vs 19
You might be tempted to call the last verse hyperbole, and that is probably a reasonable assessment. It's like when Jesus says that people have to hate their families to be his followers. It's comparitive.
It is true that when you compare the Law, which makes nothing perfect, to the new hope of Christ, which draws us near to God, then it does seem pretty weak and feeble. Again, comparitive.
vs 20
That's interesting, for sure! You think of Eli's sons and Samuel's sons and some of the other various priests that caused trouble - they inherited a priesthood, but they didn't even take an oath for it like a Nazarite. Inhereted jobs is inherently a bad idea. In leadership it produces stability to an extent, but ultimately it's not a fruitful or logical move to make. In family work it produces normally at least one son who can do the job well.
vs 21
So again, Jesus is different, in that God swore an oath to make his eternal priesthood.
vs 22
So this new covenant that Jesus brings is sealed by God's own oath. To be fair, God sealed the covenant for the original priesthood too, but the difference is that that covenant was with Israel overall, and so it was inevitably going to include bad priests. This one is with the new priesthood, whose new high priest is the priest forever.
vs 23
It seems the next difference we will look at is the number of high priests. Humans die, so they need to be replaced.
vs 24
Of course, he did die, but that was like a long weekend off more than requiring a replacement.
vs 25
So the eternal nature of the priest means that he has an eternal role in salvation. It's an interesting idea. The theological development in this book is just awesome.
vs 26
All of those are focusing on things that a regular high priest can never be. So we've looked at his humanity, but now we see the glory of having God, in Christ, as our High Priest. He is, of course, perfect for the job. Interestingly, the things that make him so are to do almost exclusively with his holiness. It's all about separation and purity. Do we focus on that enough?
vs 27
The similarities of the sacrifice to the old covenant are only all the more in sharp relief when you compare these differences. A sacrifice of self, rather than animal. No need for sacrificing for his own sins. A one of sacrifice that covers sin forever in a way that human sacrifices of animals never could - it could only further highlight the bloody cost of sin.
This is a pinnacle of our faith - but it's based on the Jewish system. This idea frames such a big part of our soteriology, and so we go and beat people over the head with it. Now to a Jew, they're more likely to go "Wow!" - but to Jews still do animal sacrifices? I don't think so, but I'm not sure. So even then it might not be a super powerful statement, although I guess they're more likely to know their history.
My point is not that we should drop this idea from our soteriology - crazy talk! It is foundational, it is necessary, and it is awesome! But perhaps we should reconsider its usefulness as a picture for evangelism.
vs 28
That is a very good final summary verse. I don't know really what I can say about it, so I won't say anything. You can feel in the language, though, the urging to pull Jews away from their law-iness. Especially Jewish Christians who may have been straying back towards the law.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Hebrews chapter 7
vs 10
Thankfully, Jesus was born of a virgin, otherwise people would be talking about how David had Jesus in his body when he did things. We can be spared that.
This verse really does show the power of familial and ancestral links, and the importance of history, to these people. We would never think of this. We would not consider the effect of an action of our ancestors in such a way. And in fact, on a more negative note, it could be argued that such thinking has been used historically to perpetuate slavery and class distinctions through bloodlines. That's what aristocracy became all about.
vs 11
The idea that if there is something yet to come, that the present thing obviously isn't built for eternity, is a very interesting notion. It's a mixture of comforting and disturbing. Comforting because we know we have a perfect model to look forward to. Disturbing because we're working in an imperfect one. Thankfully, our church culture (I mean locally) doesn't tend to equate church with salvation or covenant relationship, whereas the Jewish culture (not necessarily the Law itself!) did do that with the Law and the priesthood.
vs 12
I take it they mean from Aaron to Melchizedek, not from high priest to high priest.
vs 13
Because Levi was the tribe designated to serve at the altar.
vs 14
Or any other tribe, I would imagine.
It's an interesting verse to show that this stuff about tribes and ancestry is important to Jews. Gentiles obviously don't care what family of Israel Jesus was born into.
vs 15
Like, say, Jesus.
vs 16-17
I'm guessing the focus here is on the term "forever". Jesus' life may have been taken from him, but it wasn't destroyed. If you are resurrected, you are indeed indestructible. Humanity are an eternal race, really. Unless you're an annihilationist, then the fact is that even those who go to hell stay there forever. Interesting thought.
vs 18
That being the old law, which we have already read earlier is not to be used for eternity.
Thankfully, Jesus was born of a virgin, otherwise people would be talking about how David had Jesus in his body when he did things. We can be spared that.
This verse really does show the power of familial and ancestral links, and the importance of history, to these people. We would never think of this. We would not consider the effect of an action of our ancestors in such a way. And in fact, on a more negative note, it could be argued that such thinking has been used historically to perpetuate slavery and class distinctions through bloodlines. That's what aristocracy became all about.
vs 11
The idea that if there is something yet to come, that the present thing obviously isn't built for eternity, is a very interesting notion. It's a mixture of comforting and disturbing. Comforting because we know we have a perfect model to look forward to. Disturbing because we're working in an imperfect one. Thankfully, our church culture (I mean locally) doesn't tend to equate church with salvation or covenant relationship, whereas the Jewish culture (not necessarily the Law itself!) did do that with the Law and the priesthood.
vs 12
I take it they mean from Aaron to Melchizedek, not from high priest to high priest.
vs 13
Because Levi was the tribe designated to serve at the altar.
vs 14
Or any other tribe, I would imagine.
It's an interesting verse to show that this stuff about tribes and ancestry is important to Jews. Gentiles obviously don't care what family of Israel Jesus was born into.
vs 15
Like, say, Jesus.
vs 16-17
I'm guessing the focus here is on the term "forever". Jesus' life may have been taken from him, but it wasn't destroyed. If you are resurrected, you are indeed indestructible. Humanity are an eternal race, really. Unless you're an annihilationist, then the fact is that even those who go to hell stay there forever. Interesting thought.
vs 18
That being the old law, which we have already read earlier is not to be used for eternity.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Hebrews chapter 7
For such an imposing book, this is the first chapter that's been more than 20 verses.
vs 1
This is just historical stuff. All laid out in the Genesis account. Nothing to see here.
vs 2
Those sound like fairly messianic titles, so that's kinda cool. Surely they meant something when Genesis was written too. The fact is that Genesis has a lot of stuff written in this mystic sort of style, where people's names mean things and such.
vs 3
Now I've got to say that this is not based on meaningless gibber. The genealogies are taken seriously by the Jews obviously, and not just for showing a record of family line - they represent a line of life and death, continuing death after Adam, in fact. Hence the importance of Enoch, who lives but does not die. Melchizedek neither is born nor dies. The author says this resembles the Son of God, but who it really resembles is God.
vs 4
Well, if he's God or the Son of God, then it only stands to reason. Why does Abraham give him the 10%? As a show that he believes Melchizedek is really a priest of God Most High?
vs 5
Now we see the beginnings of a rabbinic argument. It looks at the tithe - a tenth of everything paid to the Levites to (among other things) support them in their ministry between Israel and God.
vs 6
The point being that Melchi is not a Levite - that his priesthood is of a different order. His own order.
vs 7
Which is kinda humbling, really. I always say "God bless you" - and I guess that's the right thing to say, because the greater blesses the lesser. But my own blessing should only really be on those lesser than me. Do I really want to claim that over anyone?
vs 8
Declared seems like too long a bow - inferred via rabinnical argument, perhaps.
vs 9
I guess one might say that. Certainly we don't see things that way, but then we don't draw up long genealogies either. I don't even know my grandfathers' names, although in that I am probably a little ahead of my time. Certainly I know nothing about their fathers, and who knows anything of their fathers before them?
The thing is, though, that they did say things like that, so for them it's important. I mean, I guess my future kids paid for my shoes, because they were still in my body at the time. That's less meaningful, though - although they will inherit my shoes.
vs 1
This is just historical stuff. All laid out in the Genesis account. Nothing to see here.
vs 2
Those sound like fairly messianic titles, so that's kinda cool. Surely they meant something when Genesis was written too. The fact is that Genesis has a lot of stuff written in this mystic sort of style, where people's names mean things and such.
vs 3
Now I've got to say that this is not based on meaningless gibber. The genealogies are taken seriously by the Jews obviously, and not just for showing a record of family line - they represent a line of life and death, continuing death after Adam, in fact. Hence the importance of Enoch, who lives but does not die. Melchizedek neither is born nor dies. The author says this resembles the Son of God, but who it really resembles is God.
vs 4
Well, if he's God or the Son of God, then it only stands to reason. Why does Abraham give him the 10%? As a show that he believes Melchizedek is really a priest of God Most High?
vs 5
Now we see the beginnings of a rabbinic argument. It looks at the tithe - a tenth of everything paid to the Levites to (among other things) support them in their ministry between Israel and God.
vs 6
The point being that Melchi is not a Levite - that his priesthood is of a different order. His own order.
vs 7
Which is kinda humbling, really. I always say "God bless you" - and I guess that's the right thing to say, because the greater blesses the lesser. But my own blessing should only really be on those lesser than me. Do I really want to claim that over anyone?
vs 8
Declared seems like too long a bow - inferred via rabinnical argument, perhaps.
vs 9
I guess one might say that. Certainly we don't see things that way, but then we don't draw up long genealogies either. I don't even know my grandfathers' names, although in that I am probably a little ahead of my time. Certainly I know nothing about their fathers, and who knows anything of their fathers before them?
The thing is, though, that they did say things like that, so for them it's important. I mean, I guess my future kids paid for my shoes, because they were still in my body at the time. That's less meaningful, though - although they will inherit my shoes.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Hebrews chapter 6
vs 11
The purpose for these works is assurance of hope. We as humans aren't assured just by the promises of God, I guess. We need to see something concrete we can hang our hopes on, and so that becomes good stuff we do for other people by the power of the Spirit. Of course, if we're not really doing those things, what happens to our hope then?
vs 12
Patience in this case, then, doesn't mean waiting with your arms folded and humming a tune. It means getting busy so that the time goes past faster. Or that sort of thing. My point is it's a busy, active patience.
vs 13
It would seem to me that we're going on to a new idea here. The thread seems to have been somewhat broken.
So now we're looking at Abraham, and God's promise. Although we're told not to make oaths in the NT, it was done regularly in the OT, even by God. And so God swears it on himself, because who else is going to hold him to it?
vs 14
This was the promise to Abraham - one about blessing and descendants. I'm sure this is going somewhere.
vs 15
Ahh, so the point is that Abraham had to wait, a long time, to see that promise fulfilled. Got it.
vs 16
Now we get a lesson in oaths. Considering that the people reading this would have known much better than us what an oath is, it's surprising that it still gets explained so openly. Perhaps this really does mean that when they don't explain something in detail, they simply don't know!
vs 17
That confirmation is important. It shows that God is serious. I mean, God's not going to lie, so it's not important for him to keep his promise. But it's important for us, because it shows the importance of the promise.
vs 18
I realise only now that this verse is really only promising that God cannot lie about these things. I'm not sure what the two things are - the two portions of the promise, blessings and descendants? It must be, because it is beause of these promises that we are able to come to him for hope and to be encouraged. The description of fleeing to him is an interesting one - it's like we are refugees fleeing war.
vs 19
Hope is secure, an important part of the evangelical faith, and an interesting foil to the earlier point about falling away.
vs 20
Hope becomes personified, and enters the sanctuary in ther way a priestly representative would. It makes the point that Jesus has been there already. Perhaps Jesus is the personification of our hope. I would say that makes more sense, but this language is awfully vague.
And now, finally, we have come back around full circle, and we will begin to learn again about Melchizidek.
The purpose for these works is assurance of hope. We as humans aren't assured just by the promises of God, I guess. We need to see something concrete we can hang our hopes on, and so that becomes good stuff we do for other people by the power of the Spirit. Of course, if we're not really doing those things, what happens to our hope then?
vs 12
Patience in this case, then, doesn't mean waiting with your arms folded and humming a tune. It means getting busy so that the time goes past faster. Or that sort of thing. My point is it's a busy, active patience.
vs 13
It would seem to me that we're going on to a new idea here. The thread seems to have been somewhat broken.
So now we're looking at Abraham, and God's promise. Although we're told not to make oaths in the NT, it was done regularly in the OT, even by God. And so God swears it on himself, because who else is going to hold him to it?
vs 14
This was the promise to Abraham - one about blessing and descendants. I'm sure this is going somewhere.
vs 15
Ahh, so the point is that Abraham had to wait, a long time, to see that promise fulfilled. Got it.
vs 16
Now we get a lesson in oaths. Considering that the people reading this would have known much better than us what an oath is, it's surprising that it still gets explained so openly. Perhaps this really does mean that when they don't explain something in detail, they simply don't know!
vs 17
That confirmation is important. It shows that God is serious. I mean, God's not going to lie, so it's not important for him to keep his promise. But it's important for us, because it shows the importance of the promise.
vs 18
I realise only now that this verse is really only promising that God cannot lie about these things. I'm not sure what the two things are - the two portions of the promise, blessings and descendants? It must be, because it is beause of these promises that we are able to come to him for hope and to be encouraged. The description of fleeing to him is an interesting one - it's like we are refugees fleeing war.
vs 19
Hope is secure, an important part of the evangelical faith, and an interesting foil to the earlier point about falling away.
vs 20
Hope becomes personified, and enters the sanctuary in ther way a priestly representative would. It makes the point that Jesus has been there already. Perhaps Jesus is the personification of our hope. I would say that makes more sense, but this language is awfully vague.
And now, finally, we have come back around full circle, and we will begin to learn again about Melchizidek.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Hebrews chapter 6
vs 1
I wonder if "useless rituals" is an alternate manuscript or a translation of an idiomatic phrase.
The interesting thing being that we will get back to Melchi, but for the moment we've gone off on this tangent about maturity.
So for the moment, he wants to go past these simple foundational things to the faith. This list starts off normal here -we think "Ahh, yes. Repentance and faith, the cornerstones of our beliefs."
vs 2
Cleansing rites? That confused me. It means baptism, or at least that's what most other translations say. Assuming that it means baptism, then we have resurrection and eternal judgment, which are all part of the typical church teaching in one form or another. Then we have "laying on of hands". Forgive me for not recognising which part of the "foundational" part of my faith this is linked with.
vs 3
The author is keen to move past this stuff and teach something deeper. Not because it's not important, but because maturity demands building on a foundation, not just pitching a tent on it.
vs 4-5
So the question here is whether these things are all the same, or whether this is a progressive thing. That is, is it an and or an or - do you need to have been enlightened, then tasted the heavenly gift, then shared in the Spirit, then tasted the goodness of the word, and then fall away? Or are all of these things more or less the same? I get the feeling of the latter. But why say four things? Perhaps three is the new four - for emphasis.
vs 6
If you consider what the author compares these actions to - that is, crucifying Christ again - it makes me think that all the different things describe a situation or position. That is, I don't think they describe a to-do list in order to recrucify Christ.
Of course, the question everyone wants to know is can a Christian fall away. The answer given by Sydney Anglicans is "Don't", which is not very intellectually satisfying. But my question is what is really meant by falling away here? The language is so vague. Sure, you can say that it means "Someone who had faith", but why not just say that? Why go on about tasting and sharing. A taste doesn't sound too serious to me, see. But sharing the Holy Spirit sounds mega serious. I guess that we can only taste the heavenly gift and the powers of the coming age, because we will only see them in wholeness at the end. Can that be said of the Word of God too? Possibly.
My understanding is that people don't just get a mixed sampler of the Holy Spirit - you either have it and are one of God's people, or you don't, and you aren't. So then that does sound like it's overall pretty serious. But that still doesn't answer what "fall away" means. I can tell you what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean "sin", because John makes it clear in his epistles that Christians still sin and are forgiven. Does it mean deny salvation, deny Christ's sufficiency? The kind of falling back into reliance on ritual and history and Law? That seems to fit, but I'll keep my options open, because how is that different to other sin?
Perhaps the idea is that if you think your falling away is really a step forward, then from that position you can't accept repentance or the sacrifice of Christ. But then that doesn't really seem to be the message here. The language seems so final. Difficult.
vs 7-8
This is obviously not about farming - it's a picture of what has just been talked about. So that means that this "falling away" business is at least somewhat to do with fruit. There has to be something to show for your faith. If there's no fruit, then you're useless, and then it's burning time.
vs 9
Well, that's nice. So this was a little warning, but really the author doesn't think his audience is in that dire a straits yet.
vs 10
And this verse, see, is about fruit. So as far as the author is concerned, he can see the fruit of their salvation, and therefore doesn't think that they're in for the inability to return fall. So this subject of falling was important enough to get a mention, but not really so important as to spend time and clarify. Perhaps the author didn't know any better than us anyway.
I wonder if "useless rituals" is an alternate manuscript or a translation of an idiomatic phrase.
The interesting thing being that we will get back to Melchi, but for the moment we've gone off on this tangent about maturity.
So for the moment, he wants to go past these simple foundational things to the faith. This list starts off normal here -we think "Ahh, yes. Repentance and faith, the cornerstones of our beliefs."
vs 2
Cleansing rites? That confused me. It means baptism, or at least that's what most other translations say. Assuming that it means baptism, then we have resurrection and eternal judgment, which are all part of the typical church teaching in one form or another. Then we have "laying on of hands". Forgive me for not recognising which part of the "foundational" part of my faith this is linked with.
vs 3
The author is keen to move past this stuff and teach something deeper. Not because it's not important, but because maturity demands building on a foundation, not just pitching a tent on it.
vs 4-5
So the question here is whether these things are all the same, or whether this is a progressive thing. That is, is it an and or an or - do you need to have been enlightened, then tasted the heavenly gift, then shared in the Spirit, then tasted the goodness of the word, and then fall away? Or are all of these things more or less the same? I get the feeling of the latter. But why say four things? Perhaps three is the new four - for emphasis.
vs 6
If you consider what the author compares these actions to - that is, crucifying Christ again - it makes me think that all the different things describe a situation or position. That is, I don't think they describe a to-do list in order to recrucify Christ.
Of course, the question everyone wants to know is can a Christian fall away. The answer given by Sydney Anglicans is "Don't", which is not very intellectually satisfying. But my question is what is really meant by falling away here? The language is so vague. Sure, you can say that it means "Someone who had faith", but why not just say that? Why go on about tasting and sharing. A taste doesn't sound too serious to me, see. But sharing the Holy Spirit sounds mega serious. I guess that we can only taste the heavenly gift and the powers of the coming age, because we will only see them in wholeness at the end. Can that be said of the Word of God too? Possibly.
My understanding is that people don't just get a mixed sampler of the Holy Spirit - you either have it and are one of God's people, or you don't, and you aren't. So then that does sound like it's overall pretty serious. But that still doesn't answer what "fall away" means. I can tell you what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean "sin", because John makes it clear in his epistles that Christians still sin and are forgiven. Does it mean deny salvation, deny Christ's sufficiency? The kind of falling back into reliance on ritual and history and Law? That seems to fit, but I'll keep my options open, because how is that different to other sin?
Perhaps the idea is that if you think your falling away is really a step forward, then from that position you can't accept repentance or the sacrifice of Christ. But then that doesn't really seem to be the message here. The language seems so final. Difficult.
vs 7-8
This is obviously not about farming - it's a picture of what has just been talked about. So that means that this "falling away" business is at least somewhat to do with fruit. There has to be something to show for your faith. If there's no fruit, then you're useless, and then it's burning time.
vs 9
Well, that's nice. So this was a little warning, but really the author doesn't think his audience is in that dire a straits yet.
vs 10
And this verse, see, is about fruit. So as far as the author is concerned, he can see the fruit of their salvation, and therefore doesn't think that they're in for the inability to return fall. So this subject of falling was important enough to get a mention, but not really so important as to spend time and clarify. Perhaps the author didn't know any better than us anyway.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Hebrews chapter 5
vs 8
The idea this verse nibbles at is that Christ learned obedience to God, and that through suffering. Now, here's the thing - Christ cannot have been disobedient to God, ever, and yet retain his title as "sinless perfect guy". And if he had to learn obedience through suffering, then does that not mean that there was a stage where his obedience was something less than perfect obedience?
Of course, this assumes that the suffering that taught obedience was that of the cross rather than, say, that of coming to earth as a man in the first place. The fact is that human life is fraught with suffering. But then, we get told that God is hurt by the disobedience and hate towards him of his creations - isn't that suffering?
Calvin says that Christ was always obedient, but that he 'learned obedience' in that he experienced the ultimate obedience - that of death for the sake of the Father's will. It's not without its problems, but it's a fair solution.
vs 9
Then we hit another speed bump at the "made perfect" - almost the exact same problem. Some say it is the salvation that is being made perfect, some say that it should be retranslated as "sanctified" - the idea that Christ is being anointed into his role as high priest through the suffering - or that the suffering is being made perfect, that is, complete.
Again, an atemporal view of Christ softens the blow here a bit if you want to read it as "Christ was made perfect". Not sure how orthodox that would be, though.
What you do have to cope with is that it is Christ that becomes the source of salvation. Nothing else.
vs 10
And from here, we expect a lesson on why Melchi is so important. Do we get it though?
Not quite. Instead, we get something telling us that...
vs 11
I really like the TNIV here. The suggestion that it is not just a hearing problem or a learning disability, but a hardness of heart that prevents understanding. That the author has mentioned Melchi at all obviously means that the readers would have some understanding of what he means by this link. So that tells us something about the audience, if nothing else.
But we're about to learn a lot more about them.
vs 12
They've somehow lost their way. It is not that they aren't mature believers in age - that's why they should be teachers. But they are not mature in their understanding. They got a certain way, and stopped, or they got a certain way then retreated back to the old ways of judaism.
Obviously, for a teacher, this is not an ideal outcome.
vs 13
So you see the mature teaching, in the author's opinion, is that about righteousness. So an infant might know about salvation, but the mature Christian is the one who understands the teaching about righteousness. In this case, at least. I would probably accept that as a fairly universal principle.
vs 14
Now we get a bit of a mix in the metaphor here. It would seem that the mature are the ones that are able to learn righteousness, but it also seems that their maturity comes from judging right and wrong - which some might call righteousness. It might be a bit like a brick wall - you build the bricks on top of more bricks, and so you build righteousness on top of righteousness. But you've got to start somewhere, and it can't be by drinking milk. Now there's a mixed metaphor.
The idea this verse nibbles at is that Christ learned obedience to God, and that through suffering. Now, here's the thing - Christ cannot have been disobedient to God, ever, and yet retain his title as "sinless perfect guy". And if he had to learn obedience through suffering, then does that not mean that there was a stage where his obedience was something less than perfect obedience?
Of course, this assumes that the suffering that taught obedience was that of the cross rather than, say, that of coming to earth as a man in the first place. The fact is that human life is fraught with suffering. But then, we get told that God is hurt by the disobedience and hate towards him of his creations - isn't that suffering?
Calvin says that Christ was always obedient, but that he 'learned obedience' in that he experienced the ultimate obedience - that of death for the sake of the Father's will. It's not without its problems, but it's a fair solution.
vs 9
Then we hit another speed bump at the "made perfect" - almost the exact same problem. Some say it is the salvation that is being made perfect, some say that it should be retranslated as "sanctified" - the idea that Christ is being anointed into his role as high priest through the suffering - or that the suffering is being made perfect, that is, complete.
Again, an atemporal view of Christ softens the blow here a bit if you want to read it as "Christ was made perfect". Not sure how orthodox that would be, though.
What you do have to cope with is that it is Christ that becomes the source of salvation. Nothing else.
vs 10
And from here, we expect a lesson on why Melchi is so important. Do we get it though?
Not quite. Instead, we get something telling us that...
vs 11
I really like the TNIV here. The suggestion that it is not just a hearing problem or a learning disability, but a hardness of heart that prevents understanding. That the author has mentioned Melchi at all obviously means that the readers would have some understanding of what he means by this link. So that tells us something about the audience, if nothing else.
But we're about to learn a lot more about them.
vs 12
They've somehow lost their way. It is not that they aren't mature believers in age - that's why they should be teachers. But they are not mature in their understanding. They got a certain way, and stopped, or they got a certain way then retreated back to the old ways of judaism.
Obviously, for a teacher, this is not an ideal outcome.
vs 13
So you see the mature teaching, in the author's opinion, is that about righteousness. So an infant might know about salvation, but the mature Christian is the one who understands the teaching about righteousness. In this case, at least. I would probably accept that as a fairly universal principle.
vs 14
Now we get a bit of a mix in the metaphor here. It would seem that the mature are the ones that are able to learn righteousness, but it also seems that their maturity comes from judging right and wrong - which some might call righteousness. It might be a bit like a brick wall - you build the bricks on top of more bricks, and so you build righteousness on top of righteousness. But you've got to start somewhere, and it can't be by drinking milk. Now there's a mixed metaphor.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Hebrews chapter 5
vs 1
Wow, when you put it so succintly, you wonder how anyone could think Jesus is not the great high priest. From among people, represents to God, sacrifices for sin.
vs 2
It's funny to think of it this way. I don't know about you, but - possibly through a mix of social experience of religious hierarchy and reading the Law of the OT - the high priest never hit me as a sympathetic and gentle position. But he didn't write the laws. His job was to be understanding of the inadequacies of the people and to make amends.
vs 3
I have this feeling that, as a kingdom of priests, Christians have this problem - that we get all high and mighty about how righteous we are, and how we don't seem to struggle with all the sins that we've labelled as really bad. So we end up being judgmental of sinners instead of compassionate and understanding.
vs 4
Who would want it? The more accountable a position of authority, generally the less attractive. Imagine the importance of this position.
Then realise that we are all priests. Oh dear.
vs 5
Of course, this verse won't convince people that want to believe that Jesus was some sort of revolutionary seeking to make a name for himself. But those with faith can be assured here that Christ was not self seeking, but was in a way called to the position by nature of his interitance.
vs 6
Now we start on the comparisons with this mysterious character. The name means King of Righteousness. It's incredible how these people who turn up for bit parts in the Bible end up taking on so much importance. No greater, I reckon, than Melchizedek (or Melchi as we call him). Melchizedek was a king and a priest. There are a bunch of reasons people say he's important. Let's see what the author of Hebrews says.
vs 7
Was he not heard because he is God's Son? Would Jesus have ceased being the Son if he had not lived in reverent submission? The verses following will clear this up for us... tomorrow.
Wow, when you put it so succintly, you wonder how anyone could think Jesus is not the great high priest. From among people, represents to God, sacrifices for sin.
vs 2
It's funny to think of it this way. I don't know about you, but - possibly through a mix of social experience of religious hierarchy and reading the Law of the OT - the high priest never hit me as a sympathetic and gentle position. But he didn't write the laws. His job was to be understanding of the inadequacies of the people and to make amends.
vs 3
I have this feeling that, as a kingdom of priests, Christians have this problem - that we get all high and mighty about how righteous we are, and how we don't seem to struggle with all the sins that we've labelled as really bad. So we end up being judgmental of sinners instead of compassionate and understanding.
vs 4
Who would want it? The more accountable a position of authority, generally the less attractive. Imagine the importance of this position.
Then realise that we are all priests. Oh dear.
vs 5
Of course, this verse won't convince people that want to believe that Jesus was some sort of revolutionary seeking to make a name for himself. But those with faith can be assured here that Christ was not self seeking, but was in a way called to the position by nature of his interitance.
vs 6
Now we start on the comparisons with this mysterious character. The name means King of Righteousness. It's incredible how these people who turn up for bit parts in the Bible end up taking on so much importance. No greater, I reckon, than Melchizedek (or Melchi as we call him). Melchizedek was a king and a priest. There are a bunch of reasons people say he's important. Let's see what the author of Hebrews says.
vs 7
Was he not heard because he is God's Son? Would Jesus have ceased being the Son if he had not lived in reverent submission? The verses following will clear this up for us... tomorrow.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Hebrews chapter 4
vs 9
This really gives a full meaning to the idea that the OT exists as an example for the spiritual reality - the rest promised to Israel is only an example of the true rest offered to all through Christ.
vs 10
The end of God's plan is for us all to have rest. Work was given to humanity to do, but is not the ultimate goal of God. The ultimate goal is rest. Work itself wasn't a curse (though it did become cursed) - work was given to man in the garden before the fall. But it's also not eternal, it would seem.
vs 11
I wonder if this is a broad link to the idea of life being work. The allusion here is to the wanderings in the desert - if they had strived harder to enter the Promised Land, instead of whinging, they may have made it to their promised rest after the travel. Is the spiritual life a life of work in order to enter a heavenly rest? Well, not really. I mean, it is, but in the end, that's not what gets you into the rest. It's faith.
vs 12
This does not make obedience worthless. Faith and obedience go hand in hand. And so God's Word exists so that we may obey it. And it is by the Word that we will be judged.
vs 13
If you think you can escape God's judgment - it's just not going to happen. He sees all, and not just externally. The Word separates out even the heart, and therefore all is laid bare.
vs 14
No high priest ever went into heaven to go and talk to God. God had to create a little sanctuary on earth so that the high priest could pretend. Again, a reflection of Christ, but Christ did the real thing.
And notice the author's focus on application of these theological truths. It's not just telling us that Christ is the ultimate high priest. So what? So hold firmly to your faith, that's what.
vs 15
Who else but God gets both sides of the coin? We get a high priest who is human in every way, and therefore can sympathise with us in a way that would otherwise not be possible, even for God. And yet, he is able to maintain his holiness by being without sin.
See, even God does not agree that you need to experience something directly to be sympathetic. God went as far as to experience temptation, but not sin. A counsellor doesn't need to experience heroin addiction to help heroin addicts. We've got to be careful there.
vs 16
God has gone through all this to make himself more approachable, so therefore we should approach. That's his goal, and it's so beneficial to us. Why not do it!
This really gives a full meaning to the idea that the OT exists as an example for the spiritual reality - the rest promised to Israel is only an example of the true rest offered to all through Christ.
vs 10
The end of God's plan is for us all to have rest. Work was given to humanity to do, but is not the ultimate goal of God. The ultimate goal is rest. Work itself wasn't a curse (though it did become cursed) - work was given to man in the garden before the fall. But it's also not eternal, it would seem.
vs 11
I wonder if this is a broad link to the idea of life being work. The allusion here is to the wanderings in the desert - if they had strived harder to enter the Promised Land, instead of whinging, they may have made it to their promised rest after the travel. Is the spiritual life a life of work in order to enter a heavenly rest? Well, not really. I mean, it is, but in the end, that's not what gets you into the rest. It's faith.
vs 12
This does not make obedience worthless. Faith and obedience go hand in hand. And so God's Word exists so that we may obey it. And it is by the Word that we will be judged.
vs 13
If you think you can escape God's judgment - it's just not going to happen. He sees all, and not just externally. The Word separates out even the heart, and therefore all is laid bare.
vs 14
No high priest ever went into heaven to go and talk to God. God had to create a little sanctuary on earth so that the high priest could pretend. Again, a reflection of Christ, but Christ did the real thing.
And notice the author's focus on application of these theological truths. It's not just telling us that Christ is the ultimate high priest. So what? So hold firmly to your faith, that's what.
vs 15
Who else but God gets both sides of the coin? We get a high priest who is human in every way, and therefore can sympathise with us in a way that would otherwise not be possible, even for God. And yet, he is able to maintain his holiness by being without sin.
See, even God does not agree that you need to experience something directly to be sympathetic. God went as far as to experience temptation, but not sin. A counsellor doesn't need to experience heroin addiction to help heroin addicts. We've got to be careful there.
vs 16
God has gone through all this to make himself more approachable, so therefore we should approach. That's his goal, and it's so beneficial to us. Why not do it!
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Hebrews chapter 4
vs 1
That's exactly what happened to the Israelites. They fell short. They fell in the desert, and never entered his rest - the rest he promised they would find in the promised land.
vs 2
The TNIV takes a slightly different path here, but the overall ending comes out the same. Notice we heard the gospel, and so did they. Remember that! The gospel is more than just Jesus, Love, Bible. It's about promises and relationship with God. For us it is valuable, for them it is not. It's valuable for us if we don't fall short of it. They did fall short in their faith, so the gospel became worthless to them.
vs 3
We get a few ideas coagulating in this verse. Firstly, the faithful do enter that rest. Secondly, God's anger still stands on them (the unfaithful), who will never enter his rest. Thirdly, we start talking about what rest is, specifically God's rest. It began after his work of creation.
vs 4
Somewhere! The author is either being very modest, or he can't even remember the book of Genesis. We put so much stock in the Genesis account - the author of Hebrews can't even remember where it was.
vs 5
So we have these two things at work - God's rest, and God's promise to the unfaithful.
vs 6
So some haven't entered yet who will, and those who are disobedient still won't. Something will be built on these statements.
vs 7
We come full circle back to the psalm. There is no problem with God's promise that those who are unfaithful will never enter his rest. Because unfaithfulness doesn't need to stick to you like glue. It can happily be washed away by God, and then you're free to enter the rest.
vs 8
The promised land, then, while being a land of rest for a little while (although to be honest I don't know when that is true - during David's reign they fought, during Solomon's reign they were enslaved for public works) was not the promised rest of God. That is an eternal rest.
That's exactly what happened to the Israelites. They fell short. They fell in the desert, and never entered his rest - the rest he promised they would find in the promised land.
vs 2
The TNIV takes a slightly different path here, but the overall ending comes out the same. Notice we heard the gospel, and so did they. Remember that! The gospel is more than just Jesus, Love, Bible. It's about promises and relationship with God. For us it is valuable, for them it is not. It's valuable for us if we don't fall short of it. They did fall short in their faith, so the gospel became worthless to them.
vs 3
We get a few ideas coagulating in this verse. Firstly, the faithful do enter that rest. Secondly, God's anger still stands on them (the unfaithful), who will never enter his rest. Thirdly, we start talking about what rest is, specifically God's rest. It began after his work of creation.
vs 4
Somewhere! The author is either being very modest, or he can't even remember the book of Genesis. We put so much stock in the Genesis account - the author of Hebrews can't even remember where it was.
vs 5
So we have these two things at work - God's rest, and God's promise to the unfaithful.
vs 6
So some haven't entered yet who will, and those who are disobedient still won't. Something will be built on these statements.
vs 7
We come full circle back to the psalm. There is no problem with God's promise that those who are unfaithful will never enter his rest. Because unfaithfulness doesn't need to stick to you like glue. It can happily be washed away by God, and then you're free to enter the rest.
vs 8
The promised land, then, while being a land of rest for a little while (although to be honest I don't know when that is true - during David's reign they fought, during Solomon's reign they were enslaved for public works) was not the promised rest of God. That is an eternal rest.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Hebrews chapter 3
vs 12
Does this mean that the Hebrews to who this letter was written are dropping their spirituality altogether, or their faith in God in particular? I don't know about that. I mean, perhaps they were. But I can't imagine post-exilic Jews going back to idol worship in any great way. And there weren't really many other options.
I think more likely he talks about turning away from God as not taking Jesus to his full account. That seems to be what is being addressed in the surrounding ideas, anyway.
vs 13
I nice, poetic little concept, that as long as today is today you should be encouraging one another in your faith. However, I don't think it's unique to the Bible - I believe the author of Hebrews got the idea from The Littlest Hobo. Hey, everybody else has their crackpot theories.
Anyway, the author ultimately puts this loss of faith to a hardening of the heart through the deceitfulness of sin. Although that's a fairly wide-angle opinion, it probably makes it true. The Bible is full of such statements - have we as a modern civilisation become more interested in the minutae and lost the desire for the big picture ?
vs 14
This is an interesting idea - the idea that you can only "come to Christ" once, which is hinted at by the word "original" (or "at first" in the NIV). Automatically, I can feel my evanglical spidey senses tingling at the idea. They come up with all sorts of excuses as to what this really means.
Something new came to me this morning, though. We read the language as "falling away" language - that is, that people stop believing in Christ, fall away from their faith. But if you were to apply this idea to those who "move past" Christ - those who see Christ as a stepping stone to "true spirituality" like gnostics, it doesn't sound nearly as bad. Then it becomes about "getting back to your roots" of faith in Christ alone, and not piling up other stuff next to him or after him.
I don't know that that's exactly what's going on - perhaps there was a "new Jewish spirituality" that saw Jesus as a strong teacher, but which they felt eventually just honed your Judaism, rather than focussing on Christ as Christ.
vs 15
Here's the kicker - if you read this at surface value, it sounds like an altar call, where in reality, the letter of Hebrews isn't written to people in synagogues asking them to become Christian, but to Hebrew Christians who are struggling. It's Christians who are not to harden their hearts to Christ.
vs 16
Ie it wasn't the Philistines or Egypt themselves. Now, don't get me wrong, you can make arguments that both of these (as well as many other gentile civilisations) heard the voice of God in some way or another. But this is specific for two reasons - firstly, it's probably in reference to the verse, and secondly, it's being specific to the Jewish transgression in the desert. They are The people who heard and rebelled, if you like.
vs 17
With relationship comes responsibility. It's just as true of family relationships as it is of vassal covenants.
vs 18
Again, referring specifically to the verse quoted above. But also making the very interesting point that you can't be promised "You will not enter my rest" unless you were going to in the first place. God has never said, "The earth will never enter my rest" or "all the peoples of the earth will never enter my rest" - that's not what the Bible is about at all. No, it was Israel who was promised that rest, and is now denied it through their rebellion and hard-heartedness.
vs 19
They didn't stop believing in God, per se. Well, actually, some of them might have. Certainly they stopped believing that he was acting in a sovereign way that they should respect.
Does this mean that the Hebrews to who this letter was written are dropping their spirituality altogether, or their faith in God in particular? I don't know about that. I mean, perhaps they were. But I can't imagine post-exilic Jews going back to idol worship in any great way. And there weren't really many other options.
I think more likely he talks about turning away from God as not taking Jesus to his full account. That seems to be what is being addressed in the surrounding ideas, anyway.
vs 13
I nice, poetic little concept, that as long as today is today you should be encouraging one another in your faith. However, I don't think it's unique to the Bible - I believe the author of Hebrews got the idea from The Littlest Hobo. Hey, everybody else has their crackpot theories.
Anyway, the author ultimately puts this loss of faith to a hardening of the heart through the deceitfulness of sin. Although that's a fairly wide-angle opinion, it probably makes it true. The Bible is full of such statements - have we as a modern civilisation become more interested in the minutae and lost the desire for the big picture ?
vs 14
This is an interesting idea - the idea that you can only "come to Christ" once, which is hinted at by the word "original" (or "at first" in the NIV). Automatically, I can feel my evanglical spidey senses tingling at the idea. They come up with all sorts of excuses as to what this really means.
Something new came to me this morning, though. We read the language as "falling away" language - that is, that people stop believing in Christ, fall away from their faith. But if you were to apply this idea to those who "move past" Christ - those who see Christ as a stepping stone to "true spirituality" like gnostics, it doesn't sound nearly as bad. Then it becomes about "getting back to your roots" of faith in Christ alone, and not piling up other stuff next to him or after him.
I don't know that that's exactly what's going on - perhaps there was a "new Jewish spirituality" that saw Jesus as a strong teacher, but which they felt eventually just honed your Judaism, rather than focussing on Christ as Christ.
vs 15
Here's the kicker - if you read this at surface value, it sounds like an altar call, where in reality, the letter of Hebrews isn't written to people in synagogues asking them to become Christian, but to Hebrew Christians who are struggling. It's Christians who are not to harden their hearts to Christ.
vs 16
Ie it wasn't the Philistines or Egypt themselves. Now, don't get me wrong, you can make arguments that both of these (as well as many other gentile civilisations) heard the voice of God in some way or another. But this is specific for two reasons - firstly, it's probably in reference to the verse, and secondly, it's being specific to the Jewish transgression in the desert. They are The people who heard and rebelled, if you like.
vs 17
With relationship comes responsibility. It's just as true of family relationships as it is of vassal covenants.
vs 18
Again, referring specifically to the verse quoted above. But also making the very interesting point that you can't be promised "You will not enter my rest" unless you were going to in the first place. God has never said, "The earth will never enter my rest" or "all the peoples of the earth will never enter my rest" - that's not what the Bible is about at all. No, it was Israel who was promised that rest, and is now denied it through their rebellion and hard-heartedness.
vs 19
They didn't stop believing in God, per se. Well, actually, some of them might have. Certainly they stopped believing that he was acting in a sovereign way that they should respect.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Hebrews Chapter 3
vs 1
It's not that they didn't necessarily accept Jesus, but the call here is to focus on him, because he is the apostle (the one who was sent with the message) and is also the high priest (who mediates between people and God).
vs 2
Moses was pretty faithful, if a bit of a whinger and certainly not perfect. So Jesus was at least as good as him.
vs 3
So Moses is a house? Is the inference here that everything Moses had was built on him by Christ, even though Christ comes after temporally? I don't think that's too long a bow.
vs 4
And this backs me up.
vs 5
TNIV and NASB put the first part of this verse as a quote from Numbers 12:7.
The idea that Moses was faithful to what was yet to come really is a temporal spin. Is the inference that Moses had revealed to him more than what is given in the pentateuch?
vs 6
The comparison here is that Moses was a servant, but Christ is the Son. Now for the kicker - the church is the house!
vs 7-11
The thing to notice here is that it is the Holy Spirit that is given this voice - and so strengthening the idea that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit working in the writers. Of course, the Psalm is speaking the words of God directly, so it's not water tight.
Psalm 95, this is. And it builds up as a foundation for many points that are yet to be made. The word "today" will be focused on as the time to come to God, rather than going from God as the Israelites did. The other main point is that of rest, and what is meant by rest in the long view of the Bible.
It's not that they didn't necessarily accept Jesus, but the call here is to focus on him, because he is the apostle (the one who was sent with the message) and is also the high priest (who mediates between people and God).
vs 2
Moses was pretty faithful, if a bit of a whinger and certainly not perfect. So Jesus was at least as good as him.
vs 3
So Moses is a house? Is the inference here that everything Moses had was built on him by Christ, even though Christ comes after temporally? I don't think that's too long a bow.
vs 4
And this backs me up.
vs 5
TNIV and NASB put the first part of this verse as a quote from Numbers 12:7.
The idea that Moses was faithful to what was yet to come really is a temporal spin. Is the inference that Moses had revealed to him more than what is given in the pentateuch?
vs 6
The comparison here is that Moses was a servant, but Christ is the Son. Now for the kicker - the church is the house!
vs 7-11
The thing to notice here is that it is the Holy Spirit that is given this voice - and so strengthening the idea that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit working in the writers. Of course, the Psalm is speaking the words of God directly, so it's not water tight.
Psalm 95, this is. And it builds up as a foundation for many points that are yet to be made. The word "today" will be focused on as the time to come to God, rather than going from God as the Israelites did. The other main point is that of rest, and what is meant by rest in the long view of the Bible.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Hebrews Chapter 2
vs 10
The TNIV here uses the word 'pioneer'. I like it. Having said that, the KJV says 'captain', which is also cool.
So, this verse brings up a lot of questions. Firstly, why is it fitting? It doesn't say - not that I can see. Not here, anyway.
But that's dodging the real question - the verse doesn't say that it will make the sufferings perfect, or the salvation perfect. No, it will specifically make their author perfect. Jesus, according to this verse, is made perfect through his sufferings.
Now, for those of us who accept a temporal/atemporal paradox, this poses no problems - Jesus, existing as an atemporal being, has always been perfect. That his perfection was initiated at any given point on the temporal timeline doesn't affect that.
If you don't truck with such explanations, I hope you don't get too confused by this verse.
vs 11
This is a very comforting verse. We are of the same family as Christ, because of his work. Not only does he accept us as family, he does it without shame - we do not cause shame to God by being saved.
vs 12
Of course, David in his psalm is talking about Israel. But then, it's not a huge hop, skip and jump to take the people of God and Jesus as a similar relationship.
vs 13
I honestly don't get the relevance of Isaiah 8:17. It just doesn't seem to fit. I know it's what is in Isaiah right before the next quote, but that doesn't seem a good reason to throw it in.
The next quote seems far more relevant, with another familial relationship. This time the relationship is children, not brothers and sisters. A mixed metaphor, but hey, it still means being in the family.
vs 14
This is of course one of the key points of our faith - that God became man, took on flesh, for our sake. It was this indwelling in humanity that God chose to work his salvation plan. Only God could think of a way to use death to beat death. That's pretty awesome.
It's an interesting statement to make, that the devil has the power over death. Did God give him that power so that he could take it away again? I guess so.
vs 15
Which is everybody.
vs 16
Here's a novel idea. I wonder, if the reference to angels here, after that of death, is one that suggests that angels are not normally mortal? I guess it could. It could at least infer it or assume it. But the main point seems to be, now, that Christ came in form of humanity to save man - not as an angel.
vs 17
Note that the merciful and faithful nature which comes from the incarnation is for better service of God first and foremost. That says something, to me anyway - that the servant of God must be merciful and faithful.
But it is also for the sake of the atonement.
vs 18
I'm not quite sure about the suffering of Christ during his temptation, but it seems that suffering is what allows Christ's experiences to help others. I wonder if we think of suffering that way? After all, it was suffering and death that allows atonement.
The TNIV here uses the word 'pioneer'. I like it. Having said that, the KJV says 'captain', which is also cool.
So, this verse brings up a lot of questions. Firstly, why is it fitting? It doesn't say - not that I can see. Not here, anyway.
But that's dodging the real question - the verse doesn't say that it will make the sufferings perfect, or the salvation perfect. No, it will specifically make their author perfect. Jesus, according to this verse, is made perfect through his sufferings.
Now, for those of us who accept a temporal/atemporal paradox, this poses no problems - Jesus, existing as an atemporal being, has always been perfect. That his perfection was initiated at any given point on the temporal timeline doesn't affect that.
If you don't truck with such explanations, I hope you don't get too confused by this verse.
vs 11
This is a very comforting verse. We are of the same family as Christ, because of his work. Not only does he accept us as family, he does it without shame - we do not cause shame to God by being saved.
vs 12
Of course, David in his psalm is talking about Israel. But then, it's not a huge hop, skip and jump to take the people of God and Jesus as a similar relationship.
vs 13
I honestly don't get the relevance of Isaiah 8:17. It just doesn't seem to fit. I know it's what is in Isaiah right before the next quote, but that doesn't seem a good reason to throw it in.
The next quote seems far more relevant, with another familial relationship. This time the relationship is children, not brothers and sisters. A mixed metaphor, but hey, it still means being in the family.
vs 14
This is of course one of the key points of our faith - that God became man, took on flesh, for our sake. It was this indwelling in humanity that God chose to work his salvation plan. Only God could think of a way to use death to beat death. That's pretty awesome.
It's an interesting statement to make, that the devil has the power over death. Did God give him that power so that he could take it away again? I guess so.
vs 15
Which is everybody.
vs 16
Here's a novel idea. I wonder, if the reference to angels here, after that of death, is one that suggests that angels are not normally mortal? I guess it could. It could at least infer it or assume it. But the main point seems to be, now, that Christ came in form of humanity to save man - not as an angel.
vs 17
Note that the merciful and faithful nature which comes from the incarnation is for better service of God first and foremost. That says something, to me anyway - that the servant of God must be merciful and faithful.
But it is also for the sake of the atonement.
vs 18
I'm not quite sure about the suffering of Christ during his temptation, but it seems that suffering is what allows Christ's experiences to help others. I wonder if we think of suffering that way? After all, it was suffering and death that allows atonement.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Hebrews Chapter 2
vs 1
This verse is obviously aimed at addressing a problem with people sticking to the faith. This verse is problematic to some people who have issues with the whole assurance of salvation thing. But drifting away is the theme here for the moment.
I wonder how many Jewish Christians had slipped back into their Jewish ways? How difficult would it be to be doing very similar religious activities, and to only add a name to a saviour that you were supposedly expecting anyway? More difficult than you think, it seems. Because with Christ came a change of focus - towards salvation and eternal life, towards faith rather than community. I'm not saying that community is not part of Christianity - but Judaism was about being a member of a commuity of faith which existed at least partly through bloodline, and at least partly through following tradition. Instead, Christ was adamant that it was faith that brought you to him, not your ancestry or the pig you didn't eat.
I wonder how many Jewish Christians had slipped back into their Jewish ways?
vs 2
Which message are we talking about that was spoken through angels? The author could be talking about the Law, I guess. Angels seem to be fairly busy in the prophets. Hard to say, really. The Christian gospel specifically has its fair share of angels, perhaps they mean the salvation message? I think the Law is more likely, though, because of the mention of punishment. But then, I still have 1 Cor 10 rattling around in my head, so that might cause me to think in that way. If the shoe fits, though...
vs 3
The message of punishment (and punishment itself) seems to have been meted out by angels. But the message of salvation came through Christ. Now it also comes through those who heard it and have passed it on. That's the thing - the Jews were very familiar with the first half of the message - that of violation and punishment. They were also aware of the physical blessings through the land that were spoken of. But the way of salvation is new, coming through Christ. Not that it didn't exist in the OT at all, but it is vocalised now.
vs 4
These were not only accompanying Christ, but also his followers. Paul tells us, interestingly, in 1 Cor 1 that it is Jews that demand miraculous signs, while Greeks seek wisdom. Well, there was plenty of miraculous signs!
vs 5
I assume we're talking about God again now, and we are wrapping up the argument about angels. They aren't the ones who are taking over responsibility of the world. It's Christ. Christ, therefore, is superior.
vs 6-8
We of course recognise Psalm 8 here. There are three footnotes in the TNIV v8, changing "them" to "him", in what I feel was complete overkill of footnotes. Anyway, the point is that this psalm is backing up the statement that the author just made about Christ, not angels, being put over everything. It's a good verse for that. He even goes so far as to point out that we might not see this happening everywhere at this point, but this is just a present condition.
vs 9
What do we see? Jesus - made a little lower than angels (born of a man), and his resurrection shows us his crowning with glory and honour. The idea being, I suppose, that we have seen two out of three, so we should see the third coming in good time, and be expectant.
This verse is obviously aimed at addressing a problem with people sticking to the faith. This verse is problematic to some people who have issues with the whole assurance of salvation thing. But drifting away is the theme here for the moment.
I wonder how many Jewish Christians had slipped back into their Jewish ways? How difficult would it be to be doing very similar religious activities, and to only add a name to a saviour that you were supposedly expecting anyway? More difficult than you think, it seems. Because with Christ came a change of focus - towards salvation and eternal life, towards faith rather than community. I'm not saying that community is not part of Christianity - but Judaism was about being a member of a commuity of faith which existed at least partly through bloodline, and at least partly through following tradition. Instead, Christ was adamant that it was faith that brought you to him, not your ancestry or the pig you didn't eat.
I wonder how many Jewish Christians had slipped back into their Jewish ways?
vs 2
Which message are we talking about that was spoken through angels? The author could be talking about the Law, I guess. Angels seem to be fairly busy in the prophets. Hard to say, really. The Christian gospel specifically has its fair share of angels, perhaps they mean the salvation message? I think the Law is more likely, though, because of the mention of punishment. But then, I still have 1 Cor 10 rattling around in my head, so that might cause me to think in that way. If the shoe fits, though...
vs 3
The message of punishment (and punishment itself) seems to have been meted out by angels. But the message of salvation came through Christ. Now it also comes through those who heard it and have passed it on. That's the thing - the Jews were very familiar with the first half of the message - that of violation and punishment. They were also aware of the physical blessings through the land that were spoken of. But the way of salvation is new, coming through Christ. Not that it didn't exist in the OT at all, but it is vocalised now.
vs 4
These were not only accompanying Christ, but also his followers. Paul tells us, interestingly, in 1 Cor 1 that it is Jews that demand miraculous signs, while Greeks seek wisdom. Well, there was plenty of miraculous signs!
vs 5
I assume we're talking about God again now, and we are wrapping up the argument about angels. They aren't the ones who are taking over responsibility of the world. It's Christ. Christ, therefore, is superior.
vs 6-8
We of course recognise Psalm 8 here. There are three footnotes in the TNIV v8, changing "them" to "him", in what I feel was complete overkill of footnotes. Anyway, the point is that this psalm is backing up the statement that the author just made about Christ, not angels, being put over everything. It's a good verse for that. He even goes so far as to point out that we might not see this happening everywhere at this point, but this is just a present condition.
vs 9
What do we see? Jesus - made a little lower than angels (born of a man), and his resurrection shows us his crowning with glory and honour. The idea being, I suppose, that we have seen two out of three, so we should see the third coming in good time, and be expectant.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Hebrews chapter 1
vs 8
I was going to ask "When you first read this in Psalm 45, did you think it was about the Son?" To be honest, in its context, I find it rather confusing, and I'm glad the author of Hebrews has given it some clarity.
Anyway, the point being that, this verse being about the Son, it promises him dominion - his is a position of authority, not servanthood. While the Son does serve the Father, he is not a servant.
vs 9
In the original psalm, you are likely to read this far more in context - it is the "Oh God" that throws out vs 8 (vs 6 in the psalm) contextually. But I guess it is the reading of them together - that God has the throne and that God sets you above your companions - that is one of the things that is putting this verse where it is - the Son is God, and therefore grants himself authority, if you will.
vs 10-12
Remember, we're looking primarily at the differences between the Son and the angels. I think the point of these verses is to highlight that God made earth and heaven, and yet both are going to curl up and end. Since the angels live in heaven and are indeed "heavenly beings", does this mean that they are indeed finite and not eternal? They may not die in that they have a fixed time of life, but they still get wrapped up when the time comes. At least, that's how I read it. It's not a simple thing, the use of this verse here.
vs 13
None, of course. But he did say it to his Son. Prophetically via David, of course. Except, of course, that Jesus himself asks how this could be of David - quite the conundrum. Thankfully, of course, we can just apply it to Christ and it clears it up for us. Still boggles the mind what David meant by it then.
vs 14
I suppose the answer is yes. I'm not sure what the source material for such a statement is, but now it's Heb 1:14! And the follow on thought is in the next chapter, although it's not as simple as you might think.
I was going to ask "When you first read this in Psalm 45, did you think it was about the Son?" To be honest, in its context, I find it rather confusing, and I'm glad the author of Hebrews has given it some clarity.
Anyway, the point being that, this verse being about the Son, it promises him dominion - his is a position of authority, not servanthood. While the Son does serve the Father, he is not a servant.
vs 9
In the original psalm, you are likely to read this far more in context - it is the "Oh God" that throws out vs 8 (vs 6 in the psalm) contextually. But I guess it is the reading of them together - that God has the throne and that God sets you above your companions - that is one of the things that is putting this verse where it is - the Son is God, and therefore grants himself authority, if you will.
vs 10-12
Remember, we're looking primarily at the differences between the Son and the angels. I think the point of these verses is to highlight that God made earth and heaven, and yet both are going to curl up and end. Since the angels live in heaven and are indeed "heavenly beings", does this mean that they are indeed finite and not eternal? They may not die in that they have a fixed time of life, but they still get wrapped up when the time comes. At least, that's how I read it. It's not a simple thing, the use of this verse here.
vs 13
None, of course. But he did say it to his Son. Prophetically via David, of course. Except, of course, that Jesus himself asks how this could be of David - quite the conundrum. Thankfully, of course, we can just apply it to Christ and it clears it up for us. Still boggles the mind what David meant by it then.
vs 14
I suppose the answer is yes. I'm not sure what the source material for such a statement is, but now it's Heb 1:14! And the follow on thought is in the next chapter, although it's not as simple as you might think.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Hebrews chapter 1
vs 1
Straight away, we have a marker, in my opinion, as to who this was written. It was the Jews whose ancestors had God speak to them at many times and in various ways. While I am aware about the several passages in the NT that claim a spiritual heritage for Christians of Abraham, that language is slightly different to here. While I am sure that such a spiritual heritage allows modern day Christians to read this book with meaning, primarily surely it existed to correct some misapprehensions from Jewish and proselyte Christians.
vs 2
We are living in a new era, and it's not just because there's an African American president (go 'Bama). It's because this is the time period that God has chosen to reveal himself through his own Son. Straight out of the gate, that Son is given a statement of authority - he was involved in the creation of the universe. We will spend chapters seeing the authority of Christ built up.
vs 3
This is sounding fairly Colossians-y. More statements of powerful authority for Jesus - he is God, an exact representation, with not only the creative power but the sustaining power. He is responsible for the purification of sins - the enormity of this verse gets chapters later, because it means he has replaced an entire sacrificial system. Finally, he is at the right hand in majesty. Sorry, of the Majesty. All my translations capitalise Majesty, so I'm assuming it relates to a God title.
vs 4
It's not a question I would have even asked, but apparently some people needed this cleared up - as Son of God, he is above angels in the spiritual pecking order. It could be that people were getting confused by the psalm 8 reference. Perhaps there were questions about his divinity. The author here leaves no questions as to his opinion of Christ's divinity.
vs 5
Some Old Testament references there. One obviously from the psalms, but the other from Samuel. And both, interestingly, are regarding David. The strength of this Sonship link to the Davidic covenant is a big thing.
vs 6
You won't find this quote in your OT , as I am sure you are well aware. It's from the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls. But the author here seems to think that's it's worth basing his point on - that the angels are to worship the Christ, hence their lowliness before him.
vs 7
An interestingly different translation to that we are given in our Psalm 104:4. Of course, since wind and spirit are the same word in Hebrew (and Greek, I think) the change is contextual. Still, the verse in 104 seems to mean angels to me. The point is that God has made angels as servants for himself. They have a defined role to play. Sure, to us, they seem awesome - made of fire, flying around with flaming swords, cool stuff. But they are servants of God, and of Christ too. You worship the King, not his messenger, which again in Greek and Hebrew is the same word for angel.
Straight away, we have a marker, in my opinion, as to who this was written. It was the Jews whose ancestors had God speak to them at many times and in various ways. While I am aware about the several passages in the NT that claim a spiritual heritage for Christians of Abraham, that language is slightly different to here. While I am sure that such a spiritual heritage allows modern day Christians to read this book with meaning, primarily surely it existed to correct some misapprehensions from Jewish and proselyte Christians.
vs 2
We are living in a new era, and it's not just because there's an African American president (go 'Bama). It's because this is the time period that God has chosen to reveal himself through his own Son. Straight out of the gate, that Son is given a statement of authority - he was involved in the creation of the universe. We will spend chapters seeing the authority of Christ built up.
vs 3
This is sounding fairly Colossians-y. More statements of powerful authority for Jesus - he is God, an exact representation, with not only the creative power but the sustaining power. He is responsible for the purification of sins - the enormity of this verse gets chapters later, because it means he has replaced an entire sacrificial system. Finally, he is at the right hand in majesty. Sorry, of the Majesty. All my translations capitalise Majesty, so I'm assuming it relates to a God title.
vs 4
It's not a question I would have even asked, but apparently some people needed this cleared up - as Son of God, he is above angels in the spiritual pecking order. It could be that people were getting confused by the psalm 8 reference. Perhaps there were questions about his divinity. The author here leaves no questions as to his opinion of Christ's divinity.
vs 5
Some Old Testament references there. One obviously from the psalms, but the other from Samuel. And both, interestingly, are regarding David. The strength of this Sonship link to the Davidic covenant is a big thing.
vs 6
You won't find this quote in your OT , as I am sure you are well aware. It's from the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls. But the author here seems to think that's it's worth basing his point on - that the angels are to worship the Christ, hence their lowliness before him.
vs 7
An interestingly different translation to that we are given in our Psalm 104:4. Of course, since wind and spirit are the same word in Hebrew (and Greek, I think) the change is contextual. Still, the verse in 104 seems to mean angels to me. The point is that God has made angels as servants for himself. They have a defined role to play. Sure, to us, they seem awesome - made of fire, flying around with flaming swords, cool stuff. But they are servants of God, and of Christ too. You worship the King, not his messenger, which again in Greek and Hebrew is the same word for angel.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Psalm 20
vs 1
You know, this might be one of my favourite psalms. I think it has that poetry to it that I can feel from the meaning, if you know what I mean. Perhaps it's just the large use of jussives, but It's a very cool psalm. Good length, too. It reminds me of that Irish Blessing, "May the road rise up to meet you..."
And that's what the first part is, really - a blessing on someone. It's all very simple, for this first verse. Jacob is mentioned I guess primarily it seems as an indicator of which God we're talking about (and you know what? That's a really good idea. Whenever I say just "God", what do people think I mean? I should say things like "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ" but that sounds so wordy and formal. But it at least specifies who I'm talking about), but it also calls to mind the faithfulness of God to Jacob, that you may be protected as he was, and that your requests may be answered as his were. You might think David is a better candidate for an analogy, but then he's writing the psalm.
vs 2
Now that is an interesting one. Does David mean physical help? If so, in what form? In the form of support to the poor? Bread and other food for wandering kings (David snacked down on holy bread)? Or is it spiritual support, like lifting your spirit? Is the sanctuary the temple, therefore, and Zion, Jerusalem, or is it a heavenly reference?
vs 3
The TNIV removed "Selah". I didn't notice a change in meaning of the psalm.
It's interesting when you think about what this verse is saying - you actually still have to make the offerings and sacrifices. The assumption is that they are acceptable, the prayer is that they are then accepted. "May all your prayers be heard" is an interesting blessing - because it means that you actually have to be praying in the first place.
vs 4
This is just out and out prosperity stuff. Of course, if your desire is for the Lord, and your plans are for his glory, why wouldn't this be true?
vs 5
Again, your victories have to actually be for the purpose of God's glory, otherwise you're not going to lift your banners to him.
The assumption, with banners, is that these are military victories. We have spiritual enemies - do we fight them effectively enough that we feel we have victories over them?
And again there's a repeat for granting requests - probably a poetic repetition.
vs 6
This is the second half of the psalm. So the first half is all jussive requests that God might pour out blessings on you. This is promises that we can be sure of.
So first of all, God does indeed give victory - at least to his anointed, which is David, who is writing. So he might be saying "Just as I can be a witness that God has given me victory, so may he give it to you."
This specifically says heavenly sanctuary, which makes me think vs2 is talking about God in heaven, and strength coming from him. David acknowledges that his victories came from the power of God. May ours do so too.
vs 7
Especially important for Israel, who was not meant to have chariots and horses (at least not too many) because of the fact that they may put too much faith in them. Their faith, like ours, should be in God and his power for our victory. That doesn't mean don't be prepared, it just means know where the power is.
vs 8
Chariots don't have knees, but I'm sort of assuming that he means those who trust in horses and chariots. People like the Egyptians, Philistines etc.
vs 9
This verse, at first, is a little bit of a strain for us. But if we think of Jesus as king, then perhaps it's a good help for us to remember that our desires and requests and plans that we have just asked might all be answered should really be for the victory of Christ over sin and death.
In faith, when we call out in that prayer, we should expect God to answer.
You know, this might be one of my favourite psalms. I think it has that poetry to it that I can feel from the meaning, if you know what I mean. Perhaps it's just the large use of jussives, but It's a very cool psalm. Good length, too. It reminds me of that Irish Blessing, "May the road rise up to meet you..."
And that's what the first part is, really - a blessing on someone. It's all very simple, for this first verse. Jacob is mentioned I guess primarily it seems as an indicator of which God we're talking about (and you know what? That's a really good idea. Whenever I say just "God", what do people think I mean? I should say things like "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ" but that sounds so wordy and formal. But it at least specifies who I'm talking about), but it also calls to mind the faithfulness of God to Jacob, that you may be protected as he was, and that your requests may be answered as his were. You might think David is a better candidate for an analogy, but then he's writing the psalm.
vs 2
Now that is an interesting one. Does David mean physical help? If so, in what form? In the form of support to the poor? Bread and other food for wandering kings (David snacked down on holy bread)? Or is it spiritual support, like lifting your spirit? Is the sanctuary the temple, therefore, and Zion, Jerusalem, or is it a heavenly reference?
vs 3
The TNIV removed "Selah". I didn't notice a change in meaning of the psalm.
It's interesting when you think about what this verse is saying - you actually still have to make the offerings and sacrifices. The assumption is that they are acceptable, the prayer is that they are then accepted. "May all your prayers be heard" is an interesting blessing - because it means that you actually have to be praying in the first place.
vs 4
This is just out and out prosperity stuff. Of course, if your desire is for the Lord, and your plans are for his glory, why wouldn't this be true?
vs 5
Again, your victories have to actually be for the purpose of God's glory, otherwise you're not going to lift your banners to him.
The assumption, with banners, is that these are military victories. We have spiritual enemies - do we fight them effectively enough that we feel we have victories over them?
And again there's a repeat for granting requests - probably a poetic repetition.
vs 6
This is the second half of the psalm. So the first half is all jussive requests that God might pour out blessings on you. This is promises that we can be sure of.
So first of all, God does indeed give victory - at least to his anointed, which is David, who is writing. So he might be saying "Just as I can be a witness that God has given me victory, so may he give it to you."
This specifically says heavenly sanctuary, which makes me think vs2 is talking about God in heaven, and strength coming from him. David acknowledges that his victories came from the power of God. May ours do so too.
vs 7
Especially important for Israel, who was not meant to have chariots and horses (at least not too many) because of the fact that they may put too much faith in them. Their faith, like ours, should be in God and his power for our victory. That doesn't mean don't be prepared, it just means know where the power is.
vs 8
Chariots don't have knees, but I'm sort of assuming that he means those who trust in horses and chariots. People like the Egyptians, Philistines etc.
vs 9
This verse, at first, is a little bit of a strain for us. But if we think of Jesus as king, then perhaps it's a good help for us to remember that our desires and requests and plans that we have just asked might all be answered should really be for the victory of Christ over sin and death.
In faith, when we call out in that prayer, we should expect God to answer.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Ruth chapter 4
vs 12
Of course, by that you assume that the women mean, "May you have many offspring", rather than, "May you have a bunch of sordid problems that will make people read back on you and cringe".
vs 13
The (T)NIV has just dispensed with any form of the hebrew and gone for "made love". Sexy. Interestingly, I learned what "go in to her" actually means - and it doesn't mean go into her. It suggests going in to the inner room of the house with her (there's a different hebrew word for going into and coming out of). And that's how idiom is born.
vs 14
The he is most probably not referring to God, although it's darn difficult to tell. Is it referring to Boaz? The answer is no. It is referring to the son who is born, as is most probable from the reference in vs 15.
The loss of the word redeemer is a bit of a shame really. Actually, a lot of a shame. The NIV did best with kinsman-redeemer.
vs 15
"Given him birth"? What crack pipe was the NIV translator smoking that day? And it's been carried over into the T as well. You don't keep translations that sound weird in English, especially for something as simple as "given birth to him" (NASB).
Anyway, this is an important verse, because it is this son who inherits in the name of Elimelech. So essentially, Ruth's son becomes Naomi's son for the purpose of redeeming the name and inheriting the land.
vs 16
The word "nurse" is not wrong, but it leaves us with the possible connotation of wet-nurse, which is improbable, as Naomi herself has said that she is beyond childbearing age. "Guardian" would be a good word to use, but possibly would be confusing what with kinsman redeemers now being guardians.
vs 17
Notice that it was the women who named him Obed (from the root for servant). This was rare indeed. But it shows just how much this story had made an impact on the whole area.
And of course then we know that there's this whole genealogical thing at the end. Instead of looking at that...
vs 18-22
Well, I will just point out that in the Hebrew some of the names are spelt differently depending on what side of the genealogy they're on. Salmon becomes Salma, for example. The NIV has a note for that, but I guess they didn't want to go confusing people, because it's harder to see the link in English - like David and Dave.
Hooray! Now, I just have to wait until 21 November, and no more Hebrew ever again!
Of course, by that you assume that the women mean, "May you have many offspring", rather than, "May you have a bunch of sordid problems that will make people read back on you and cringe".
vs 13
The (T)NIV has just dispensed with any form of the hebrew and gone for "made love". Sexy. Interestingly, I learned what "go in to her" actually means - and it doesn't mean go into her. It suggests going in to the inner room of the house with her (there's a different hebrew word for going into and coming out of). And that's how idiom is born.
vs 14
The he is most probably not referring to God, although it's darn difficult to tell. Is it referring to Boaz? The answer is no. It is referring to the son who is born, as is most probable from the reference in vs 15.
The loss of the word redeemer is a bit of a shame really. Actually, a lot of a shame. The NIV did best with kinsman-redeemer.
vs 15
"Given him birth"? What crack pipe was the NIV translator smoking that day? And it's been carried over into the T as well. You don't keep translations that sound weird in English, especially for something as simple as "given birth to him" (NASB).
Anyway, this is an important verse, because it is this son who inherits in the name of Elimelech. So essentially, Ruth's son becomes Naomi's son for the purpose of redeeming the name and inheriting the land.
vs 16
The word "nurse" is not wrong, but it leaves us with the possible connotation of wet-nurse, which is improbable, as Naomi herself has said that she is beyond childbearing age. "Guardian" would be a good word to use, but possibly would be confusing what with kinsman redeemers now being guardians.
vs 17
Notice that it was the women who named him Obed (from the root for servant). This was rare indeed. But it shows just how much this story had made an impact on the whole area.
And of course then we know that there's this whole genealogical thing at the end. Instead of looking at that...
vs 18-22
Well, I will just point out that in the Hebrew some of the names are spelt differently depending on what side of the genealogy they're on. Salmon becomes Salma, for example. The NIV has a note for that, but I guess they didn't want to go confusing people, because it's harder to see the link in English - like David and Dave.
Hooray! Now, I just have to wait until 21 November, and no more Hebrew ever again!
Monday, November 03, 2008
Ruth chapter 4
vs 1
"My friend" is literally "a certain someone". The suggestion is that their name has been lost to time. This is one of the many ironies of Ruth. The only translation that comes remotely close is KJV. For shame.
I don't know if you had to be an important person to sit at the gates, or whether that's where everyone sat, including important people. But Boaz is there.
vs 2
So now he has witnesses.
vs 3
Such fiddly hebrew for such a simple sentence! Anyway, this whole thing that Boaz says is in very formal language. You might say legal language.
vs 4
While the (T)NIV tries to explain it a bit more, it just leaves this being an even longer verse! What a long verse! The little translation note here is interesting - some people seek to defend that as showing Boaz turning to the audience and speaking - but none of my 4 translations seek that interpretation in their body text.
What's interesting here is that Boaz is offering up first the idea that the land is for sale. This is half true - if Naomi alone had returned, then yes, the land would be for sale and the redeemer guy would have been able to add it to his land holdings - a rare opportunity, to which he readily agrees.
vs 5
But here's the kicker - you get the land, you also get Ruth, and the responsibility to father an heir for the land.
All of a sudden, the deal looks less palatable. But why?
vs 6
The (T)NIV is actually quite weak here. It gets the idea across, sure. But what does "endanger my estate" mean? Also, it completely drops the idea of this redeemer passing on his right to redemption over to Boaz. That's a whole clause that's missing. Perhaps it's not needed for the sake of the flow.
Anyway, why is this so much less attractive? A few ideas have been put forward. Remember, it has to be in the context of his own inheritance future being put in trouble by the appearance of Ruth and the hope for an heir. It could be that he considers his seed of limited potency, and as such he wants to make sure any kids he does have are for his own line, not that of Elimelech. It could be that he was assuming that a son to that line may vie for inheritance of his own family's land. It could be that he had a wife who would hate him for marrying a moabite.
Whatever the reason, he sees this opportunity changing quickly into an obligation, and so he hands over his right to redeem to Boaz. There is a strong sense of irony here - he does not redeem the land (which would now be a more selfless act for the sake of his relative's name and future) because he fears losing his own name. But what happened? We don't even know his name now! His name has been lost, while Boaz and Ruth live on. Ha ha.
vs 7
While this might find its history in the idea of the family of the unsandalled story that we read in Deuteronomy, it doesn't seem to hold the same shame that it does in Deut.
This is one verse where, if I have to pick between the more literal correctness of the KJV, and the more easygoing translation of the (T)NIV, I go with the NIV. It highlights my problem with the KJV. Sure, it's more correct to the Hebrew, but the wording is mangled and hard to understand. The (T)NIV gives you as good an understanding of the situation as you could hope for I think.
vs 8
The transaction done. The shoe's on the other foot now, eh?
How could I let that one go by.
vs 9
Remember the sons? I didn't for a moment, and translating their names was a pain until I remembered they were names.
vs 10
Again, KJV more literally correct, but confusing. TNIV very clear if a little free in its rendering. The NIV has quite a different slant here, talking about town records. I don't know what crackpot that came from.
vs 11
A point here - ALL the translations steer clear of the literal meaning in this verse, and use the term "famous" to gloss over the original idiom. Which I think is good, because the idiom is confusing. But even the KJVers couldn't hack it here.
So not only do the elders and witnesses witness the transaction, but they praise Boaz for his redeeming, and bless him with ideas of fame and social standing. Who said nice guys finish last? He gets the girl, and fame, and all that stuff. It's a movie script, to be sure.
"My friend" is literally "a certain someone". The suggestion is that their name has been lost to time. This is one of the many ironies of Ruth. The only translation that comes remotely close is KJV. For shame.
I don't know if you had to be an important person to sit at the gates, or whether that's where everyone sat, including important people. But Boaz is there.
vs 2
So now he has witnesses.
vs 3
Such fiddly hebrew for such a simple sentence! Anyway, this whole thing that Boaz says is in very formal language. You might say legal language.
vs 4
While the (T)NIV tries to explain it a bit more, it just leaves this being an even longer verse! What a long verse! The little translation note here is interesting - some people seek to defend that as showing Boaz turning to the audience and speaking - but none of my 4 translations seek that interpretation in their body text.
What's interesting here is that Boaz is offering up first the idea that the land is for sale. This is half true - if Naomi alone had returned, then yes, the land would be for sale and the redeemer guy would have been able to add it to his land holdings - a rare opportunity, to which he readily agrees.
vs 5
But here's the kicker - you get the land, you also get Ruth, and the responsibility to father an heir for the land.
All of a sudden, the deal looks less palatable. But why?
vs 6
The (T)NIV is actually quite weak here. It gets the idea across, sure. But what does "endanger my estate" mean? Also, it completely drops the idea of this redeemer passing on his right to redemption over to Boaz. That's a whole clause that's missing. Perhaps it's not needed for the sake of the flow.
Anyway, why is this so much less attractive? A few ideas have been put forward. Remember, it has to be in the context of his own inheritance future being put in trouble by the appearance of Ruth and the hope for an heir. It could be that he considers his seed of limited potency, and as such he wants to make sure any kids he does have are for his own line, not that of Elimelech. It could be that he was assuming that a son to that line may vie for inheritance of his own family's land. It could be that he had a wife who would hate him for marrying a moabite.
Whatever the reason, he sees this opportunity changing quickly into an obligation, and so he hands over his right to redeem to Boaz. There is a strong sense of irony here - he does not redeem the land (which would now be a more selfless act for the sake of his relative's name and future) because he fears losing his own name. But what happened? We don't even know his name now! His name has been lost, while Boaz and Ruth live on. Ha ha.
vs 7
While this might find its history in the idea of the family of the unsandalled story that we read in Deuteronomy, it doesn't seem to hold the same shame that it does in Deut.
This is one verse where, if I have to pick between the more literal correctness of the KJV, and the more easygoing translation of the (T)NIV, I go with the NIV. It highlights my problem with the KJV. Sure, it's more correct to the Hebrew, but the wording is mangled and hard to understand. The (T)NIV gives you as good an understanding of the situation as you could hope for I think.
vs 8
The transaction done. The shoe's on the other foot now, eh?
How could I let that one go by.
vs 9
Remember the sons? I didn't for a moment, and translating their names was a pain until I remembered they were names.
vs 10
Again, KJV more literally correct, but confusing. TNIV very clear if a little free in its rendering. The NIV has quite a different slant here, talking about town records. I don't know what crackpot that came from.
vs 11
A point here - ALL the translations steer clear of the literal meaning in this verse, and use the term "famous" to gloss over the original idiom. Which I think is good, because the idiom is confusing. But even the KJVers couldn't hack it here.
So not only do the elders and witnesses witness the transaction, but they praise Boaz for his redeeming, and bless him with ideas of fame and social standing. Who said nice guys finish last? He gets the girl, and fame, and all that stuff. It's a movie script, to be sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)