but not by us. God will judge us for them.
vs 11
Little quote from Isaiah there to fill Paul's words with authority.
vs 12
We should remember that every time we do something, especially involving other members of the church - our lives are not our own. Our actions will be judged, because they do have consequences. Makes you think twice about buying sweatshop shoes, but it also should make you think twice before you wade into yet another foolish and stupid divisive argument.
This letter is framed in the context of acceptance. Disputes are not to be the norm - acceptance is.
vs 2
I want you to note, here, as you read - Paul makes it absolutely clear that this is not some matter in which the truth is not known! One man is strong in the faith, another is weak in the faith. This is not a muddy water. There is an obviously right answer.
vs 3
Please, for the love of all that is holy, read both halves of this verse. Everyone always concentrates on the first half - the strong not treating the weak with contempt. Perhaps that is because everyone believes they are strong. But there is a message here for the weak too, which means you have to be prepared to identify yourself as weak in the faith sometimes.
So, next time you are in one of these matters, look at yourself and the action you are showing? Are you treating someone with contempt? Then you're strong in the faith on this matter, so stop it. Are you judging them (what I would say is far more prevalent in our society)? Oh, look, you're actually weak.
vs 4
In fact, the message to those who are weak in the faith is that much more potent - a whole extra verse added to it, because judging each other is wrong! It is God who judges.
vs 5
Paul now moves to the question of conscience. Does this make this matter of sacred days an actual disputable issue? I would actually say not, but let's leave our judgment on it until a verse tells us particularly and clearly. The point of the moment is that Paul has brought in conscience.
vs 6
The point here being that whether you are strong or weak, your actions should bring glory to God. Even weak actions bring glory to God, because God glorifies himself through weakness.
vs 7
Although it's completely out of context, this verse instantly reminds me of suicide - when you die, your death never just affects you alone. Suicide is selfish.
Paul is using this concept far more broadly - all of our actions affect others. Globalisation circa 50AD.
vs 8
It's not just about our effect on each other, though. As Christians, we live and die for God. We must not forget the importance of our actions in reflecting God, and that God has a love for us that we should consider before we do stupid things.
vs 9
The resurrection is proof that God is God over the living and the dead. Death does not allow us to escape God, nor does it mean the end of his love.
vs 10
Our actions towards each other will be judged - but not by us. God will judge us for them.
vs 11
Little quote from Isaiah there to fill Paul's words with authority.
vs 12
We should remember that every time we do something, especially involving other members of the church - our lives are not our own. Our actions will be judged, because they do have consequences. Makes you think twice about buying sweatshop shoes, but it also should make you think twice before you wade into yet another foolish and stupid divisive argument.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Romans chapter 13
vs 8
Thinking of love as a continual debt that we can never repay makes it a lot different to thinking of it as warm squishies. Warm squishies are nice, but they are hard to hold onto for long. Debts we all understand - they are things imposed on us from above that we are held beholden to forever.
The idea that by loving one another we fulfil the law is an interesting one. We do fulfil a fair bit of it that way at least.
vs 9
This is pretty much what I was thinking.
vs 10
I'd be interested to know how removing someone's eye in vengance is love for one's neighbour. But overall I get the idea.
vs 11
Well, that sounds exciting until you realise that this is just a way of saying "You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older. And now you're even older. And now you're even older." At least he's honest about it though.
vs 12
Since we are people of light, we should be doing deeds of light, even if the darkness still seems to be around.
vs 13
I wonder if these were problems for the Roman church. I wonder how big a problem this was for any church? Perhaps the early churches, having come out of greek carnality, were far more rugged than we first imagine. Ther certainly didn't have 2000 years of church history to tame them like we are just losing now.
vs 14
Don't even think about it! Good advice, really. If our focus isn't on us and our desires and how we can meet them, but is on Christ, then we are going to go where our focus is, and our actions will meet our focus. I like this verse.
Thinking of love as a continual debt that we can never repay makes it a lot different to thinking of it as warm squishies. Warm squishies are nice, but they are hard to hold onto for long. Debts we all understand - they are things imposed on us from above that we are held beholden to forever.
The idea that by loving one another we fulfil the law is an interesting one. We do fulfil a fair bit of it that way at least.
vs 9
This is pretty much what I was thinking.
vs 10
I'd be interested to know how removing someone's eye in vengance is love for one's neighbour. But overall I get the idea.
vs 11
Well, that sounds exciting until you realise that this is just a way of saying "You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older. And now you're even older. And now you're even older." At least he's honest about it though.
vs 12
Since we are people of light, we should be doing deeds of light, even if the darkness still seems to be around.
vs 13
I wonder if these were problems for the Roman church. I wonder how big a problem this was for any church? Perhaps the early churches, having come out of greek carnality, were far more rugged than we first imagine. Ther certainly didn't have 2000 years of church history to tame them like we are just losing now.
vs 14
Don't even think about it! Good advice, really. If our focus isn't on us and our desires and how we can meet them, but is on Christ, then we are going to go where our focus is, and our actions will meet our focus. I like this verse.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Romans chapter 13
vs 1
Yes, this is as shocking back then as it was now. Remember, the authorities in the time of the early church included emperors who wanted to be worshipped as gods, and who would put Christians in arenas with lions or coat them in wax and set them on fire like candles for fun.
So the idea that God has established Kevin Rudd as the current Prime Minister, or Morris Iemma as the current Premier, whilst shocking to some Christians who believe that left equals Satan, is completely biblical. If it can be true of Nero, it can be true of someone who is pretty much totally benign like Julia Gillard or Barak Obama. Even those fruity leaders like Stalin and, yes, I will drop the H-Bomb again, Hitler, were established and ordained by God.
Does that mean that the extermination of Jews was God's will? Hell no! People are all sinful and do sinful things that they will be judged for, even leaders. This verse is less about how leaders act, and more about how subjects under leaders should act.
vs 2
So when God puts in place rulership, then it is wrong to rebel against it, and God will judge such action. Now, this is an interesting thing to say. The Jews rebelled against the Romans several times (and were killed several times too). They rebelled against their Greek captors too I believe. Paul is clearly showing that such activity is not acceptable.
But how portable to our time is this thinking? We have a democratically elected government for whom we can vote. If we vote against the reigning party, is that rebellion? I would say no - because the government goes to the people asking for legitimacy in our system. If their legitimacy was "I was born of better stock than you" or "I have an army with big guns", though, that still isn't sufficient to rebel against them, apparently.
Of course, if that is true, then that means that no form of political leadership or domination is wrong merely because we don't like it. Certainly none is more biblical than another.
vs 3
This is almost always true. Of course, if "doing wrong" has "being Christian" under its list, then you're in for some trouble.
vs 4
Now this idea stands up on strong biblical principles. Remember all those times God used pretty evil leaders of foreign lands to punish Israel. They weren't godly leaders, not really. So God can do the same with a godless leader of your own country - use him to punish the wicked. So every time a bad person does go to jail, remember that God instituted that authority.
vs 5
Paul sums up his argument so far - submit to authorities because they will cut bits off you, and because God tells you too.
vs 6
Paul (and Jesus) were not against taxes. Paul goes so far to say that taxes are like the giving you give to those who do full time church work - they are a payment that keeps them in their God-given role. It's a novel idea, and I guess it works better now than it did then, where tax is not skimmed by tax collectors and the leaders aren't lining their pockets - usually.
vs 7
This is an interesting verse, then. You can read it two ways. The first way, it means that you should give to people what they say you owe them. A government says you owe it taxes, so as a good citizen you pay. In the same way, leaders say you owe them respect because of their position, and so you are to give it to them.
The other way to read it is that you should give to people who you actually do owe things to. This means that governments still require taxes, because Paul said that they earn it earlier. But respect is only due to those who earn it, not just because people demand it.
I'm not sure which is right. There is probably a mix of the two required.
Yes, this is as shocking back then as it was now. Remember, the authorities in the time of the early church included emperors who wanted to be worshipped as gods, and who would put Christians in arenas with lions or coat them in wax and set them on fire like candles for fun.
So the idea that God has established Kevin Rudd as the current Prime Minister, or Morris Iemma as the current Premier, whilst shocking to some Christians who believe that left equals Satan, is completely biblical. If it can be true of Nero, it can be true of someone who is pretty much totally benign like Julia Gillard or Barak Obama. Even those fruity leaders like Stalin and, yes, I will drop the H-Bomb again, Hitler, were established and ordained by God.
Does that mean that the extermination of Jews was God's will? Hell no! People are all sinful and do sinful things that they will be judged for, even leaders. This verse is less about how leaders act, and more about how subjects under leaders should act.
vs 2
So when God puts in place rulership, then it is wrong to rebel against it, and God will judge such action. Now, this is an interesting thing to say. The Jews rebelled against the Romans several times (and were killed several times too). They rebelled against their Greek captors too I believe. Paul is clearly showing that such activity is not acceptable.
But how portable to our time is this thinking? We have a democratically elected government for whom we can vote. If we vote against the reigning party, is that rebellion? I would say no - because the government goes to the people asking for legitimacy in our system. If their legitimacy was "I was born of better stock than you" or "I have an army with big guns", though, that still isn't sufficient to rebel against them, apparently.
Of course, if that is true, then that means that no form of political leadership or domination is wrong merely because we don't like it. Certainly none is more biblical than another.
vs 3
This is almost always true. Of course, if "doing wrong" has "being Christian" under its list, then you're in for some trouble.
vs 4
Now this idea stands up on strong biblical principles. Remember all those times God used pretty evil leaders of foreign lands to punish Israel. They weren't godly leaders, not really. So God can do the same with a godless leader of your own country - use him to punish the wicked. So every time a bad person does go to jail, remember that God instituted that authority.
vs 5
Paul sums up his argument so far - submit to authorities because they will cut bits off you, and because God tells you too.
vs 6
Paul (and Jesus) were not against taxes. Paul goes so far to say that taxes are like the giving you give to those who do full time church work - they are a payment that keeps them in their God-given role. It's a novel idea, and I guess it works better now than it did then, where tax is not skimmed by tax collectors and the leaders aren't lining their pockets - usually.
vs 7
This is an interesting verse, then. You can read it two ways. The first way, it means that you should give to people what they say you owe them. A government says you owe it taxes, so as a good citizen you pay. In the same way, leaders say you owe them respect because of their position, and so you are to give it to them.
The other way to read it is that you should give to people who you actually do owe things to. This means that governments still require taxes, because Paul said that they earn it earlier. But respect is only due to those who earn it, not just because people demand it.
I'm not sure which is right. There is probably a mix of the two required.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Romans chapter 12
vs 11
How many times have you had to hear this? I honestly don't know that many people whom I would describe with "spiritual fervor". I think for all of us it tends to wax and wane. Probably those who have the ability to commit more time (usually freed up in some financial capacity) are more regularly ferverent. Missoes definitely are.
This makes me think about my own problems. So often I think up a big solution to a problem like this, which becomes unwieldy, when surely there are just some little things I could be doing that I could continue with and would pay zealous dividends.
vs 12
These verses sound so cliche because I've heard them so many times. But read them for what they are. Joy - that often flighty and secretive fruit of the Spirit that is difficult to put your finger on - comes out of our hope. While some of us might think that smiling through pain and suffering is the spiritual thing to do, Paul says here to be patient in it - the true attitude of someone with hope, really. And the last jab of faithfulness in prayer is always a difficult one for us. Why is prayer so hard?
vs 13
Notice that it's the Lord's people. General charity at this point may have been mentioned under the gift of giving, but this is a specific command to charity within the church (smaller and greater I'd say).
As for practicing hospitality, I would say that is like the charity that points inwards towards your house, rather than outwards towards the world. Like bringing the world into your house. Or something. Something that you perhaps didn't know is that the word philoxenia contains within it a specific undertone of strangers. That is, your home should be open to strangers. I'm glad to say that I think mine has been.
vs 14
Not that we really live that much under a savage regime of persecution here in Australia. But I think it can be quite easy for us to see those who persecute Christians as the "bad guy" - how much hate was there towards communism because of that? How much hate is there towards Islam because of that? How much cursing are we involved in against Athiests I wonder?
vs 15
We all know that mourning with those who mourn is not easy. I find it particularly difficult, I think. I find the things over which people mourn generally uncomfortable.
But if you think rejoicing with those who rejoice is any easier, riddle me this. Your non-Christian friend is pregnant and doesn't care who the father is. Joy!? Or your Christian friend has decided to marry someone who is pulling them away from church. Woo?! Quite often, those things our non-Christian friends rejoice over we cringe at. I honestly don't know what to do for them. Rejoicing with them is like tacitly approving their bad behaviour. I find that concept of "Why can't you just be happy for me because I'm happy?" a very difficult one.
vs 16
Ouch. Yes, I will admit that often I do feel as if I am superior to others. I probably don't associate with people of low position. Do I even live in harmony with others? I probably try at least to do that, but mostly by way of non-proliferation treaties.
vs 17
Everyone? When what is right so easily conflicts between Christian worldview and non-Christian, that can sometimes be harder than it sounds. But also, I find sometimes that I just want to be counter-cultural and not do the things that I know I don't have to because I have freedom. I should probably learn something from that.
vs 18
I think 'peace' is probably more active than the 'don't invade each other's airspace' that seems so prevalent in our world and society.
vs 19
I have worked hard on this one over the years. And yet it is still so easy sometimes to feel wronged and feel a need to strike out against someon.e
vs 20
I must say that, of all these verses, I find this one entirely palatable. The idea that you do things to shame people has lost a bit of its sheen these days, because we don't have much of a shame culture anymore. But just knowing that someone might feel bad for treating you badly because you only ever treat them well - that would surely be the work of the spirit, and so encouraging.
vs 21
At the end of the day, we are meant to be the victorious ones, not the beaten ones. But every time we give in and do something off our own bat to try and solve problems, that's pretty much playing into evil's hands.
How many times have you had to hear this? I honestly don't know that many people whom I would describe with "spiritual fervor". I think for all of us it tends to wax and wane. Probably those who have the ability to commit more time (usually freed up in some financial capacity) are more regularly ferverent. Missoes definitely are.
This makes me think about my own problems. So often I think up a big solution to a problem like this, which becomes unwieldy, when surely there are just some little things I could be doing that I could continue with and would pay zealous dividends.
vs 12
These verses sound so cliche because I've heard them so many times. But read them for what they are. Joy - that often flighty and secretive fruit of the Spirit that is difficult to put your finger on - comes out of our hope. While some of us might think that smiling through pain and suffering is the spiritual thing to do, Paul says here to be patient in it - the true attitude of someone with hope, really. And the last jab of faithfulness in prayer is always a difficult one for us. Why is prayer so hard?
vs 13
Notice that it's the Lord's people. General charity at this point may have been mentioned under the gift of giving, but this is a specific command to charity within the church (smaller and greater I'd say).
As for practicing hospitality, I would say that is like the charity that points inwards towards your house, rather than outwards towards the world. Like bringing the world into your house. Or something. Something that you perhaps didn't know is that the word philoxenia contains within it a specific undertone of strangers. That is, your home should be open to strangers. I'm glad to say that I think mine has been.
vs 14
Not that we really live that much under a savage regime of persecution here in Australia. But I think it can be quite easy for us to see those who persecute Christians as the "bad guy" - how much hate was there towards communism because of that? How much hate is there towards Islam because of that? How much cursing are we involved in against Athiests I wonder?
vs 15
We all know that mourning with those who mourn is not easy. I find it particularly difficult, I think. I find the things over which people mourn generally uncomfortable.
But if you think rejoicing with those who rejoice is any easier, riddle me this. Your non-Christian friend is pregnant and doesn't care who the father is. Joy!? Or your Christian friend has decided to marry someone who is pulling them away from church. Woo?! Quite often, those things our non-Christian friends rejoice over we cringe at. I honestly don't know what to do for them. Rejoicing with them is like tacitly approving their bad behaviour. I find that concept of "Why can't you just be happy for me because I'm happy?" a very difficult one.
vs 16
Ouch. Yes, I will admit that often I do feel as if I am superior to others. I probably don't associate with people of low position. Do I even live in harmony with others? I probably try at least to do that, but mostly by way of non-proliferation treaties.
vs 17
Everyone? When what is right so easily conflicts between Christian worldview and non-Christian, that can sometimes be harder than it sounds. But also, I find sometimes that I just want to be counter-cultural and not do the things that I know I don't have to because I have freedom. I should probably learn something from that.
vs 18
I think 'peace' is probably more active than the 'don't invade each other's airspace' that seems so prevalent in our world and society.
vs 19
I have worked hard on this one over the years. And yet it is still so easy sometimes to feel wronged and feel a need to strike out against someon.e
vs 20
I must say that, of all these verses, I find this one entirely palatable. The idea that you do things to shame people has lost a bit of its sheen these days, because we don't have much of a shame culture anymore. But just knowing that someone might feel bad for treating you badly because you only ever treat them well - that would surely be the work of the spirit, and so encouraging.
vs 21
At the end of the day, we are meant to be the victorious ones, not the beaten ones. But every time we give in and do something off our own bat to try and solve problems, that's pretty much playing into evil's hands.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Romans chapter 12
vs 1
Ahh, Romans 12. One of the most preached on chapters in the Bible. So practical! So Christiany! I don't pretend I'm going to say or think anything new on these verses. But I must say at least that it has been nice to work up to here through the last 11 chapters, especially the most recent one regarding the Jews. One could say that the start of the practical Romans is seeped in the idea of the gentiles being ingrafted branches. How many sermons rely on that?
The TNIV has decided, along with pretty much every other version under the sun, to change vs 1. The wording, anyway. "True worship", eh? It's funny, the more different ways you read this verse, in one way, the less you care what it actually means. But in another way these different wordings do help us to get an idea of what is being said. Obviously 'worship' is an important aspect. However, the idea of service is also very strong. The NASB tries to fit them both into the verse, whereas the KJV doesn't talk about worship, and the (T)NIV doesn't talk about service. "True worship" - I would like to read the translations notes of the committee who decided that.
Anyway, God's mercy has been, most recently and specifically, to ingraft the gentiles into his family, at the (temporary) expense of the Jews. The fitting response to this is offering up our bodies as sacrifices. Whether that is service or worship or the words mean the same thing, the fact is Paul tells how to do it very clearly. Perhaps we like to argue about the wording of the second bit so much because we aren't really all that keen on the idea of everything we do and are being about pleasing God.
vs 2
I like this verse. I like the idea that we can test and approve God's will. The NASB seems to want to suggest that God's will is those things that are good, pleasing and perfect. It's outvoted. It's important that our minds get renewed along with the rest of us. This is the idea that our minds can grow in the knowledge of God, and that indeed they are growing. It's interesting that it's played off against conforming to the pattern of this world, as if this world's pattern is to prevent you from having your mind renewed, which stops you from being transformed as a whole. Indeed, the transformation seems to start at the mind, and then work its way up from there.
The suggestion that conformation to this world prevents our minds from being renewed shows the corrupting nature of the world (I should state here that I think there are two reasonable definitions for 'world' in this sense - either the world of human nature, or the world as it exists apart from God) on our minds and indeed whole person. I wonder if this does something to describe people's general inability to approach God in even the most minute fashion when they are seeking to conform to the ways of the world?
vs 3
Paul is in no way saying that faith is a limited resource. Although I guess from our perspective it could be seen that way. No, rather God has chosen in his wisdom to limit it to us. We receive it by his grace, and it is therefore the only way we should seek to judge each other, or even ourselves by. I don't even know that we judge others by it - this letter is written to a church, remember, so there could be the suggestion that the church judges its faith corporately. This gentle warning of not thinking of yourself to highly is far more gentle than that given to, say, Corinth.
vs 4
Very true. Thank you for the very short anatomy lecture.
vs 5
It's interesting to note that this idea of body means that not only do we form a body under Christ (who we are told elsewhere "forms the head" in true typical nerd anime fashion) and so belong to Christ, but we also belong to each other. See, when I think of my body, I think that it all belongs to me. I don't think of my toenails belonging to my hand. And yet that is the point that Paul is making here and not the other.
vs 6
Such a novel idea, that we each have gifts. I think in reading this, we have to realise that Paul is trying to give a short list that shows just how many more gifts could be put on this list if we really put our minds to it. Instead, as a church, we have taken this a little too literalistically, looked at the lists of gifts in the various books, put them together in a bundle, and said "Pick one of these if you want to serve in the church". Thankfully I think that model is finally dying (although it caused some pretty big stuff-ups if you ask me, and you could almost blame certain clappy denominations' genesis on this wrong thinking), because the idea that you "pick a gift" means you aren't actually trusting that God has given you a gift at all.
Anyway, let's start off with an easy one, prophecy. Because we all know what that means. I assume the Romans knew, and the Corinthians for that matter. Do we really know though? I have no idea for sure what it means. It's interesting that, of all the gifts, this is the one which is limited to the amount of faith God has given you (in reference to v 3). It could be that Paul means that to be tagged onto all of the gifts, but only put it on the first one for sake of time. Of course, if he really wanted it to be on all of them, he could have either written it on all of them, or just written at the end "and do all these in accordance with the faith God has given you".
The TNIV brings an interesting little aside to the translation, saying that it could also be read "the" faith. So is the idea then that your prophecies should be in line with the established body of faith perhaps? Interesting idea, but I think that sense of 'proportion of faith' exists there which the TNIV has dropped out.
Anyway, it's interesting that Strong's definition of the word propheteia includes some sort of future-telling in pretty much every definition. The only one that doesn't is "2. of the endowment and speech of the Christian teachers called prophets" which doesn't really seem to say anything.
vs 7
All the others seem relatively straightforward. I will note that teach exists here and so must be reasonably distinct from prophesy - although, to counter this point, how vague can you get with "serve"?
vs 8
Nothing new here except that when we get to giving, you don't just give, but you give with some sort of adjective - as you do with leadership and showing mercy. See, I would have never said that mercy was a gift. But hey, I didn't make them up.
vs 9
It is these sorts of pat statements that make for memory verses. That's why basically all of chapter 12 is one big memory verse. The idea that love requires sincerity is an interesting one to explore, though. We are often told that since we can be commanded to love, that the love we are being commanded to is more than just soppy feelings, it is some sort of measurable action. However, it apparently also needs to be sincere, which I would say means you can't just act it out. How's that for confusing.
vs 10
I really, really struggle with honouring people above myself. I want to say that we all do, but I bet there are plenty of Christian people out there who really live their life for God and other people. I try, I really do. But it just doesn't recharge me. I get exhausted by it. I will keep trying though, like we all should, because it's our job.
Ahh, Romans 12. One of the most preached on chapters in the Bible. So practical! So Christiany! I don't pretend I'm going to say or think anything new on these verses. But I must say at least that it has been nice to work up to here through the last 11 chapters, especially the most recent one regarding the Jews. One could say that the start of the practical Romans is seeped in the idea of the gentiles being ingrafted branches. How many sermons rely on that?
The TNIV has decided, along with pretty much every other version under the sun, to change vs 1. The wording, anyway. "True worship", eh? It's funny, the more different ways you read this verse, in one way, the less you care what it actually means. But in another way these different wordings do help us to get an idea of what is being said. Obviously 'worship' is an important aspect. However, the idea of service is also very strong. The NASB tries to fit them both into the verse, whereas the KJV doesn't talk about worship, and the (T)NIV doesn't talk about service. "True worship" - I would like to read the translations notes of the committee who decided that.
Anyway, God's mercy has been, most recently and specifically, to ingraft the gentiles into his family, at the (temporary) expense of the Jews. The fitting response to this is offering up our bodies as sacrifices. Whether that is service or worship or the words mean the same thing, the fact is Paul tells how to do it very clearly. Perhaps we like to argue about the wording of the second bit so much because we aren't really all that keen on the idea of everything we do and are being about pleasing God.
vs 2
I like this verse. I like the idea that we can test and approve God's will. The NASB seems to want to suggest that God's will is those things that are good, pleasing and perfect. It's outvoted. It's important that our minds get renewed along with the rest of us. This is the idea that our minds can grow in the knowledge of God, and that indeed they are growing. It's interesting that it's played off against conforming to the pattern of this world, as if this world's pattern is to prevent you from having your mind renewed, which stops you from being transformed as a whole. Indeed, the transformation seems to start at the mind, and then work its way up from there.
The suggestion that conformation to this world prevents our minds from being renewed shows the corrupting nature of the world (I should state here that I think there are two reasonable definitions for 'world' in this sense - either the world of human nature, or the world as it exists apart from God) on our minds and indeed whole person. I wonder if this does something to describe people's general inability to approach God in even the most minute fashion when they are seeking to conform to the ways of the world?
vs 3
Paul is in no way saying that faith is a limited resource. Although I guess from our perspective it could be seen that way. No, rather God has chosen in his wisdom to limit it to us. We receive it by his grace, and it is therefore the only way we should seek to judge each other, or even ourselves by. I don't even know that we judge others by it - this letter is written to a church, remember, so there could be the suggestion that the church judges its faith corporately. This gentle warning of not thinking of yourself to highly is far more gentle than that given to, say, Corinth.
vs 4
Very true. Thank you for the very short anatomy lecture.
vs 5
It's interesting to note that this idea of body means that not only do we form a body under Christ (who we are told elsewhere "forms the head" in true typical nerd anime fashion) and so belong to Christ, but we also belong to each other. See, when I think of my body, I think that it all belongs to me. I don't think of my toenails belonging to my hand. And yet that is the point that Paul is making here and not the other.
vs 6
Such a novel idea, that we each have gifts. I think in reading this, we have to realise that Paul is trying to give a short list that shows just how many more gifts could be put on this list if we really put our minds to it. Instead, as a church, we have taken this a little too literalistically, looked at the lists of gifts in the various books, put them together in a bundle, and said "Pick one of these if you want to serve in the church". Thankfully I think that model is finally dying (although it caused some pretty big stuff-ups if you ask me, and you could almost blame certain clappy denominations' genesis on this wrong thinking), because the idea that you "pick a gift" means you aren't actually trusting that God has given you a gift at all.
Anyway, let's start off with an easy one, prophecy. Because we all know what that means. I assume the Romans knew, and the Corinthians for that matter. Do we really know though? I have no idea for sure what it means. It's interesting that, of all the gifts, this is the one which is limited to the amount of faith God has given you (in reference to v 3). It could be that Paul means that to be tagged onto all of the gifts, but only put it on the first one for sake of time. Of course, if he really wanted it to be on all of them, he could have either written it on all of them, or just written at the end "and do all these in accordance with the faith God has given you".
The TNIV brings an interesting little aside to the translation, saying that it could also be read "the" faith. So is the idea then that your prophecies should be in line with the established body of faith perhaps? Interesting idea, but I think that sense of 'proportion of faith' exists there which the TNIV has dropped out.
Anyway, it's interesting that Strong's definition of the word propheteia includes some sort of future-telling in pretty much every definition. The only one that doesn't is "2. of the endowment and speech of the Christian teachers called prophets" which doesn't really seem to say anything.
vs 7
All the others seem relatively straightforward. I will note that teach exists here and so must be reasonably distinct from prophesy - although, to counter this point, how vague can you get with "serve"?
vs 8
Nothing new here except that when we get to giving, you don't just give, but you give with some sort of adjective - as you do with leadership and showing mercy. See, I would have never said that mercy was a gift. But hey, I didn't make them up.
vs 9
It is these sorts of pat statements that make for memory verses. That's why basically all of chapter 12 is one big memory verse. The idea that love requires sincerity is an interesting one to explore, though. We are often told that since we can be commanded to love, that the love we are being commanded to is more than just soppy feelings, it is some sort of measurable action. However, it apparently also needs to be sincere, which I would say means you can't just act it out. How's that for confusing.
vs 10
I really, really struggle with honouring people above myself. I want to say that we all do, but I bet there are plenty of Christian people out there who really live their life for God and other people. I try, I really do. But it just doesn't recharge me. I get exhausted by it. I will keep trying though, like we all should, because it's our job.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Romans chapter 11
These thoughts are being broadcast live from Ben's new computer. Yay! If you're thinking of buying an Asus M3A motherboard, by the way, be sure that you know the resident BIOS is incompatible with the LAN drivers, and you will have to flash the BIOS with the latest version to get the ethernet to work.
Back to Romans! Where flashing Bios meant the Centurions arrested you!
vs 28
It's an odd concept - well, the first part anyway. The second part about election is no new idea. God has oftentimes kept his promises not because of the Israel he found himself with, but because of the promises he made to the Patriarchs. If Israel were to rely on their own righteousness to remain in relationship with God, they would have been fired out of a cannon into the sun long ago. As would we.
But the first part is still a confusion. If it is true as read, is it really fair for God to deny Israel a chance to respond to the gospel? Well yes! Of course, that's not what he does though. God does give Israel every opportunity to respond to the gospel. They refuse. That's their fault. It just so happens that by their refusal the doors open to the gentiles, and they flood in gaining sweet sweet relationship with God that the Jews want so bad. Or they should. So God has not turned his back on Israel - Israel has turned their backs on God. God just uses that for good. Like he does everything.
vs 29
That's an interesting statement. If there were ever a verse that should call out "Look here for assurance of salvation!" you would think it were this one. I'll remember that. Although, it was made to a nation, and not just to an individual (although it is based on promises to individuals). This poses an interesting question for protestants when thinking about the RCatholics. I mean, God has made promises to his church through Peter and Paul. Even if the Catholics, by Protestant standards, have wandered away from the truth (it's debateable - at least, they debate it) then does this promise stand for God too? Are they elect, and hence irrevocably called and gifted?
vs 30
Paul is intimating that the only reason gentiles receive the mercy of God is because the Jews have turned away. That seems a little less than 100% true, but let's just go with it for the moment, because that is part of his argument.
vs 31
See, when you look at both verses together, while looking like some sort of Gordian knot of knowledge, you realise that yes, that is indeed a fair, if confusing, statement. Paul uses a different kind of logic than what we're used to. It's almost refreshing.
vs 32
And that's about as simple an explanation as you get. All are disobedient, so all can be shown mercy. This hearkens back to chapters 1-3.
vs 33
I was thinking just the same thing after this complex argument, Paul. Oh, wait, I think you're talking more about the reasoning behind why God would allow one nation to fall for the sake of another nation's mercy.
vs 34
The answer of course being no-one. I'm sure we'll fly by that verse in Isaiah when we get to it, because it will be so much more straightforward than most of the book.
vs 35
Whereas we might stick around this verse in Job a bit, because there are so few verses to concentrate on in Job considering the wealth of poetic talk.
vs 36
All things includes both Jew and gentile nations. This is a good time to bring glory to God. Amen indeed.
Back to Romans! Where flashing Bios meant the Centurions arrested you!
vs 28
It's an odd concept - well, the first part anyway. The second part about election is no new idea. God has oftentimes kept his promises not because of the Israel he found himself with, but because of the promises he made to the Patriarchs. If Israel were to rely on their own righteousness to remain in relationship with God, they would have been fired out of a cannon into the sun long ago. As would we.
But the first part is still a confusion. If it is true as read, is it really fair for God to deny Israel a chance to respond to the gospel? Well yes! Of course, that's not what he does though. God does give Israel every opportunity to respond to the gospel. They refuse. That's their fault. It just so happens that by their refusal the doors open to the gentiles, and they flood in gaining sweet sweet relationship with God that the Jews want so bad. Or they should. So God has not turned his back on Israel - Israel has turned their backs on God. God just uses that for good. Like he does everything.
vs 29
That's an interesting statement. If there were ever a verse that should call out "Look here for assurance of salvation!" you would think it were this one. I'll remember that. Although, it was made to a nation, and not just to an individual (although it is based on promises to individuals). This poses an interesting question for protestants when thinking about the RCatholics. I mean, God has made promises to his church through Peter and Paul. Even if the Catholics, by Protestant standards, have wandered away from the truth (it's debateable - at least, they debate it) then does this promise stand for God too? Are they elect, and hence irrevocably called and gifted?
vs 30
Paul is intimating that the only reason gentiles receive the mercy of God is because the Jews have turned away. That seems a little less than 100% true, but let's just go with it for the moment, because that is part of his argument.
vs 31
See, when you look at both verses together, while looking like some sort of Gordian knot of knowledge, you realise that yes, that is indeed a fair, if confusing, statement. Paul uses a different kind of logic than what we're used to. It's almost refreshing.
vs 32
And that's about as simple an explanation as you get. All are disobedient, so all can be shown mercy. This hearkens back to chapters 1-3.
vs 33
I was thinking just the same thing after this complex argument, Paul. Oh, wait, I think you're talking more about the reasoning behind why God would allow one nation to fall for the sake of another nation's mercy.
vs 34
The answer of course being no-one. I'm sure we'll fly by that verse in Isaiah when we get to it, because it will be so much more straightforward than most of the book.
vs 35
Whereas we might stick around this verse in Job a bit, because there are so few verses to concentrate on in Job considering the wealth of poetic talk.
vs 36
All things includes both Jew and gentile nations. This is a good time to bring glory to God. Amen indeed.
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Romans chapter 11
vs 19
It's an interesting idea, but not one that is full of merit - that God would sacrifice the people whom had maintained a relationship with all that time to include others. But I am guessing that this idea had come to the minds of some.
vs 20
If unbelief and faith are two sides of the same coin, then that is indeed reason to tremble, because that means that the Israelites only stood in their old position by faith - the same reason we stand in ours now. It's interesting, of course - the Christian life is so full of assurances that we are God's chosen people, predestined to be with him, precious to him unable to be taken from him. The most quoted passage regarding us never being plucked from his hand is in Romans! And yet how often do we read this verse and tremble? If faith is what keeps us bound, then unbelief could surely cause us to be stripped away.
vs 21
We should therefore be on our guard to never make the same mistakes that our spiritual forebears did. Yes, they were actual bears. Rawr. Although I think we can be somewhat more secure - we don't have all those promises of falling away and being invaded by the Babylonians that Israel had in the Old Covenant - but we do have promises of people not being on the narrow road, and of people being turned away at the gates. Read in the context of this verse, they take on just that little bit more realism and urgency.
vs 22
There it is, a straight out kick in the teeth. If we continue in his kindness, all well and good. But God is also a God of sternness, not afraid to cut off those who are not faithful. Scary thought, isn't it?
vs 23
God is also a God of eternal forgiving kindness - and even those who seem cut off can be grafted back in. So it's not like he has turned his back on them forever.
vs 24
Ok, apart from flogging the grafting analogy to death, I think we have a good understanding of the potential for what Paul is saying - that there is no reason God could not call Israel back to himself. There is nothing stopping him from doing so, and therefore we should not look at the gentile church as inheriting God from the Jews who are now dead. Rather, we have been adopted into a family without first pushing the original members out. Sure, they might be in a huff about it and run off and sulk (sounds like the older brother to the prodigal son to me) but that does not mean they won't return.
vs 25
Ok, so far we have been talking in potentia about the Jews coming back into the fold. But now, Paul is making it clear that he is talking about something more than a potential reclaiming of the Jews. Rather, he believes that the Jews are being hardened specifically because they were making it difficult for gentiles to come in. But there will come a time when all the gentiles God has called will become Christians, and then...
vs 26-27
... all of Israel will be saved. That seems a very odd thing to say. Some people read it literally, and assume that at the end times (when all gentiles have been saved) then Israel (the Jews at the time, I assume) will be reclaimed by God. Others read it metaphorically, saying that the Israel here is now the New Israel. That does seem a little farfetched to me, considering all the other references seem to have been to Israel so far, and seem to continue onto Israel after this too.
In the end, I've got to say that considering this isn't going to happen until God doesn't want any more gentiles, I'm not holding my breath.
Paul backs up his statement with a couple more verses of scripture, but I'll be darned if I see the direct relevance to this argument in particular. But more power to God! I say save them all if they have faith in Christ. Seems only fair to me.
It's an interesting idea, but not one that is full of merit - that God would sacrifice the people whom had maintained a relationship with all that time to include others. But I am guessing that this idea had come to the minds of some.
vs 20
If unbelief and faith are two sides of the same coin, then that is indeed reason to tremble, because that means that the Israelites only stood in their old position by faith - the same reason we stand in ours now. It's interesting, of course - the Christian life is so full of assurances that we are God's chosen people, predestined to be with him, precious to him unable to be taken from him. The most quoted passage regarding us never being plucked from his hand is in Romans! And yet how often do we read this verse and tremble? If faith is what keeps us bound, then unbelief could surely cause us to be stripped away.
vs 21
We should therefore be on our guard to never make the same mistakes that our spiritual forebears did. Yes, they were actual bears. Rawr. Although I think we can be somewhat more secure - we don't have all those promises of falling away and being invaded by the Babylonians that Israel had in the Old Covenant - but we do have promises of people not being on the narrow road, and of people being turned away at the gates. Read in the context of this verse, they take on just that little bit more realism and urgency.
vs 22
There it is, a straight out kick in the teeth. If we continue in his kindness, all well and good. But God is also a God of sternness, not afraid to cut off those who are not faithful. Scary thought, isn't it?
vs 23
God is also a God of eternal forgiving kindness - and even those who seem cut off can be grafted back in. So it's not like he has turned his back on them forever.
vs 24
Ok, apart from flogging the grafting analogy to death, I think we have a good understanding of the potential for what Paul is saying - that there is no reason God could not call Israel back to himself. There is nothing stopping him from doing so, and therefore we should not look at the gentile church as inheriting God from the Jews who are now dead. Rather, we have been adopted into a family without first pushing the original members out. Sure, they might be in a huff about it and run off and sulk (sounds like the older brother to the prodigal son to me) but that does not mean they won't return.
vs 25
Ok, so far we have been talking in potentia about the Jews coming back into the fold. But now, Paul is making it clear that he is talking about something more than a potential reclaiming of the Jews. Rather, he believes that the Jews are being hardened specifically because they were making it difficult for gentiles to come in. But there will come a time when all the gentiles God has called will become Christians, and then...
vs 26-27
... all of Israel will be saved. That seems a very odd thing to say. Some people read it literally, and assume that at the end times (when all gentiles have been saved) then Israel (the Jews at the time, I assume) will be reclaimed by God. Others read it metaphorically, saying that the Israel here is now the New Israel. That does seem a little farfetched to me, considering all the other references seem to have been to Israel so far, and seem to continue onto Israel after this too.
In the end, I've got to say that considering this isn't going to happen until God doesn't want any more gentiles, I'm not holding my breath.
Paul backs up his statement with a couple more verses of scripture, but I'll be darned if I see the direct relevance to this argument in particular. But more power to God! I say save them all if they have faith in Christ. Seems only fair to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)