vs 10
Instead of boasting about all our sinful desires which separate us from God, we should realise our deficiency and be humble before God. There really is nobody who can be boastful and proud before God. We are to make ourselves low before God, and let him exalt us. Yes, we are children of God! Yes, we are worthy in his site to receive salvation! But everything that we are and have comes from God. And he will exalt us, he will boast about us, he will raise us up - so we don't have to.
vs 11
Speaking against someone doesn't just mean saying something bad about them. The word used is katalaleo, which means to incriminate or traduce. Katalalos means an evil or defaming speaker. So speaking against your fellow Christian isn't just calling them names - it is producing a very serious accusation against either their actions or their character. I am actually considering that these terms are of a legal bent, and that James is saying here that we shouldn't call each other before a court, much like Paul's attitude in I Corinthians. When we make judgements about a Christian's character or actions (assuming that they are living by the "faith visible through works" model that James has already supplied) then we are actually judging God's law which they are abiding by. What a terrible situation, to have Christians judging other Christians for abiding by the law of God? Because when you have a negative opinion of someone because they are following God's law, then you are not keeping God's law, but you are judging his law! You are saying "I don't agree with God's law at this point, and so therefore God must be wrong."
But if they aren't living by the law of God, then I don't think this applies. Not that I think you can go and slander them! But if a Christian really has been negligent in their character or actions, then we might have to report them to some sort of criminal investigation.
vs 12
Thank God that we don't have the power over heaven and hell, because if we did, then a lot of people who act Christian outwardly but are really empty inside would get to heaven, and a lot of people who love Christ but don't act the way we do would perhaps only just scrape in, and there'd be a bunch of people we didn't even know were Christians going to hell.
So we should not put ourselves in a place of judgement. We should fulfil our responsibilities as lawful citizens in reporting criminal activity.
vs 13
This is a fairly typical thing that we would say. I make plans about what I'm going to do all the time.
vs 14
But James says "How can you be sure of any of your plans? How can you be sure there will be a tomorrow, for you or for anyone?" And he's right, we can't be sure. We are like a mist - no one knows how long a mist is going to hang around for. Ok, meteorologists might have an idea, but they're still wrong sometimes. The point being that we're not just like a mist, but even if we survive till we're 102, we're still a bump on a grain of sand in the big egg timer of history.
vs 15
Now this verse created an entire movement for many hundreds of years who would constantly attach the term "DV" to anything and everything they said. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem, of course, is that no-one knows what DV means anymore! I mean I know, and anyone else who walks in Christian circles will probably know, and in reference to this passage you know now. But Do you know what it actually stands for? See if you know before you look it up. I had to look it up.
The point being that if we're going to walk around saying "DV" - some secret little code only understood by Christians - then we may as well not say it at all. And you'll find that when you preface or postface everything you say with it, it also gets meaningless and somewhat annoying too.
But what does the verse actually mean? In the context of verse 13 and of verse 16, I think you'll realise that this is talking about boasting about doing things and gaining things. So don't boast! "Oh, I'm going to go and sell a boat and make my next million dollars." Who cares? And it's not just about making money either. People do it with everything, including Christian mission! "Oh, I'm going to get 100 converts at my next evangelistic crusade." (You know, I can't help but waggle my head in derision even as I type these sentences). Now there is a difference between telling people what you've actually been able to accomplish for God, for the sake of prayer and the encouragement of your fellow Christians. But boasting about what is essentially God's doing is just stupid.
vs 16
Not just stupid, but evil. Certainly it shows a complete derision for the work of God.
vs 17
The NIV leaves out what I think is an important clause here. Now you can still get the gist of it from the NIV, and they probably took it out because it's repetitive. But I think it makes it clearer to leave it in. They left out that "to him it is sin". The idea being that if you know the right thing to do, and you don't do it, then it is sin for you not to have done it. That doesn't necessarily make it sin for other people not to have done it. You are culpable because of your knowledge. And having read this far in James, you're now pretty hella-cuplable.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Saturday, October 21, 2006
James chapter 4
vs 1
Well, at least James answered his own question for us, so we don't have to puzzle over the answer. There is a battle going on inside us, which is being fought by our desires, and it comes out into the world and causes fights and wars.
vs 2
"God" isn't actually in the greek text, and so isn't in the NASB or the KJV. But I think it's implied. This idea is probably being drawn from Jesus' ask, seek, knock.
James says here that all our quarrels and fights, our murders and our wars and jealousy could all be solved if, instead of fighting each other for what we want, we asked God. Of course, those of us in the real world know that this just won't happen, right? Because God's not a cosmic candy-machine, yeah? Actually, what we probably really know is what James is about to say...
vs 3
The reason we fight, quarrel, murder, war, and envy is because of our desires. But it's not as easy as just "asking God instead" and watching all those things go away. We all know that most of the stuff we fight over, and quarrel over, and are envious of, is probably stuff that we're not meant to have. Why do we feel jealous of that new car? Is it because we think that the guy with the new car isn't going to be using it for God, and it's unjust that he should be using it instead of you? Or is it because it's got comfy new seats and looks cool to drive? You know what? Most people don't need new cars at all. Some do - I know some of our missionaries don't have a choice - it's a new Land Rover or it's nothing, simply because of the work they do and where they are. And guess what? God gives it to them. When we moved to Brisbane, we didn't need a new car, but we were going to need one with air-conditioning. And what happened? We got one.
But it's not just about cars. People get upset about where they are in queues, what position they hold in the church, what job they've got, all sorts of things. God is happy to supply us with stuff, and he does so all the time, far more often than we realise it. But we are sometimes so absorbed that we don't even realise that we don't need something, or that we are asking for wrong motives. And to James, those wrong motives are our own pleasures.
vs 4
Wow, these verses (among others) caused those psychotic Exclusive Brethren to basically shut themselves off from the world. They weren't the first of course - monks did it long before. But that sort of attitude to these verses just shows that you're making it say something you want it to say. See, world is the word kosmos, and we simply can't determine it's meaning by looking the word up in a lexicon, because it's used to mean so many things. It's like the word 'bank'. So we look at this word, and we need to say "what context is James using it in?" and then we have to apply one of the meanings this word has. And I can tell you that "technology" is not a definition. But there is a definition that fits in with James' argument from the last few verses. It is this: the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ. Now obviously you can't be a friend to a bunch of goods. So James isn't talking about a certain bunch of goods. He's not saying "You chose friendship with cars, which is hatred toward God". If you think it means specific stuff like that, you misread the definition. It means the concept of these things. And if you are chasing these things instead of chasing God, then you're wanting to be their friend instead of God's friend. How many times do I have to say that money and wealth are the gods of this age? People worship them in very similar ways to the way pagan gods were worshipped.
Now personally I think that shouldn't be translated "world", because it's so confusing. But that's the word James uses, so we just have to do exactly what the greeks did, and determine it's meaning by context.
vs 5
What scripture is that James? I don't know that there's a great deal of agreement, because the greek can be translated several different ways, and none of them exactly represent a quote from Scripture. But the idea is there - that God is jealous for us somehow. He wants to be the first thing in our lives. He wants to dominate our thinking and our actions. And really, when you compare God to all the riches "the world" has to offer, who's more deserving?
vs 6
The 'us' is superfluous, so don't bother trying to work out who 'us' is - it's not in the greek. The greek really just says "But he gives greater grace" (and that's the NASB too).
This verse is confusing to me, but here's my take on it. The idea between verses 5 and 6 is to compare God to us. We, as we learned earlier, are jealous and warlike. God is jealous too, but his jealousy is different to ours. He doesn't fly into a warlike tantrum (can you imagine that? Scary!). Instead, he gives grace. So even though God is jealous for us, he doesn't start fights and quarrels. He instead gives grace. But not universally. Instead, James quotes Proverbs here which tells us, again, about God's value for humility.
vs 7
James then uses the term 'therefore'. So God's grace to the humble, and his preparedness to give us what we ask for if we're asking for the right things should be enough to persuade us to submit, or subject ourselves to God. Our opposition should not be to God, but to Satan. And if we oppose him, he'll flee. So I guess Satan only likes easy pickings.
vs 8
I've been quoting this verse a fair bit lately, because I've noticed that, over the years, people have been making negative comments about people (usually young people) praying for things like the "closeness of God" or for God to "draw near to someone". Their argument has been "God is within you as the Holy Spirit, so you don't need to pray that prayer". Sounds logical right? But they are forgetting the fact that sometimes it can feel like God is far away. To use the old sunday school cliche, God never leaves us, it's us who leaves God. But regardless of who's at fault, we all know that if we can feel the presense of God more keenly, it's better and preferable. So hence people pray that prayer. The point is that there is nothing wrong with desiring a closeness with God.
But we can't just draw near to God. God is holy. We also need to wash out hands (remember what I said about hands? About cheir?) So we need to keep our actions clean. But we must also to purify our hearts. Because God doesn't care just about our actions - he wants our hearts to be purified too. That does not mean God wants you doing regular cardio exercise. He may or may not, but that's not the purpose of this verse. He wants a cleansing of our spiritual life (because the heart is the seat of life). Notice that it is sinners and the double-minded (literally "two-souled") that need to do these things. Now James isn't saying that we can wash away our sins or anything like that. He's just saying that we need to clean up our act and our motivation.
vs 9
These are things that people did when they thought the hand of the Lord was against them. The whole sackcloth and ashes. We just do not do this anymore! Now even though this stuff was mostly tradition and ritual, it still symbolised that we were greived that we had upset God. That's why they would make themselves out to be mourning as if someone had died - because that's how much they wanted to show that they were upset for upsetting God. See, James is telling us to confront our sinfulness and our impurity of motive, our two-mindedness. When we confront it, we should see just how off-the-tracks we are, and that should cause us to mourn and grieve.
We don't do nearly enough of this. Well, perhaps everyone else does and I don't, but you know what, I think we've inherited a Christian culture that is far too geared to God's forgiveness, and not nearly enough towards his purity. That's why we've got young Christians who can become Christians without cost, especially if they're from a Christian family. It's only when you realise the exacting standards that God expects that you realise just how much scum you are. This whole experience should really bring us humbly before God, put us in our place.
Well, at least James answered his own question for us, so we don't have to puzzle over the answer. There is a battle going on inside us, which is being fought by our desires, and it comes out into the world and causes fights and wars.
vs 2
"God" isn't actually in the greek text, and so isn't in the NASB or the KJV. But I think it's implied. This idea is probably being drawn from Jesus' ask, seek, knock.
James says here that all our quarrels and fights, our murders and our wars and jealousy could all be solved if, instead of fighting each other for what we want, we asked God. Of course, those of us in the real world know that this just won't happen, right? Because God's not a cosmic candy-machine, yeah? Actually, what we probably really know is what James is about to say...
vs 3
The reason we fight, quarrel, murder, war, and envy is because of our desires. But it's not as easy as just "asking God instead" and watching all those things go away. We all know that most of the stuff we fight over, and quarrel over, and are envious of, is probably stuff that we're not meant to have. Why do we feel jealous of that new car? Is it because we think that the guy with the new car isn't going to be using it for God, and it's unjust that he should be using it instead of you? Or is it because it's got comfy new seats and looks cool to drive? You know what? Most people don't need new cars at all. Some do - I know some of our missionaries don't have a choice - it's a new Land Rover or it's nothing, simply because of the work they do and where they are. And guess what? God gives it to them. When we moved to Brisbane, we didn't need a new car, but we were going to need one with air-conditioning. And what happened? We got one.
But it's not just about cars. People get upset about where they are in queues, what position they hold in the church, what job they've got, all sorts of things. God is happy to supply us with stuff, and he does so all the time, far more often than we realise it. But we are sometimes so absorbed that we don't even realise that we don't need something, or that we are asking for wrong motives. And to James, those wrong motives are our own pleasures.
vs 4
Wow, these verses (among others) caused those psychotic Exclusive Brethren to basically shut themselves off from the world. They weren't the first of course - monks did it long before. But that sort of attitude to these verses just shows that you're making it say something you want it to say. See, world is the word kosmos, and we simply can't determine it's meaning by looking the word up in a lexicon, because it's used to mean so many things. It's like the word 'bank'. So we look at this word, and we need to say "what context is James using it in?" and then we have to apply one of the meanings this word has. And I can tell you that "technology" is not a definition. But there is a definition that fits in with James' argument from the last few verses. It is this: the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ. Now obviously you can't be a friend to a bunch of goods. So James isn't talking about a certain bunch of goods. He's not saying "You chose friendship with cars, which is hatred toward God". If you think it means specific stuff like that, you misread the definition. It means the concept of these things. And if you are chasing these things instead of chasing God, then you're wanting to be their friend instead of God's friend. How many times do I have to say that money and wealth are the gods of this age? People worship them in very similar ways to the way pagan gods were worshipped.
Now personally I think that shouldn't be translated "world", because it's so confusing. But that's the word James uses, so we just have to do exactly what the greeks did, and determine it's meaning by context.
vs 5
What scripture is that James? I don't know that there's a great deal of agreement, because the greek can be translated several different ways, and none of them exactly represent a quote from Scripture. But the idea is there - that God is jealous for us somehow. He wants to be the first thing in our lives. He wants to dominate our thinking and our actions. And really, when you compare God to all the riches "the world" has to offer, who's more deserving?
vs 6
The 'us' is superfluous, so don't bother trying to work out who 'us' is - it's not in the greek. The greek really just says "But he gives greater grace" (and that's the NASB too).
This verse is confusing to me, but here's my take on it. The idea between verses 5 and 6 is to compare God to us. We, as we learned earlier, are jealous and warlike. God is jealous too, but his jealousy is different to ours. He doesn't fly into a warlike tantrum (can you imagine that? Scary!). Instead, he gives grace. So even though God is jealous for us, he doesn't start fights and quarrels. He instead gives grace. But not universally. Instead, James quotes Proverbs here which tells us, again, about God's value for humility.
vs 7
James then uses the term 'therefore'. So God's grace to the humble, and his preparedness to give us what we ask for if we're asking for the right things should be enough to persuade us to submit, or subject ourselves to God. Our opposition should not be to God, but to Satan. And if we oppose him, he'll flee. So I guess Satan only likes easy pickings.
vs 8
I've been quoting this verse a fair bit lately, because I've noticed that, over the years, people have been making negative comments about people (usually young people) praying for things like the "closeness of God" or for God to "draw near to someone". Their argument has been "God is within you as the Holy Spirit, so you don't need to pray that prayer". Sounds logical right? But they are forgetting the fact that sometimes it can feel like God is far away. To use the old sunday school cliche, God never leaves us, it's us who leaves God. But regardless of who's at fault, we all know that if we can feel the presense of God more keenly, it's better and preferable. So hence people pray that prayer. The point is that there is nothing wrong with desiring a closeness with God.
But we can't just draw near to God. God is holy. We also need to wash out hands (remember what I said about hands? About cheir?) So we need to keep our actions clean. But we must also to purify our hearts. Because God doesn't care just about our actions - he wants our hearts to be purified too. That does not mean God wants you doing regular cardio exercise. He may or may not, but that's not the purpose of this verse. He wants a cleansing of our spiritual life (because the heart is the seat of life). Notice that it is sinners and the double-minded (literally "two-souled") that need to do these things. Now James isn't saying that we can wash away our sins or anything like that. He's just saying that we need to clean up our act and our motivation.
vs 9
These are things that people did when they thought the hand of the Lord was against them. The whole sackcloth and ashes. We just do not do this anymore! Now even though this stuff was mostly tradition and ritual, it still symbolised that we were greived that we had upset God. That's why they would make themselves out to be mourning as if someone had died - because that's how much they wanted to show that they were upset for upsetting God. See, James is telling us to confront our sinfulness and our impurity of motive, our two-mindedness. When we confront it, we should see just how off-the-tracks we are, and that should cause us to mourn and grieve.
We don't do nearly enough of this. Well, perhaps everyone else does and I don't, but you know what, I think we've inherited a Christian culture that is far too geared to God's forgiveness, and not nearly enough towards his purity. That's why we've got young Christians who can become Christians without cost, especially if they're from a Christian family. It's only when you realise the exacting standards that God expects that you realise just how much scum you are. This whole experience should really bring us humbly before God, put us in our place.
Friday, October 20, 2006
James Chapter 3
vs 10
Once again, it is hypocrisy as much as lack of love which makes this attitude and action so wrong. Although James is using the lack of love as the purpose of the statement, he uses the hypocritical nature of the situation to bring our sense of disgust to it.
vs 11-12
The answer is no. And don't give me some complicated science mumbo-jumbo, because James says the answer is no at the end of verse 12. If you're wheedling around trying to work out how to make this say yes, then I pity you, because it means you don't understand analogy and therefore you only have half a brain and are quite possibly some sort of poorly programmed robot.
vs 13
Once more, there is a need for something which is often invisible (wisdom and understanding) to be visible for our sakes. In this situation, James suggests that the most important action to come out of wisdom is humility. The greek literally says "a wise meekness". I am told this is using the genitive of quality. So good conduct and a wisely humble character will show your true wisdom and understanding.
vs 14
You shouldn't be proud of being bitterly jealous. I can't imagine someone boasting about that. But I can imagine someone denying the truth because of it. There are some people out there who will just go and do the opposite thing, or not do the good thing, simply because they've been told to do it, so it no longer seems like they chose to do it. James says no!
Then there are people who boast about their selfish ambition. This word in greek, eritheia, particularly denotes those who seek pursuit of political office by unfair means (it's used that way in Aristotle, and isn't really used apart from the NT). So I think selfish ambition is a good translation. It certainly helps me keep in focus that while ambition is good, if it is ambition for purely selfish reasons, then it's not good at all.
vs 15
I like James' picture of the wisdom coming down from on high, only for him to say that it doesn't really. Instead, it almost seeps out of the ground and wets your shoes with a sticky demonic goo. Bitter envy and selfish ambition are two building blocks that western society is absolutely built on. The envy is what makes you want to buy stuff - the old "keeping up with the Jones's" that advertising works so hard to make you think you need - and the selfish ambition is the "it's all about you" culture that tells you it's ok to want all the stuff those other people have.
Look, this isn't new, and I'm not harping on capitalism as if it's the devil. But it is - just no more than any other society. Since time immemorial, what social class has dictated how things get done? The rich? And through what means? Envy and selfish ambition. Why do we all spend so many tens of thousands of dollars on a wedding? Because it's what everyone else does! And do you know why they do it? Because during a time when there was a rich class and a poor class, the rich would have these outlandish weddings, and the poor would say "I wish I was rich (envy), so I want to have as big a wedding as I can so I can be more like them (selfish ambition)".
But James is saying here that these are not wisdom from God. They are of Satan. So we just cannot afford as churches or as individual Christians to get sucked into the capitalist culture.
vs 16
Is the message clear yet? These things, these building blocks of an anti-God society, they lead to disorder and evil. And we might think that western countries with their immense riches are well ordered, but that is an earthly, natural order, a "survival of the fittest" order. That is not God's way! So they are in disorder with respect to God. The word phaulos (translated 'evil') literally means ordinary or worthless, and from there has obviously come to mean ethically bad or wicked. So at the very best, these things lead to worthless practice and disorder amongst the way things are meant to be. And people wonder why they are so unhappy.
vs 17
Can you even imagine a society where these things were the building blocks of society? A society which first and foremost was based on purity? For one thing, that means sex would no longer sell. Peace-loving? It would mean that relationships would be more important that profits. Considerate? It would mean that people and how things affect them would actually be taken into account, and there would no longer be any such thing as "collateral damage". Submissive? It would mean people would be prepared to do the job they are doing at the present, and not backstab people or put them down in order to walk on their bodies to get to the top job. Full of mercy? It would mean that forgiveness and compassion would reign. Good fruit? I think that is the obvious result of such a society - but here we are talking about a building block - so what we mean is a society where the impact something is going to have on someone is measured by how much it will help them grow and how productive it will help them be, as well as how productive it will be, and ensuring that the outcomes will be positive. I prefer the NASB translation of "unwavering" for the next word (adiakritos is the negative form of 'unintelligible', and so the idea is that it is 'without uncertanity') - so it's a society where we make sure people understand and are sure of what they believe. Finally, it is sincere (NIV better than the NASB of 'without hypocrisy"). So it's a society where all this stuff isn't just a veneer covering the true state of horror and vileness (that is what our current society is, by the way), but a society where the power of your conviction is as important to that society as the job you do.
Sounds nice to me.
vs 18
This verse is why I love the NIV. The NASB reads "And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace." Yeah, ok, that is probably closer to the order in which the greek words are (the greek reads literally "And [the] fruit of righteousness in peace is sown for the [ones] making peace" but should be read "is sown in peace"). But that is so much more difficult to read than the NIV. The NIV says the exact same thing, but says it in a much prettier way.
Anyway, what does it mean? It means that those people, the peacemakers, who are seeking to plant the seed of peace, will themselves be considered righteous. To break that right down, "pecemaking is the right thing to do". Or if you want to sound hella-spiritual, "peacemaking is the thing to do if you want God to think you're in the right".
Once again, it is hypocrisy as much as lack of love which makes this attitude and action so wrong. Although James is using the lack of love as the purpose of the statement, he uses the hypocritical nature of the situation to bring our sense of disgust to it.
vs 11-12
The answer is no. And don't give me some complicated science mumbo-jumbo, because James says the answer is no at the end of verse 12. If you're wheedling around trying to work out how to make this say yes, then I pity you, because it means you don't understand analogy and therefore you only have half a brain and are quite possibly some sort of poorly programmed robot.
vs 13
Once more, there is a need for something which is often invisible (wisdom and understanding) to be visible for our sakes. In this situation, James suggests that the most important action to come out of wisdom is humility. The greek literally says "a wise meekness". I am told this is using the genitive of quality. So good conduct and a wisely humble character will show your true wisdom and understanding.
vs 14
You shouldn't be proud of being bitterly jealous. I can't imagine someone boasting about that. But I can imagine someone denying the truth because of it. There are some people out there who will just go and do the opposite thing, or not do the good thing, simply because they've been told to do it, so it no longer seems like they chose to do it. James says no!
Then there are people who boast about their selfish ambition. This word in greek, eritheia, particularly denotes those who seek pursuit of political office by unfair means (it's used that way in Aristotle, and isn't really used apart from the NT). So I think selfish ambition is a good translation. It certainly helps me keep in focus that while ambition is good, if it is ambition for purely selfish reasons, then it's not good at all.
vs 15
I like James' picture of the wisdom coming down from on high, only for him to say that it doesn't really. Instead, it almost seeps out of the ground and wets your shoes with a sticky demonic goo. Bitter envy and selfish ambition are two building blocks that western society is absolutely built on. The envy is what makes you want to buy stuff - the old "keeping up with the Jones's" that advertising works so hard to make you think you need - and the selfish ambition is the "it's all about you" culture that tells you it's ok to want all the stuff those other people have.
Look, this isn't new, and I'm not harping on capitalism as if it's the devil. But it is - just no more than any other society. Since time immemorial, what social class has dictated how things get done? The rich? And through what means? Envy and selfish ambition. Why do we all spend so many tens of thousands of dollars on a wedding? Because it's what everyone else does! And do you know why they do it? Because during a time when there was a rich class and a poor class, the rich would have these outlandish weddings, and the poor would say "I wish I was rich (envy), so I want to have as big a wedding as I can so I can be more like them (selfish ambition)".
But James is saying here that these are not wisdom from God. They are of Satan. So we just cannot afford as churches or as individual Christians to get sucked into the capitalist culture.
vs 16
Is the message clear yet? These things, these building blocks of an anti-God society, they lead to disorder and evil. And we might think that western countries with their immense riches are well ordered, but that is an earthly, natural order, a "survival of the fittest" order. That is not God's way! So they are in disorder with respect to God. The word phaulos (translated 'evil') literally means ordinary or worthless, and from there has obviously come to mean ethically bad or wicked. So at the very best, these things lead to worthless practice and disorder amongst the way things are meant to be. And people wonder why they are so unhappy.
vs 17
Can you even imagine a society where these things were the building blocks of society? A society which first and foremost was based on purity? For one thing, that means sex would no longer sell. Peace-loving? It would mean that relationships would be more important that profits. Considerate? It would mean that people and how things affect them would actually be taken into account, and there would no longer be any such thing as "collateral damage". Submissive? It would mean people would be prepared to do the job they are doing at the present, and not backstab people or put them down in order to walk on their bodies to get to the top job. Full of mercy? It would mean that forgiveness and compassion would reign. Good fruit? I think that is the obvious result of such a society - but here we are talking about a building block - so what we mean is a society where the impact something is going to have on someone is measured by how much it will help them grow and how productive it will help them be, as well as how productive it will be, and ensuring that the outcomes will be positive. I prefer the NASB translation of "unwavering" for the next word (adiakritos is the negative form of 'unintelligible', and so the idea is that it is 'without uncertanity') - so it's a society where we make sure people understand and are sure of what they believe. Finally, it is sincere (NIV better than the NASB of 'without hypocrisy"). So it's a society where all this stuff isn't just a veneer covering the true state of horror and vileness (that is what our current society is, by the way), but a society where the power of your conviction is as important to that society as the job you do.
Sounds nice to me.
vs 18
This verse is why I love the NIV. The NASB reads "And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace." Yeah, ok, that is probably closer to the order in which the greek words are (the greek reads literally "And [the] fruit of righteousness in peace is sown for the [ones] making peace" but should be read "is sown in peace"). But that is so much more difficult to read than the NIV. The NIV says the exact same thing, but says it in a much prettier way.
Anyway, what does it mean? It means that those people, the peacemakers, who are seeking to plant the seed of peace, will themselves be considered righteous. To break that right down, "pecemaking is the right thing to do". Or if you want to sound hella-spiritual, "peacemaking is the thing to do if you want God to think you're in the right".
Thursday, October 19, 2006
James chapter 3
vs 1
Isn't it wonderful to know that those of us who are responsible for others' growth will be condemned all the more harshly if we do our job wrong. But really, the idea of people being judged based on their individual situation is very much a just thing to do, as well as merciful. See, our society constantly feeds us with the absolute baloney that "all people are created equal", that there's a "level playing field" and that we have "equal opportunity". I'm sorry, but that's garbage. Anyone who was born to a single parent, or who was born into an Aboriginal context, can tell you that it's not the same as being born into the family of successful millionares. Anyone who was born with a disability can tell you it's not a "level playing field" with someone who has full use of their body. Anyone who was born in Sierra Leone can tell you that it's not the same as being born in Australia. The world exists with a natural inequality. So God does the righteous, just and merciful thing of judging us individually dependant on our situations. For more in this, read CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity" as he has an excellent chapter on this.
vs 2
Don't get tied up in this verse thinking that it is talking about sinless perfection. To use a modern idiom, James is saying that the tongue is a window to the soul. After all, he says at the beginning of this verse that we all stumble in many ways! So controlling one of them isn't going to make you sinlessly perfect. But what he's talking about here is an efficiency - barring other factors, if you can control your tongue, the rest of your body should follow suit.
Remember what he is saying here, because it becomes very important later on when comparing words and action.
vs 3-4
Two more good illustrations from James to make his point. This must make James really hard to preach from! He's already done all the work for you, which would make it repetitive and hard to put your own spin on things. But positively, it makes it easier to read personally, which suggests its "Christian handbook" type role.
vs 5
Small things can be powerful. Bullets have power way beyond their size, but of course James didn't have any. He did have fire though, which is another great example.
vs 6
Woah James! You make it sound like we should rip these things out and bury them or something! Gee, I wonder where the monks got their idea for vows of silence? But the point he is making is this - if your tongue does something wrong, that wrong thing affects your whole body. And that means that if your tongue is doing something which is worthy of hell, then that doesn't mean you just won't be whistling in heaven - it means that your whole body will be in hell, tongue first.
vs 7-8
So earlier, James says that if we could tame our tongues, we could be perfect. But now he says that's impossible. You might be able to tame an Orca or a parrot, but not a tongue. James really hates tongues (not glossolalia) it would seem, and he's certainly making good on his words earlier that teachers will be judged more harshly. It is full of a "poison of death-dealing", which sounds like some magical D&D poison. So, why is the tongue so evil?
vs 9
Because it is capable of doing the work of God and the work of the devil, and right next to each other! There's certainly nothing wrong with praising God, but there is something wrong with cursing (kataraomai which is like praying, but praying that people will be cursed) other humans! Methinks James might have been on the receiving end of a bit of a tongue-lashing, and he's taking some vengance here. Worse yet, perhaps he has heard that these people are praying to God for other people's destruction.
Isn't it wonderful to know that those of us who are responsible for others' growth will be condemned all the more harshly if we do our job wrong. But really, the idea of people being judged based on their individual situation is very much a just thing to do, as well as merciful. See, our society constantly feeds us with the absolute baloney that "all people are created equal", that there's a "level playing field" and that we have "equal opportunity". I'm sorry, but that's garbage. Anyone who was born to a single parent, or who was born into an Aboriginal context, can tell you that it's not the same as being born into the family of successful millionares. Anyone who was born with a disability can tell you it's not a "level playing field" with someone who has full use of their body. Anyone who was born in Sierra Leone can tell you that it's not the same as being born in Australia. The world exists with a natural inequality. So God does the righteous, just and merciful thing of judging us individually dependant on our situations. For more in this, read CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity" as he has an excellent chapter on this.
vs 2
Don't get tied up in this verse thinking that it is talking about sinless perfection. To use a modern idiom, James is saying that the tongue is a window to the soul. After all, he says at the beginning of this verse that we all stumble in many ways! So controlling one of them isn't going to make you sinlessly perfect. But what he's talking about here is an efficiency - barring other factors, if you can control your tongue, the rest of your body should follow suit.
Remember what he is saying here, because it becomes very important later on when comparing words and action.
vs 3-4
Two more good illustrations from James to make his point. This must make James really hard to preach from! He's already done all the work for you, which would make it repetitive and hard to put your own spin on things. But positively, it makes it easier to read personally, which suggests its "Christian handbook" type role.
vs 5
Small things can be powerful. Bullets have power way beyond their size, but of course James didn't have any. He did have fire though, which is another great example.
vs 6
Woah James! You make it sound like we should rip these things out and bury them or something! Gee, I wonder where the monks got their idea for vows of silence? But the point he is making is this - if your tongue does something wrong, that wrong thing affects your whole body. And that means that if your tongue is doing something which is worthy of hell, then that doesn't mean you just won't be whistling in heaven - it means that your whole body will be in hell, tongue first.
vs 7-8
So earlier, James says that if we could tame our tongues, we could be perfect. But now he says that's impossible. You might be able to tame an Orca or a parrot, but not a tongue. James really hates tongues (not glossolalia) it would seem, and he's certainly making good on his words earlier that teachers will be judged more harshly. It is full of a "poison of death-dealing", which sounds like some magical D&D poison. So, why is the tongue so evil?
vs 9
Because it is capable of doing the work of God and the work of the devil, and right next to each other! There's certainly nothing wrong with praising God, but there is something wrong with cursing (kataraomai which is like praying, but praying that people will be cursed) other humans! Methinks James might have been on the receiving end of a bit of a tongue-lashing, and he's taking some vengance here. Worse yet, perhaps he has heard that these people are praying to God for other people's destruction.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
James Chapter 2
vs 18
This is a great one-sentence pharse which shows the fruitlessness of faith without good works. Interestingly, the NASB (and to a lesser extent the KJV, which doesn't use quote marks) give the sentence different emphasis by treating the whole thing as one sentence - that is, as if someone will say the whole thing, not just the first bit. Of course, ancient greek doesn't have punctuation like quote marks, so it's hard to tell where they end. John chapter 3 has the same problem. I think it makes easier sense if you read the whole thing as a saying. That means James is suggesting "All you have is faith (invisible), while I have faith and works (visible). So show me your faith (you can't, because you can't see faith), and I'll show you my works which point to my faith."
vs 19
James here is widening the depths of his definition of faith. Faith is not just "to believe". Belief in God was such a pitiful, childish first step back then. Everyone believed in God. It was alomst a fait accompli. Nowadays we have trouble even getting people to admit that God exists. But simple belief in the existance of God is not enough. Faith must do more than convince you - it must convict you. That is, it must do more than just give you an intellectual stimulus which convinces you of the truth of the argument. It must convict you that this truth requires action, and you must then go and take that action. You're not a rich man if you've got a map which shows an x marking the spot. You're only a rich man when you dig up the gold bullion.
vs 20
It would seem that someone needs yet more evidence, so James will continue to blast away.
vs 21
What an interesting argument. Paul uses the exact same person, Abraham, and the exact same situation, but this time to prove that we are justified by faith alone. Check out Romans 4 for more info.
So James' argument is that Abraham had faith, but he was considered righteous because that faith sprung into action.
vs 22
Faith is completed by action is James' argument. So note that James is not just saying that a complete faith becomes visible through action. There is more to it than that. James is actually stating here that faith is perfected (greek word teleioo) by the actions you take. When looking at that statement in terms of a "justification by faith" doctrine, we must ask, I guess, how much faith is required to be saved, and how much perfecting does a faith need for salvation? Justification comes later...
vs 23
So to complete his tale, James quotes the same pasasge as Paul, that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. This passage is a much stronger argument for Paul than it is for James, if the two were contradictory. After all, Paul's argument of "justification by faith" is proved far easier than James' "perfection of faith by works" because the verse they both quote comes before Abraham has done anything special - certainly before the sacrificing of Isaac!
But notice that James says that this scripture was fulfilled - so he sees it as a prophecy that was completed once Abraham's faith had been tested as genuine.
vs 24
And so James states finally that it is action as well as faith that justifies. Now we're struggling through contradictory territory. How do we reconcile this with Paul's theology? Before this verse, we could argue that James is talking about the progressive sanctification of the believer, and that this happens (at least partly) through our actions. But now, he has out and out said that justification, the one off work that sets us up as a non-guilty party, is accomplished by works as well as faith. What do we do?!?!?!
Sorry about all the punctuation - there's not many times for excitement and buildup in Bible study. This entire argument can be settled by looking again at that great verse, verse 18. This is the framing verse around which this whole argument takes place. So what does that mean? It means that when James is talking about the justification of faith, he is talking about it in regards to its justification by people around you, not in reference to God.
"But what about Abraham and the example James uses?!" I hear you cry. Interrobang. Well, if what you are saying is that God could not have credited Abraham with righteousness until he knew that Abraham's faith was genuine by taking action (in this case, preparing his son for sacrifice), then I want you to look at your argument, and look at the fundamental flaw in it.
Look hard. Is it obvious? Here it is - if you are saying what I just said above, then you are saying that GOD doesn't know if Abraham's faith is genuine unless Abraham proves it first. That is, GOD (we're talking abot that all powerful, all knowing being, that God) doesn't know what Abraham is going to do, and can't look into his heart and see if he's really faithful or not. Is it just me, or does that sound stupid?
Ok, you say, then why did Abraham have to "prove it" with his actions? Good question, why don't you think about it a bit. "I'm trying Ben, but you're just too smart for me. Please give me the answer!" Ok then, but I actually gave you the answer above. God forced Abraham to take action to justify his faith before men. Probably primarily before Abraham himself! Once he had been there, with the knife in his hand, he knew that he really was faithful to God. And when we read about that story, we have no doubts. If God had just said "I have read your heart, and I know you're faithful, so now I'll make you a huge nation" we'd really wonder, wouldn't we?
It's the same thing here. We are justified before God by our faith which only he can see. But us poor saps of humans can't see that faith. We can only see action. We can only see baptism, hear words of confession, see people's regular church attendance, see their help to the poor and needy. If we could see people's faith, say as a bright shining light eminating from them, then we'd probably be quite surprised - but think about it: you'd probably only notice the people who do all the action all the more, instead of noticing those who do nothing. That is what James is saying.
vs 25
So here we see James' argument. Rahab was considered righteous. By who? By God? No, God doesn't consider people righteous - he knows whether they are righteous or not. Now I will point out that there's no word in the greek that suggests "considered". But the question as it is posed I think still gives the same answer. She was justified by her works in protecting the spies. And the people of Israel accepted her into the Israeli nation! She had proven to them, not God, that she was faithful. You see, people of great faith wouldn't be very good role models to us if they didn't do anything. Faith inspires action and is perfected by action for our benefit! Not to try and keep us out of heaven, but to show us "Hey look! There's a person of such great faith that they did something! I wish I could be like them!".
vs 26
And indeed we do need to be like them. Because without the constant prompting of action to show our faith as genuine, even we ourselves would dry up and fade away from the Christian walk. Interesting thought, no?
This is a great one-sentence pharse which shows the fruitlessness of faith without good works. Interestingly, the NASB (and to a lesser extent the KJV, which doesn't use quote marks) give the sentence different emphasis by treating the whole thing as one sentence - that is, as if someone will say the whole thing, not just the first bit. Of course, ancient greek doesn't have punctuation like quote marks, so it's hard to tell where they end. John chapter 3 has the same problem. I think it makes easier sense if you read the whole thing as a saying. That means James is suggesting "All you have is faith (invisible), while I have faith and works (visible). So show me your faith (you can't, because you can't see faith), and I'll show you my works which point to my faith."
vs 19
James here is widening the depths of his definition of faith. Faith is not just "to believe". Belief in God was such a pitiful, childish first step back then. Everyone believed in God. It was alomst a fait accompli. Nowadays we have trouble even getting people to admit that God exists. But simple belief in the existance of God is not enough. Faith must do more than convince you - it must convict you. That is, it must do more than just give you an intellectual stimulus which convinces you of the truth of the argument. It must convict you that this truth requires action, and you must then go and take that action. You're not a rich man if you've got a map which shows an x marking the spot. You're only a rich man when you dig up the gold bullion.
vs 20
It would seem that someone needs yet more evidence, so James will continue to blast away.
vs 21
What an interesting argument. Paul uses the exact same person, Abraham, and the exact same situation, but this time to prove that we are justified by faith alone. Check out Romans 4 for more info.
So James' argument is that Abraham had faith, but he was considered righteous because that faith sprung into action.
vs 22
Faith is completed by action is James' argument. So note that James is not just saying that a complete faith becomes visible through action. There is more to it than that. James is actually stating here that faith is perfected (greek word teleioo) by the actions you take. When looking at that statement in terms of a "justification by faith" doctrine, we must ask, I guess, how much faith is required to be saved, and how much perfecting does a faith need for salvation? Justification comes later...
vs 23
So to complete his tale, James quotes the same pasasge as Paul, that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. This passage is a much stronger argument for Paul than it is for James, if the two were contradictory. After all, Paul's argument of "justification by faith" is proved far easier than James' "perfection of faith by works" because the verse they both quote comes before Abraham has done anything special - certainly before the sacrificing of Isaac!
But notice that James says that this scripture was fulfilled - so he sees it as a prophecy that was completed once Abraham's faith had been tested as genuine.
vs 24
And so James states finally that it is action as well as faith that justifies. Now we're struggling through contradictory territory. How do we reconcile this with Paul's theology? Before this verse, we could argue that James is talking about the progressive sanctification of the believer, and that this happens (at least partly) through our actions. But now, he has out and out said that justification, the one off work that sets us up as a non-guilty party, is accomplished by works as well as faith. What do we do?!?!?!
Sorry about all the punctuation - there's not many times for excitement and buildup in Bible study. This entire argument can be settled by looking again at that great verse, verse 18. This is the framing verse around which this whole argument takes place. So what does that mean? It means that when James is talking about the justification of faith, he is talking about it in regards to its justification by people around you, not in reference to God.
"But what about Abraham and the example James uses?!" I hear you cry. Interrobang. Well, if what you are saying is that God could not have credited Abraham with righteousness until he knew that Abraham's faith was genuine by taking action (in this case, preparing his son for sacrifice), then I want you to look at your argument, and look at the fundamental flaw in it.
Look hard. Is it obvious? Here it is - if you are saying what I just said above, then you are saying that GOD doesn't know if Abraham's faith is genuine unless Abraham proves it first. That is, GOD (we're talking abot that all powerful, all knowing being, that God) doesn't know what Abraham is going to do, and can't look into his heart and see if he's really faithful or not. Is it just me, or does that sound stupid?
Ok, you say, then why did Abraham have to "prove it" with his actions? Good question, why don't you think about it a bit. "I'm trying Ben, but you're just too smart for me. Please give me the answer!" Ok then, but I actually gave you the answer above. God forced Abraham to take action to justify his faith before men. Probably primarily before Abraham himself! Once he had been there, with the knife in his hand, he knew that he really was faithful to God. And when we read about that story, we have no doubts. If God had just said "I have read your heart, and I know you're faithful, so now I'll make you a huge nation" we'd really wonder, wouldn't we?
It's the same thing here. We are justified before God by our faith which only he can see. But us poor saps of humans can't see that faith. We can only see action. We can only see baptism, hear words of confession, see people's regular church attendance, see their help to the poor and needy. If we could see people's faith, say as a bright shining light eminating from them, then we'd probably be quite surprised - but think about it: you'd probably only notice the people who do all the action all the more, instead of noticing those who do nothing. That is what James is saying.
vs 25
So here we see James' argument. Rahab was considered righteous. By who? By God? No, God doesn't consider people righteous - he knows whether they are righteous or not. Now I will point out that there's no word in the greek that suggests "considered". But the question as it is posed I think still gives the same answer. She was justified by her works in protecting the spies. And the people of Israel accepted her into the Israeli nation! She had proven to them, not God, that she was faithful. You see, people of great faith wouldn't be very good role models to us if they didn't do anything. Faith inspires action and is perfected by action for our benefit! Not to try and keep us out of heaven, but to show us "Hey look! There's a person of such great faith that they did something! I wish I could be like them!".
vs 26
And indeed we do need to be like them. Because without the constant prompting of action to show our faith as genuine, even we ourselves would dry up and fade away from the Christian walk. Interesting thought, no?
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
James Chapter 2
vs 10
This is the necessity of justice in law - that anyone who transgresses must be treated as a transgressor, no matter what their transgression was. This doesn't mean that people aren't punished differently (the OT law punishes everyone differently depending on their crime) but it means treating everyone who is a transgressor the same - as a criminal. Which means in the end, everybody dies.
vs 11
An illustration of the above.
vs 12-13
Even though these verses are a long way from home, they are still relating to the idea of not showing favourtism. There is a judgement that is coming to Christians. They will be judged, not by the law on sin and death which reigned throughout the Mosaic covenant, but by the law of freedom, which is the fulfilment of the old law in Christ. But it is still a law! You will still be either a lawkeeper or a lawbreaker. The difference is that does not determine how you are treated. What determines how you are treated is how you treated people. So if you are a lawbreaker, but you are merciful, then mercy will be shown to you. But whether you are a lawkeeper or a lawbreaker, if you are not merciful, then when judgement comes, it will come without mercy.
Mercy comes out of love, and this is why James brings up the commandment to "love your neighbour".
vs 14
What controversy these verses caused to Martin Luther! He hated them! It is these verses that caused him to call James "an epistle of straw". But I fear he was being a touch eisegetical, as if James were a Pope of the Roman Catholic church or something. But he wasn't. He was Jesus' brother, and as such his book was included in the canon, and as such we've got to respect it like all the other books, even Luther's beloved book of Romans.
The fact is that we are saved by faith alone. There's no contradiction between James and Romans. James is calling into question, as does John in his epistles, the worthiness of the faith of someone who proclaims they have faith, but it is not evidenced in their life. James knows, as do we in our cosmopolitan society, that there are many kinds of faiths - in his time, people had faith in statues, they had faith in the emperor, they even had faith that God would send his Messiah (even though he'd already come). But a misplaced faith is just as useless as a misplaced power cord - without a socket, it doesn't do anything.
To drag that analogy out a bit more, if you say you have faith (that you're "plugged in") but your lights aren't on and you don't go vroom vroom, then there's a pretty good chance that you're not actually plugged into the right thing.
But it's not just that you might be drawing power and not using it. To use a better analogy, say you see two guys on fire. One is running around screaming "Oh my God help me! I'm on fire! I'M ON FIRE DAMN IT, PUT ME OUT!". The other one is doing his shopping, picking what canned vegetables he wants, smelling some mushrooms, chatting to the girl at the deli. Now, both of them might say "Yes, I am on fire" (one will say "PUT ME OUT! DAMN YOU!"). They might even both look to the untrained eye like they're on fire. But there are certain reactions that are expected of someone who is on fire. Screaming and running around are two of them. Arguing over the price of salt-cured sundried tomatoes isn't. So then you ask yourself, "Well, is that guy really on fire?" It could be an illusion or hologram or whatever. I'll leave you to use your imagination.
vs 15-16
James likes his illustrations. I think they are great, too, because they help us to understand what he's saying. In this example, you say what the person needs, and you hope they get them. Well done! You did bugger all! All you accomplished was to point out what was blindingly obvious to the person in need. There are a lot of people in this day and age who think, I think moreso because of post-modernism, that them giving you their opinion is like them giving you a bar of gold. Let me tell you all something - your opinion is worth nothing without something more than some sort of experiential backing. Yes, I had a pain in my side once, and it really hurt, and I thought it was appendicitis. That doesn't mean I know what appendicitis feels like, or what to do if you're suffering from it (get your ass to a hospital). But people today seem to think that their, often blindingly obvious, observations are of such great value that they have helped the world by sharing them.
Helping a telemarketer who wants to survey you and find out that you actually do like orange-flavoured cola but the price is too high is not the same as giving someone food. Guess what? the whole world can keep spinning, and people will get on with their lives, if they never ever ever ever ever know what your opinion of orange cola is. But when people don't eat, they starve and die.
This is the necessity of justice in law - that anyone who transgresses must be treated as a transgressor, no matter what their transgression was. This doesn't mean that people aren't punished differently (the OT law punishes everyone differently depending on their crime) but it means treating everyone who is a transgressor the same - as a criminal. Which means in the end, everybody dies.
vs 11
An illustration of the above.
vs 12-13
Even though these verses are a long way from home, they are still relating to the idea of not showing favourtism. There is a judgement that is coming to Christians. They will be judged, not by the law on sin and death which reigned throughout the Mosaic covenant, but by the law of freedom, which is the fulfilment of the old law in Christ. But it is still a law! You will still be either a lawkeeper or a lawbreaker. The difference is that does not determine how you are treated. What determines how you are treated is how you treated people. So if you are a lawbreaker, but you are merciful, then mercy will be shown to you. But whether you are a lawkeeper or a lawbreaker, if you are not merciful, then when judgement comes, it will come without mercy.
Mercy comes out of love, and this is why James brings up the commandment to "love your neighbour".
vs 14
What controversy these verses caused to Martin Luther! He hated them! It is these verses that caused him to call James "an epistle of straw". But I fear he was being a touch eisegetical, as if James were a Pope of the Roman Catholic church or something. But he wasn't. He was Jesus' brother, and as such his book was included in the canon, and as such we've got to respect it like all the other books, even Luther's beloved book of Romans.
The fact is that we are saved by faith alone. There's no contradiction between James and Romans. James is calling into question, as does John in his epistles, the worthiness of the faith of someone who proclaims they have faith, but it is not evidenced in their life. James knows, as do we in our cosmopolitan society, that there are many kinds of faiths - in his time, people had faith in statues, they had faith in the emperor, they even had faith that God would send his Messiah (even though he'd already come). But a misplaced faith is just as useless as a misplaced power cord - without a socket, it doesn't do anything.
To drag that analogy out a bit more, if you say you have faith (that you're "plugged in") but your lights aren't on and you don't go vroom vroom, then there's a pretty good chance that you're not actually plugged into the right thing.
But it's not just that you might be drawing power and not using it. To use a better analogy, say you see two guys on fire. One is running around screaming "Oh my God help me! I'm on fire! I'M ON FIRE DAMN IT, PUT ME OUT!". The other one is doing his shopping, picking what canned vegetables he wants, smelling some mushrooms, chatting to the girl at the deli. Now, both of them might say "Yes, I am on fire" (one will say "PUT ME OUT! DAMN YOU!"). They might even both look to the untrained eye like they're on fire. But there are certain reactions that are expected of someone who is on fire. Screaming and running around are two of them. Arguing over the price of salt-cured sundried tomatoes isn't. So then you ask yourself, "Well, is that guy really on fire?" It could be an illusion or hologram or whatever. I'll leave you to use your imagination.
vs 15-16
James likes his illustrations. I think they are great, too, because they help us to understand what he's saying. In this example, you say what the person needs, and you hope they get them. Well done! You did bugger all! All you accomplished was to point out what was blindingly obvious to the person in need. There are a lot of people in this day and age who think, I think moreso because of post-modernism, that them giving you their opinion is like them giving you a bar of gold. Let me tell you all something - your opinion is worth nothing without something more than some sort of experiential backing. Yes, I had a pain in my side once, and it really hurt, and I thought it was appendicitis. That doesn't mean I know what appendicitis feels like, or what to do if you're suffering from it (get your ass to a hospital). But people today seem to think that their, often blindingly obvious, observations are of such great value that they have helped the world by sharing them.
Helping a telemarketer who wants to survey you and find out that you actually do like orange-flavoured cola but the price is too high is not the same as giving someone food. Guess what? the whole world can keep spinning, and people will get on with their lives, if they never ever ever ever ever know what your opinion of orange cola is. But when people don't eat, they starve and die.
Monday, October 16, 2006
James chapter 2
vs 1
James is such a rich book, so full of meaning, and yet so rarely mentioning Christ. So when he is mentioned, like here, take special notice. This verse is specifically talking about favourtism with regards to meeting as Christians. So it doesn't mean you can't show favourtism when hiring people for positions of employment (and of course nepotism and systems of patronage were fairly common back then) or some other thing - just as long as you're not ranking one Christian above another.
You can't neglect the link between your faith and the not showing favourtism. It's strong in this sentence.
vs 2-4
James expands on his idea with an example. If we discriminate between ourselves according to our riches, then we have become "judges with evil thoughts", or evil-thinking judges. Now it is worth noting here that later on James is going to tell us that the poor are the ones who inherit God's kingdom, and the rich are exploitative. But he doesn't try and turn the tables on them and say "Give the poor man the good seat and treat the rich man like crap". Why? Because that wouldn't work. It's not our job to turn the world upside down - that's God's job. He will exalt the humble. So instead, we show no favourtism.
vs 5
When you read the whole paragraph, especially the line about rich people, you will see that James is not making a complex theological statement here. Yes, he very probably has the words of Jesus' sermon on the mount in his mind. But what he is actually doing is making an observation about reality around him. We could make the same observation today, with the majority of Christians living in the 2/3rds world. Those are the ones that God's spirit has worked in to bring them to love him! With our culture of individualism and freedom of choice, we tend to look at this statement of James and say "Well, it's because the poor need something to believe in because their lives are so crappy". That might be true. But then we completely ignore the theological fact that God chooses people in whom to work, and he elects people to draw to himself. So you could make a pretty good argument that God reaches out to the humble and poor, and blesses them ahead of those who are rich.
vs 6
And yet these Christians seem to be blind to the work of God, ignoring the poor (or even insulting them) and pandering to the rich, who are their landlords! Now it's obvious why you would want to befriend your landlord, but James points out that they don't generally care about befriending you - they are happy to exploit you and, if you can't pay, sue your ass.
vs 7
And yes, they are the ones who militate against Christ. Let me ask you this - is it the educated people (education makes you rich) you know who mock your beliefs, or is it poor people who haven't had a chance to get a leg up in the world? Academia is overwhelmingly anti-Christian. The private sector is overwhelmingly anti-Christian. Politics is overwhelmingly anti-Christian. Why is that?
vs 8
That would be the law as defined by Christ as "love everybody you know, those you don't, and those you don't even think about. In fact, love anybody who could ever be so much that even if they hate you, love them". I don't know how many people keep to that one easily.
vs 9
But James wants to make the point that this idea of favourtism is a big deal. You can't as a church ignore this one bit as if it doesn't matter. If you break the law, you are a lawbreaker.
James is such a rich book, so full of meaning, and yet so rarely mentioning Christ. So when he is mentioned, like here, take special notice. This verse is specifically talking about favourtism with regards to meeting as Christians. So it doesn't mean you can't show favourtism when hiring people for positions of employment (and of course nepotism and systems of patronage were fairly common back then) or some other thing - just as long as you're not ranking one Christian above another.
You can't neglect the link between your faith and the not showing favourtism. It's strong in this sentence.
vs 2-4
James expands on his idea with an example. If we discriminate between ourselves according to our riches, then we have become "judges with evil thoughts", or evil-thinking judges. Now it is worth noting here that later on James is going to tell us that the poor are the ones who inherit God's kingdom, and the rich are exploitative. But he doesn't try and turn the tables on them and say "Give the poor man the good seat and treat the rich man like crap". Why? Because that wouldn't work. It's not our job to turn the world upside down - that's God's job. He will exalt the humble. So instead, we show no favourtism.
vs 5
When you read the whole paragraph, especially the line about rich people, you will see that James is not making a complex theological statement here. Yes, he very probably has the words of Jesus' sermon on the mount in his mind. But what he is actually doing is making an observation about reality around him. We could make the same observation today, with the majority of Christians living in the 2/3rds world. Those are the ones that God's spirit has worked in to bring them to love him! With our culture of individualism and freedom of choice, we tend to look at this statement of James and say "Well, it's because the poor need something to believe in because their lives are so crappy". That might be true. But then we completely ignore the theological fact that God chooses people in whom to work, and he elects people to draw to himself. So you could make a pretty good argument that God reaches out to the humble and poor, and blesses them ahead of those who are rich.
vs 6
And yet these Christians seem to be blind to the work of God, ignoring the poor (or even insulting them) and pandering to the rich, who are their landlords! Now it's obvious why you would want to befriend your landlord, but James points out that they don't generally care about befriending you - they are happy to exploit you and, if you can't pay, sue your ass.
vs 7
And yes, they are the ones who militate against Christ. Let me ask you this - is it the educated people (education makes you rich) you know who mock your beliefs, or is it poor people who haven't had a chance to get a leg up in the world? Academia is overwhelmingly anti-Christian. The private sector is overwhelmingly anti-Christian. Politics is overwhelmingly anti-Christian. Why is that?
vs 8
That would be the law as defined by Christ as "love everybody you know, those you don't, and those you don't even think about. In fact, love anybody who could ever be so much that even if they hate you, love them". I don't know how many people keep to that one easily.
vs 9
But James wants to make the point that this idea of favourtism is a big deal. You can't as a church ignore this one bit as if it doesn't matter. If you break the law, you are a lawbreaker.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
James chapter 1
vs 19
"You have two ears and one mouth, and they should be used in that ratio" is a Biblical concept. We also need to be slow to anger. Anger is a really interesting concept in the Bible. It's never commanded against, but is always warned against. Lustful thoughts, greed and other feelings we probably can't control are commanded against, but anger is always different. Perhaps it's because it is one of those things that God does, and therefore you can't say God commands against it.
vs 20
James has more to say about anger though, and I think the NASB expresses this much better: "For the wrath of man does not achieve the righteousness of God". We might get angry at something, and the anger might start out being caused by some act of unrighteousness, but quickly our anger goes beyond that to other people, to hating stuff, to even hating God. We lose the moral high ground really quickly when we get angry.
vs 21
In the NIV, this is grouped with the last two verses, but it really belongs to the next paragraph in my opinion. Although it starts with therefore, I don't think it relates to the immediate verses before. I think this goes back to verse 13 and encompasses the whole thing up to this point. And the point of it has been that good things come from God, and bad things, anger and temptation, do not and do not contribute to your godliness.
So this verse has two steps. Step 1: get rid of moral filth and evil which is everywhere, and in big portions too. Step 2: humbly accept the saving word planted in you. Remember that very few times are actual Scriptures referred to, because most people didn't have them. Planted in you should be the hint that this is talking about the gospel. Most often when a NT writer talks about the word of God, he's either talking about Jesus or the gospel, not the written Bible.
He then goes on to focus on step 2 first, before coming back to step 1.
vs 22
We were talking about this idea (although not this verse) at the mission conference I was at yesterday. The preacher said that each of us lives a secret life within us that no-one can see. Only God can judge that secret life within. And he said that it is here where sins like hypocrisy and cynicism take their root. And the way to defeat these is to ask God to help you apply what you're reading, or hearing to your soul, and really make a difference in you and how you act. Far out, imagine if Christians actually went out and did what the Bible said! Scary.
Yes, I did say earlier that the Bible and the gospel aren't the same thing. But for us, the place we find the gospel is in the Bible, and the whole Bible contains the gospel, but the gospel is actually larger than the Bible, not the other way around.
vs 23-24
So James gives us an illustration of what he's talking about. Ignoring what God has said to you in his gospel as a Christian is incredibly hypocritical and contradictory. And there is no society that can smell hypocrisy and contradiction and hates it more than the current young generation.
vs 25
Although the word law here (nomos) can mean Mosaic law, you will notice that James calls it the "perfect law of freedom" which to me doesn't mean the Mosaic law at all. We can expect blessings in what we do, if what we are doing is what we are told to do by God in the gospel! Ha! The gospel doesn't tell us to be doctors or nurses. It doesn't tell us to be preachers or evangelists or artists or unemployed. It tells you that you've been given gifts, and to use them for the body. And it tells you that the body of Christ exists to reach the world. Yes, the gospel is pretty vague on what we should do, but when we do it then we'll be blessed.
vs 26
So now we look at moral filth, which James mentioned back at verse 21. But he focuses not on our actions, but our words. Our tongues are our main implement of filth. So first James tells us that if we can't keep a reign on the tongue, then our religion is worthless.
vs 27
Then he gives us a definition of what he means by religion - looking after those in distress (at the time orphans and widows were the big two), and keeping yourself from being polluted by the world. That should be a definition of what Christianity is. Helping the marginalised, and keeping ourselves pure. Far out, if that's what Christianity is, then we've got it sooooooo wrong. I think almost nothing of what we do at church on a Sunday morning keeps me pure - breaking bread is probably the only thing. Singing doesn't keep me pure. Most of the sermons don't either (some do). And I don't really see church on a Sunday helping people in distress. Most of the sermons aren't aimed at people in distress and most marginalised people don't even feel welcome in a church - certainly probably not our church. If we were more practically focused on inner purity (by inner I mean within the church) and outer visitation of the helpless. The NIV got "look after" from the greek word episkeptomai, but the root of the word, skopos, means to be a watchman. So what the word really means is to look over people (ie oversee) in order to help them. And if they're not in the church, then you might actually have to go out and look over them where they are so you can help them. No good being a watchmen when there's no enemy coming from the direction you're looking.
"You have two ears and one mouth, and they should be used in that ratio" is a Biblical concept. We also need to be slow to anger. Anger is a really interesting concept in the Bible. It's never commanded against, but is always warned against. Lustful thoughts, greed and other feelings we probably can't control are commanded against, but anger is always different. Perhaps it's because it is one of those things that God does, and therefore you can't say God commands against it.
vs 20
James has more to say about anger though, and I think the NASB expresses this much better: "For the wrath of man does not achieve the righteousness of God". We might get angry at something, and the anger might start out being caused by some act of unrighteousness, but quickly our anger goes beyond that to other people, to hating stuff, to even hating God. We lose the moral high ground really quickly when we get angry.
vs 21
In the NIV, this is grouped with the last two verses, but it really belongs to the next paragraph in my opinion. Although it starts with therefore, I don't think it relates to the immediate verses before. I think this goes back to verse 13 and encompasses the whole thing up to this point. And the point of it has been that good things come from God, and bad things, anger and temptation, do not and do not contribute to your godliness.
So this verse has two steps. Step 1: get rid of moral filth and evil which is everywhere, and in big portions too. Step 2: humbly accept the saving word planted in you. Remember that very few times are actual Scriptures referred to, because most people didn't have them. Planted in you should be the hint that this is talking about the gospel. Most often when a NT writer talks about the word of God, he's either talking about Jesus or the gospel, not the written Bible.
He then goes on to focus on step 2 first, before coming back to step 1.
vs 22
We were talking about this idea (although not this verse) at the mission conference I was at yesterday. The preacher said that each of us lives a secret life within us that no-one can see. Only God can judge that secret life within. And he said that it is here where sins like hypocrisy and cynicism take their root. And the way to defeat these is to ask God to help you apply what you're reading, or hearing to your soul, and really make a difference in you and how you act. Far out, imagine if Christians actually went out and did what the Bible said! Scary.
Yes, I did say earlier that the Bible and the gospel aren't the same thing. But for us, the place we find the gospel is in the Bible, and the whole Bible contains the gospel, but the gospel is actually larger than the Bible, not the other way around.
vs 23-24
So James gives us an illustration of what he's talking about. Ignoring what God has said to you in his gospel as a Christian is incredibly hypocritical and contradictory. And there is no society that can smell hypocrisy and contradiction and hates it more than the current young generation.
vs 25
Although the word law here (nomos) can mean Mosaic law, you will notice that James calls it the "perfect law of freedom" which to me doesn't mean the Mosaic law at all. We can expect blessings in what we do, if what we are doing is what we are told to do by God in the gospel! Ha! The gospel doesn't tell us to be doctors or nurses. It doesn't tell us to be preachers or evangelists or artists or unemployed. It tells you that you've been given gifts, and to use them for the body. And it tells you that the body of Christ exists to reach the world. Yes, the gospel is pretty vague on what we should do, but when we do it then we'll be blessed.
vs 26
So now we look at moral filth, which James mentioned back at verse 21. But he focuses not on our actions, but our words. Our tongues are our main implement of filth. So first James tells us that if we can't keep a reign on the tongue, then our religion is worthless.
vs 27
Then he gives us a definition of what he means by religion - looking after those in distress (at the time orphans and widows were the big two), and keeping yourself from being polluted by the world. That should be a definition of what Christianity is. Helping the marginalised, and keeping ourselves pure. Far out, if that's what Christianity is, then we've got it sooooooo wrong. I think almost nothing of what we do at church on a Sunday morning keeps me pure - breaking bread is probably the only thing. Singing doesn't keep me pure. Most of the sermons don't either (some do). And I don't really see church on a Sunday helping people in distress. Most of the sermons aren't aimed at people in distress and most marginalised people don't even feel welcome in a church - certainly probably not our church. If we were more practically focused on inner purity (by inner I mean within the church) and outer visitation of the helpless. The NIV got "look after" from the greek word episkeptomai, but the root of the word, skopos, means to be a watchman. So what the word really means is to look over people (ie oversee) in order to help them. And if they're not in the church, then you might actually have to go out and look over them where they are so you can help them. No good being a watchmen when there's no enemy coming from the direction you're looking.
Friday, October 13, 2006
James Chapter 1
vs 11
Notice that wild flowers aren't destroyed because God hates them or because they've done something wrong. This is not a judgement based on a lack of righteousness. It's simply a fact that no matter how big a business you created, it won't stand the test of time. And even if it lasts for like 500 years, you won't be there to enjoy it. That's just how things work - even while you're still doing business, you'll disappear and someone else will take it over and you'll be like "Wha?".
vs 12
This verse seems to be wrapping up the idea that trials are good and people who can persevere are blessed. In that context, it would seem to be that the reason James brings up the businessman and the brother "of humble circumstances" is that this is one kind of trial people can go through. It's not only spiritual suffering that can cause you to doubt your faith - physical suffering, including poverty, can make you do the same thing.
vs 13
This makes God distinctly different from Allah, who does tempt people to sin. So here we see a classic example of something that God does not take responsibility for - and if it's not his responsibility, it's usually ours (or in a limited way Satan's).
vs 14
In this case it seems to be ours. His picture of being "dragged away and enticed" is a great one. Most people probably know what it's like to be threatened - I guess not everyone knows what it's like to be dragged somewhere to be enticed. But it has the same evil application. You are given things to satisfy your desires, and it's like a dual attempt to bribe and blackmail you. You sort of want the things that are being offered, and yet if you take them, they can then be used against you.
vs 15
What a great way of describing this evolution - the birth illustration gives us a clear idea of the progression of this concept. The word 'conceived' is actually a word play by James here, because it means both "to get pregnant" and "to take prisoner". Smart. He's almost painting a picture of a man who gets dragged away by some evil adultress and is enticed with an offer of sex. Once they do the nasty, though, the man is trapped, because she falls pregnant. They name their kid 'Sin' because that's what he was conceived in. Eventually, Sin grows up and beats the man to death.
vs 16
Taken out of context, this is a great little verse with very general application. But really I think it relates to the next couple of verses.
vs 17
So what we are not to be deceived about is that all the good stuff, well that comes from God. Don't mix it up with the enticing evil stuff that your desires will trap you in. God does not tempt us with his good stuff. They aren't all sweet and tasty one minute, and then the next like a shifting shadow you're a father and your son is giving you evil looks.
vs 18
Firstfruit in this context is being used to note the superiority of the object in question. So the reason we are reborn through his word of truth is that we might be shown superior to the humbler creation. Now while this might mean that James is trying to say that we're more important than sparrows or lillies, I think that misses the point. In the context of this passage, this statement must be to do with the nature of man who is beseiged with trials and temptations. Look just before - James had no problem saying that the humbly circumstanced man is better than the rich man. And now he is saying that the man (or woman) born of God through the truth (like being born again) is superior to the one who can't persevere in faith and who is trapped by his own desires. Christians are better. We can be humble about it, but we are better. If we aren't, then something is wrong. If everyone's "pretty good" by the world's standards, we should be awesome.
Notice that wild flowers aren't destroyed because God hates them or because they've done something wrong. This is not a judgement based on a lack of righteousness. It's simply a fact that no matter how big a business you created, it won't stand the test of time. And even if it lasts for like 500 years, you won't be there to enjoy it. That's just how things work - even while you're still doing business, you'll disappear and someone else will take it over and you'll be like "Wha?".
vs 12
This verse seems to be wrapping up the idea that trials are good and people who can persevere are blessed. In that context, it would seem to be that the reason James brings up the businessman and the brother "of humble circumstances" is that this is one kind of trial people can go through. It's not only spiritual suffering that can cause you to doubt your faith - physical suffering, including poverty, can make you do the same thing.
vs 13
This makes God distinctly different from Allah, who does tempt people to sin. So here we see a classic example of something that God does not take responsibility for - and if it's not his responsibility, it's usually ours (or in a limited way Satan's).
vs 14
In this case it seems to be ours. His picture of being "dragged away and enticed" is a great one. Most people probably know what it's like to be threatened - I guess not everyone knows what it's like to be dragged somewhere to be enticed. But it has the same evil application. You are given things to satisfy your desires, and it's like a dual attempt to bribe and blackmail you. You sort of want the things that are being offered, and yet if you take them, they can then be used against you.
vs 15
What a great way of describing this evolution - the birth illustration gives us a clear idea of the progression of this concept. The word 'conceived' is actually a word play by James here, because it means both "to get pregnant" and "to take prisoner". Smart. He's almost painting a picture of a man who gets dragged away by some evil adultress and is enticed with an offer of sex. Once they do the nasty, though, the man is trapped, because she falls pregnant. They name their kid 'Sin' because that's what he was conceived in. Eventually, Sin grows up and beats the man to death.
vs 16
Taken out of context, this is a great little verse with very general application. But really I think it relates to the next couple of verses.
vs 17
So what we are not to be deceived about is that all the good stuff, well that comes from God. Don't mix it up with the enticing evil stuff that your desires will trap you in. God does not tempt us with his good stuff. They aren't all sweet and tasty one minute, and then the next like a shifting shadow you're a father and your son is giving you evil looks.
vs 18
Firstfruit in this context is being used to note the superiority of the object in question. So the reason we are reborn through his word of truth is that we might be shown superior to the humbler creation. Now while this might mean that James is trying to say that we're more important than sparrows or lillies, I think that misses the point. In the context of this passage, this statement must be to do with the nature of man who is beseiged with trials and temptations. Look just before - James had no problem saying that the humbly circumstanced man is better than the rich man. And now he is saying that the man (or woman) born of God through the truth (like being born again) is superior to the one who can't persevere in faith and who is trapped by his own desires. Christians are better. We can be humble about it, but we are better. If we aren't, then something is wrong. If everyone's "pretty good" by the world's standards, we should be awesome.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
James chapter 1
vs 1
Just who is this James character? Jesus had a brother called James. But so did John. Is it either of them? He doesn't really give any hints in his letter. Most scholars (who aren't trying to deliberately make things difficult or "discover" something new) think this is Jesus' brother. Well, half brother. Roman Catholics will say it's Jesus' cousin because they want to believe in Mary's perpetual virginity.
Anyway, he's fairly well known for being pretty jewish (look at other places he is mentioned, like Galatians). So we might not be surprised when he writes his letter to "the twelve tribes scattered across the nations". Now it might just be that James carpet-bombed the known world with this tract in the hope of hitting those people who long ago were Jews but had hundreds of years ago assimilated. More likely, though, this is a turn of phrase which means "the churches" or "you bunches of Christians everywhere".
vs 2
This is one of those books where the verse-numberer went nuts early on and numbered every12 words or so. But that aside, James skips the typical Pauline "been praying for you, how's your stuff" letter intro, and gets straight into it. When you are persecuted, you should be full of pure joy. Huzzah! Why?
vs 3
One thing I will say is that just because we should be purely joyful because such suffering produces a fruit of perseverance, I don't think that means we're not allowed to be bummed about the suffering. Some suffering is completely dehumanising. Some suffering is the consequence of living in a fallen world. But God can make good come out of all suffering, and we should be joyful that our God can do that.
However, we should also be aware at just how much value James is putting on perseverance here, and the fact that we can get our hands on it, even through suffering or tests to our faith, is to be praised.
vs 4
That's why we need perseverance. If we don't have it, something is lacking in our faith. This is a pretty simple lesson from the parable of the sower. But it's powerful to us - that if we can't persevere (and that comes through tests to our faith) then we are missing something from our faith, our faith isn't complete. We were challenged in church history recently to read a certain book because it would "challenge our faith". Bible college does a lot of faith challenging. And yes, I know some people can't cope with it. But everyone needs to be able to persevere. And yet time and again, as church history shows us, the majority of Christians rationalise away the need for perseverance. It doesn't make them not Christians - but it probably does separate the mature from the not-so-mature. Those guys that stood up to Hitler (it was a bunch of protestant pastors), they knew what it meant. But there were heaps of other Christian leaders (Catholic and Protestant) who just sat by and watched Hitler turn the churches into Reich churches preaching Hitler worship.
vs 5
God might simply give you a forehead slap and say "read Proverbs!", but in fact all the wisdom literature is priceless. I heard Don Carson (or David Cook, or some important Christian guy) once say that Ecclesiastes is the most important book of the Bible for the post-modern age. And in a lot of ways, I agree with him (whoever said it).
But wisdom isn't just the purview of the wisdom literature. And "God giving you wisdom" isn't some secret code for "he'll make you read the right bit of the Bible as if by magic". Sure, he might. But he can just unlock your brain too if need be.
Also remember the context this verse is in. It's not talking about "if you need wisdom choosing a new job, or deciding what flavour ice cream to choose". It's talking about perseverance and the strengthening of faith. God doesn't give everyone shrewd business sense because they ask for it. Wisdom is more (and sort of less) than that - it is the knowledge of God's will and how he unfolds it in this world. Sometimes that means making decisions completely contrary to good business sense. But it depends what you value more - and here, James is putting the high value on maturity in faith, and perseverance.
vs 6
Don't ask God for stuff if you don't really believe it's going to happen. If you're not really a Christian, then good luck squeezing anything out of God unless, like those people who came to Jesus, you're prepared to have some faith. Even a simple faith is enough. If you are a Christian and you don't think God's going to answer, then think seriously about what you're asking for - because if you don't think God's gonna do it, then does that mean you deep down know that you don't need it? Or that you've already got it?
Wisdom's a doosy. People read this verse and go "That's why I don't have enough wisdom, because I don't pray for it!" Bullcrap. If you can't find the answer to your question somewhere in the Bible, then it's most probably not because you haven't prayed for it, but because you haven't made good with God's time and become familiar enough with the Bible to know where the stuff you need is at! And I'm not going to lay down the "if I can do it (go to Bible college, read my Bible regularly with the purpose of actually understanding what it means etc), then anyone can do it" because that's illogical. An illiterate person can't do those things. But you can do as much as you can with what you've got. And one of the things you've got is other, more mature people who've been down this road already! So just pick their brains about it! That's probably one of the few reasons they're still here on earth, just for you to make use of them.
I would concentrate more on what James means with his wave metaphor here, but I think he explains it by verse 8.
vs 7
If you're the person I described above who has a Bible but isn't prepared to actually treat it as if it were words of God and therefore worth more than all the gold in wherever, then what I said above applies in this verse - you've probably already got it, so don't think you're going to get anything.
vs 8
This is what a man like a wave is like. Unstable and of two minds. Double-minded basically means uncertain, doubting. It literally means "double-souled", but I'm sure you get the idea. And they are unstable, unsettled. The word in greek is the negative of "to set something somewhere" - so it's like balancing a plate on a windowsill, but it being unstable and perhaps falling off. These people are like that in everything. They are probably the people who need to get wisdom the most, but also need to learn to persevere a bit too.
vs 9
James is sticking right down the line to Jesus' theology here - that the humble person is highly exalted. But this whole passage about humility reads funny, don't you think? It's almost like verse 10 is somewhat sarcastic.
vs 10
You could probably make a fairly sustainable argument here that while the humble guy boasts in his low position because it means he'll have a high eternal position (the correct way of thinking), the rich guy can boast all he wants about his current position, because it's not going to mean diddly-squat in the end. Probably the whole idea is that you don't see humble people boasting about their high position in heaven (when they could do that), but hey, everybody's heard a rich guy boasting about his wealth, and that's just going to disappear.
Just who is this James character? Jesus had a brother called James. But so did John. Is it either of them? He doesn't really give any hints in his letter. Most scholars (who aren't trying to deliberately make things difficult or "discover"
Anyway, he's fairly well known for being pretty jewish (look at other places he is mentioned, like Galatians). So we might not be surprised when he writes his letter to "the twelve tribes scattered across the nations". Now it might just be that James carpet-bombed the known world with this tract in the hope of hitting those people who long ago were Jews but had hundreds of years ago assimilated. More likely, though, this is a turn of phrase which means "the churches" or "you bunches of Christians everywhere".
vs 2
This is one of those books where the verse-numberer went nuts early on and numbered every12 words or so. But that aside, James skips the typical Pauline "been praying for you, how's your stuff" letter intro, and gets straight into it. When you are persecuted, you should be full of pure joy. Huzzah! Why?
vs 3
One thing I will say is that just because we should be purely joyful because such suffering produces a fruit of perseverance, I don't think that means we're not allowed to be bummed about the suffering. Some suffering is completely dehumanising. Some suffering is the consequence of living in a fallen world. But God can make good come out of all suffering, and we should be joyful that our God can do that.
However, we should also be aware at just how much value James is putting on perseverance here, and the fact that we can get our hands on it, even through suffering or tests to our faith, is to be praised.
vs 4
That's why we need perseverance. If we don't have it, something is lacking in our faith. This is a pretty simple lesson from the parable of the sower. But it's powerful to us - that if we can't persevere (and that comes through tests to our faith) then we are missing something from our faith, our faith isn't complete. We were challenged in church history recently to read a certain book because it would "challenge our faith". Bible college does a lot of faith challenging. And yes, I know some people can't cope with it. But everyone needs to be able to persevere. And yet time and again, as church history shows us, the majority of Christians rationalise away the need for perseverance. It doesn't make them not Christians - but it probably does separate the mature from the not-so-mature. Those guys that stood up to Hitler (it was a bunch of protestant pastors), they knew what it meant. But there were heaps of other Christian leaders (Catholic and Protestant) who just sat by and watched Hitler turn the churches into Reich churches preaching Hitler worship.
vs 5
God might simply give you a forehead slap and say "read Proverbs!", but in fact all the wisdom literature is priceless. I heard Don Carson (or David Cook, or some important Christian guy) once say that Ecclesiastes is the most important book of the Bible for the post-modern age. And in a lot of ways, I agree with him (whoever said it).
But wisdom isn't just the purview of the wisdom literature. And "God giving you wisdom" isn't some secret code for "he'll make you read the right bit of the Bible as if by magic". Sure, he might. But he can just unlock your brain too if need be.
Also remember the context this verse is in. It's not talking about "if you need wisdom choosing a new job, or deciding what flavour ice cream to choose". It's talking about perseverance and the strengthening of faith. God doesn't give everyone shrewd business sense because they ask for it. Wisdom is more (and sort of less) than that - it is the knowledge of God's will and how he unfolds it in this world. Sometimes that means making decisions completely contrary to good business sense. But it depends what you value more - and here, James is putting the high value on maturity in faith, and perseverance.
vs 6
Don't ask God for stuff if you don't really believe it's going to happen. If you're not really a Christian, then good luck squeezing anything out of God unless, like those people who came to Jesus, you're prepared to have some faith. Even a simple faith is enough. If you are a Christian and you don't think God's going to answer, then think seriously about what you're asking for - because if you don't think God's gonna do it, then does that mean you deep down know that you don't need it? Or that you've already got it?
Wisdom's a doosy. People read this verse and go "That's why I don't have enough wisdom, because I don't pray for it!" Bullcrap. If you can't find the answer to your question somewhere in the Bible, then it's most probably not because you haven't prayed for it, but because you haven't made good with God's time and become familiar enough with the Bible to know where the stuff you need is at! And I'm not going to lay down the "if I can do it (go to Bible college, read my Bible regularly with the purpose of actually understanding what it means etc), then anyone can do it" because that's illogical. An illiterate person can't do those things. But you can do as much as you can with what you've got. And one of the things you've got is other, more mature people who've been down this road already! So just pick their brains about it! That's probably one of the few reasons they're still here on earth, just for you to make use of them.
I would concentrate more on what James means with his wave metaphor here, but I think he explains it by verse 8.
vs 7
If you're the person I described above who has a Bible but isn't prepared to actually treat it as if it were words of God and therefore worth more than all the gold in wherever, then what I said above applies in this verse - you've probably already got it, so don't think you're going to get anything.
vs 8
This is what a man like a wave is like. Unstable and of two minds. Double-minded basically means uncertain, doubting. It literally means "double-souled", but I'm sure you get the idea. And they are unstable, unsettled. The word in greek is the negative of "to set something somewhere" - so it's like balancing a plate on a windowsill, but it being unstable and perhaps falling off. These people are like that in everything. They are probably the people who need to get wisdom the most, but also need to learn to persevere a bit too.
vs 9
James is sticking right down the line to Jesus' theology here - that the humble person is highly exalted. But this whole passage about humility reads funny, don't you think? It's almost like verse 10 is somewhat sarcastic.
vs 10
You could probably make a fairly sustainable argument here that while the humble guy boasts in his low position because it means he'll have a high eternal position (the correct way of thinking), the rich guy can boast all he wants about his current position, because it's not going to mean diddly-squat in the end. Probably the whole idea is that you don't see humble people boasting about their high position in heaven (when they could do that), but hey, everybody's heard a rich guy boasting about his wealth, and that's just going to disappear.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
2 Timothy Chapter 4
vs 13
This is one of those verses that I always point out as an obvious example of why we can't just simply follow all the commands that are given, especially in the NT. Although I don't know of any Christian sect dumb enough to have, say, a yearly pilgrimage from Troas to Rome carrying a cloak, some scrolls and parchments, the church has in the past and probably does in the present things that are almost equally stupid, and probably less biblical.
vs 14-15
Probably an idol-maker. They obviously had something to lose by Paul turning people away from idols. This might be Paul's way of saying "watch out for him, but don't go and try to punish him on my account - God'll zap him". I don't know what it says about the political situation of the empire when people can whip up frenzied riots over the preaching of one man, but sufficed to say that if people have pent-up frustration which they can't take out on the political leadership due to oppression, they do tend to do things like this. Still happens today.
vs 16
That must have been very painful for Paul, but he is obviously drawing a parallel to Jesus' ministry. This happens all through Acts, so no reason Paul's not allowed to do it. But we also have to be prepared to go it alone if things get tough - there's no reason our friends and Christian family will be any different if it really hits the fan.
vs 17
But God didn't ever leave Paul's side, and although Paul might have suffered some bad things, the gospel was able to be preached. That's what Paul really cares about - God wasn't with him just to minister to him in his sufferings (although he did save him from the lion's mouth, whatever that was), but was with him to ensure that the job God had given Paul would be done.
vs 18
Note that God won't rescue Paul and bring him safely back to Antioch necessarily, or to anywhere else other than his heavenly kingdom. God's got the priorities right, and it would seem Paul does too.
vs 19-22
Good old Priscilla and Aquila, and Onesiphorus. Not much more here, except that it's interesting that Paul is happy to leave people behind (like Trophimus sick in Miletus) but doesn't want to be left alone himself. That either means that Paul has a huge double standard, or that he understands why people have left him to go and continue their work.
This is one of those verses that I always point out as an obvious example of why we can't just simply follow all the commands that are given, especially in the NT. Although I don't know of any Christian sect dumb enough to have, say, a yearly pilgrimage from Troas to Rome carrying a cloak, some scrolls and parchments, the church has in the past and probably does in the present things that are almost equally stupid, and probably less biblical.
vs 14-15
Probably an idol-maker. They obviously had something to lose by Paul turning people away from idols. This might be Paul's way of saying "watch out for him, but don't go and try to punish him on my account - God'll zap him". I don't know what it says about the political situation of the empire when people can whip up frenzied riots over the preaching of one man, but sufficed to say that if people have pent-up frustration which they can't take out on the political leadership due to oppression, they do tend to do things like this. Still happens today.
vs 16
That must have been very painful for Paul, but he is obviously drawing a parallel to Jesus' ministry. This happens all through Acts, so no reason Paul's not allowed to do it. But we also have to be prepared to go it alone if things get tough - there's no reason our friends and Christian family will be any different if it really hits the fan.
vs 17
But God didn't ever leave Paul's side, and although Paul might have suffered some bad things, the gospel was able to be preached. That's what Paul really cares about - God wasn't with him just to minister to him in his sufferings (although he did save him from the lion's mouth, whatever that was), but was with him to ensure that the job God had given Paul would be done.
vs 18
Note that God won't rescue Paul and bring him safely back to Antioch necessarily, or to anywhere else other than his heavenly kingdom. God's got the priorities right, and it would seem Paul does too.
vs 19-22
Good old Priscilla and Aquila, and Onesiphorus. Not much more here, except that it's interesting that Paul is happy to leave people behind (like Trophimus sick in Miletus) but doesn't want to be left alone himself. That either means that Paul has a huge double standard, or that he understands why people have left him to go and continue their work.
Monday, October 09, 2006
2 Timothy chapter 4
vs 1
Whatever Paul is about to say, in the context of judgement and eternity it is going to be important.
vs 2
Again the call for patience is made when instructing others. The word "careful" isn't in the greek (that I have).
"In season" is literally eukairos, which means 'seasonably' or 'when the opportunity occurs'. So Paul's idiom here means to preach the word whether there is an opportunity or not. It's not like there was "a season for preaching" or anything - he's just saying preach it all the time. And this isn't necessarily an evangelistic sort of preaching - simply proclaiming the truth of Christ. Preaching about the good news is actually a different greek word.
vs 3
Yes, people do that now too. Those nutters who think the KJV is the only true Bible and all other Bible translations are of the devil like to band together and buy each others' books and scratch each others' ears. In pointing them out I am perfectly in line with this verse - as they have abandoned sound doctrine. Why? Because it suits them to have the "one true holy translation". That's what they desire.
Of course, that's not the controversy that Paul was talking about, but it's a commonplace enough one in Australia (perhaps Queensland) to cause trouble.
vs 4
This is one important thing to look out for - when people start heavily relying on extra-biblical materials for their arguments, or from generally accepted rules and methods of Bible interpretation, or just plain old rumours and myths - that's when you know this stuff is happening. Quite often the whole thing gets mixed in and it's hard to separate - so you'll have someone who knows the evangelical statement of faith, but who also believes the Catholic church controls Islam, and that the KJV is the only true translation, and they usually also have a whacked out view of eschatology, and a whole other bunch of craziness tied up too (regarding JFK or the Martin Bryant killings or whatever - almost every church has one of these nutters, and I've meet heaps of them. I'm like a nut-magnet).
vs 5
"Keep your head" is literally 'be sober'. "Endure hardship" is literally 'endure evil'. But as you can see, the translation suffices to give the meaning in both. Here is the call to evangelism for Timothy, along with fulfilling the duties of the ministry he was called to (helping to lead the Ephesian church I guess, or more generally the work of preaching from the gifts given to him).
vs 6
Paul knows his time is short. The sentence may have already been passed, or he might just feel it in his bones. Information like this helps us date the book.
vs 7
Paul is joyful because he is satisfied that he has done his bit. This is not always the case with strongmen of the faith - people like John Wesley, who did incredible things for the Lord in the midst of much opposition, sometimes die completely unsure if they have served the Lord faithfully. I think it was Wesley who spent his dying days taking communion daily and worrying that he didn't devote his life to Christ enough. Paul wasn't worried.
vs 8
So Paul is not just aware, but joyfully awaiting the Day of the Lord, when he knows that he will be rewarded for his faithfulness. To him, that day is such a reality and so to look forward to that it fills him with joy. And that's not just for him, he reminds us. Paul isn't some special saint that gets benefits we don't. All who long for Christ's appearing should have the same joy.
vs 9
Now Paul shares his true heart with Timothy. He wants him to be close, because he knows he's not long for this world.
vs 10
Others, whose names we may or may not have heard throughout Scripture, have departed from him. Not necessarily departed from God - just gone to do other work. They may have left him thinking they had time to spare, but not being aware that his sentencing took place when they were gone. Who knows.
vs 11
Luke stayed with him though, and he surely finds that encouraging.
Paul also calls for Mark - the person who he ditched because he was unreliable, and which split up the Paul-Barnabas duo. But he doesn't want to rebuke him. Instead, Paul sees Mark as useful to his ministry.
vs 12
Not everyone abandoned him - he sent Tychicus away (although it would seem if he went to Ephesus he was probably bringing this letter to Timothy, and would bring him back). Paul doesn't care about interrupting people's ministry, you see - he thinks he deserves to have some personal, relational support during this time in which he is suffering. And he's not afraid to call it in either. Visits to people in need or who are suffering hardship or enduring evil are so worth it.
Whatever Paul is about to say, in the context of judgement and eternity it is going to be important.
vs 2
Again the call for patience is made when instructing others. The word "careful" isn't in the greek (that I have).
"In season" is literally eukairos, which means 'seasonably' or 'when the opportunity occurs'. So Paul's idiom here means to preach the word whether there is an opportunity or not. It's not like there was "a season for preaching" or anything - he's just saying preach it all the time. And this isn't necessarily an evangelistic sort of preaching - simply proclaiming the truth of Christ. Preaching about the good news is actually a different greek word.
vs 3
Yes, people do that now too. Those nutters who think the KJV is the only true Bible and all other Bible translations are of the devil like to band together and buy each others' books and scratch each others' ears. In pointing them out I am perfectly in line with this verse - as they have abandoned sound doctrine. Why? Because it suits them to have the "one true holy translation". That's what they desire.
Of course, that's not the controversy that Paul was talking about, but it's a commonplace enough one in Australia (perhaps Queensland) to cause trouble.
vs 4
This is one important thing to look out for - when people start heavily relying on extra-biblical materials for their arguments, or from generally accepted rules and methods of Bible interpretation, or just plain old rumours and myths - that's when you know this stuff is happening. Quite often the whole thing gets mixed in and it's hard to separate - so you'll have someone who knows the evangelical statement of faith, but who also believes the Catholic church controls Islam, and that the KJV is the only true translation, and they usually also have a whacked out view of eschatology, and a whole other bunch of craziness tied up too (regarding JFK or the Martin Bryant killings or whatever - almost every church has one of these nutters, and I've meet heaps of them. I'm like a nut-magnet).
vs 5
"Keep your head" is literally 'be sober'. "Endure hardship" is literally 'endure evil'. But as you can see, the translation suffices to give the meaning in both. Here is the call to evangelism for Timothy, along with fulfilling the duties of the ministry he was called to (helping to lead the Ephesian church I guess, or more generally the work of preaching from the gifts given to him).
vs 6
Paul knows his time is short. The sentence may have already been passed, or he might just feel it in his bones. Information like this helps us date the book.
vs 7
Paul is joyful because he is satisfied that he has done his bit. This is not always the case with strongmen of the faith - people like John Wesley, who did incredible things for the Lord in the midst of much opposition, sometimes die completely unsure if they have served the Lord faithfully. I think it was Wesley who spent his dying days taking communion daily and worrying that he didn't devote his life to Christ enough. Paul wasn't worried.
vs 8
So Paul is not just aware, but joyfully awaiting the Day of the Lord, when he knows that he will be rewarded for his faithfulness. To him, that day is such a reality and so to look forward to that it fills him with joy. And that's not just for him, he reminds us. Paul isn't some special saint that gets benefits we don't. All who long for Christ's appearing should have the same joy.
vs 9
Now Paul shares his true heart with Timothy. He wants him to be close, because he knows he's not long for this world.
vs 10
Others, whose names we may or may not have heard throughout Scripture, have departed from him. Not necessarily departed from God - just gone to do other work. They may have left him thinking they had time to spare, but not being aware that his sentencing took place when they were gone. Who knows.
vs 11
Luke stayed with him though, and he surely finds that encouraging.
Paul also calls for Mark - the person who he ditched because he was unreliable, and which split up the Paul-Barnabas duo. But he doesn't want to rebuke him. Instead, Paul sees Mark as useful to his ministry.
vs 12
Not everyone abandoned him - he sent Tychicus away (although it would seem if he went to Ephesus he was probably bringing this letter to Timothy, and would bring him back). Paul doesn't care about interrupting people's ministry, you see - he thinks he deserves to have some personal, relational support during this time in which he is suffering. And he's not afraid to call it in either. Visits to people in need or who are suffering hardship or enduring evil are so worth it.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
2 Timothy Chapter 3
vs 10
So Paul is not just placing the emphasis of the truth of the gospel on it's own correctness, but on the authority and trustworthiness and reality of its messenger - him! It's not just what he taught(his wording here is most probably a reference to the fact he taught, rather than what he was teaching), but the life and purpose he led.
vs 11
His persecutions also speak loudly in favour of his message, but not just that he suffered - his rescue from his sufferings is also a statement that speaks for his message.
vs 12
The reason Paul's suffering is important is because this will be a universal experience of the Christian life. But not just any old Christian life - the life of a godly person. It is the godly who will be persecuted, and when you put it like that, it's far more obvious a truth.
vs 13
Yes, the evil people will be deceived and do some deceiving of their own - but they aren't the ones getting persecuted. Yes, they might get just punishment for their actions. They might even get ridiculed. But persecution is saved for the godly. This is an Ecclesiastes-type statement - it's not universally going to happen every single time, but you'll recognise that it seems to be a general pattern.
vs 14
Timothy's journey consisted of learning about God and Christ (probably through his grandmother and mother), but then being convinced of it, and also through knowing those who taught it. Obviously a boy is going to trust his ma and his gram-gram, but Timothy obviously also had a deep relationship with Paul, and so could trust his message. The messenger is so important!
vs 15
Obviously Timothy didn't know the Scriptures when he was an infant. Perhaps as a Christian infant (young in the faith I mean). Note the purpose of Scripture here - it is to make you wise for salvation, and that only through Christ Jesus. It is not to teach you science, or history, or geography or sociology or culture or anything else. Sure, there are interesting things you can glean from it in this regard, but its purpose is for your salvation! So next time you're seeking to make a historical point or a scientific argument from the Bible, just remember that it's not what it was built for.
vs 16
Who doesn't have this memorised? Start learnin'. Remember that in greek, spirit and breath have the same root and are basically the same word, pneuma, so God-breathed is also "infused with God's Spirit". I would also think by inference that teaching, correcting, rebuking and training all link to the "in righteousness" - so all these things, once again, are for the growth of righteousness.
vs 17
And it is through your righteousness that you can be equipped for good works that God has prepared for us to do (bit of an Ephesians crossover there). So Scripture is for wisdom to lead you to salvation. It is for growing your righteousness, and that is so you can do good works for God. Do we now understand what the Bible is for?
So Paul is not just placing the emphasis of the truth of the gospel on it's own correctness, but on the authority and trustworthiness and reality of its messenger - him! It's not just what he taught(his wording here is most probably a reference to the fact he taught, rather than what he was teaching), but the life and purpose he led.
vs 11
His persecutions also speak loudly in favour of his message, but not just that he suffered - his rescue from his sufferings is also a statement that speaks for his message.
vs 12
The reason Paul's suffering is important is because this will be a universal experience of the Christian life. But not just any old Christian life - the life of a godly person. It is the godly who will be persecuted, and when you put it like that, it's far more obvious a truth.
vs 13
Yes, the evil people will be deceived and do some deceiving of their own - but they aren't the ones getting persecuted. Yes, they might get just punishment for their actions. They might even get ridiculed. But persecution is saved for the godly. This is an Ecclesiastes-type statement - it's not universally going to happen every single time, but you'll recognise that it seems to be a general pattern.
vs 14
Timothy's journey consisted of learning about God and Christ (probably through his grandmother and mother), but then being convinced of it, and also through knowing those who taught it. Obviously a boy is going to trust his ma and his gram-gram, but Timothy obviously also had a deep relationship with Paul, and so could trust his message. The messenger is so important!
vs 15
Obviously Timothy didn't know the Scriptures when he was an infant. Perhaps as a Christian infant (young in the faith I mean). Note the purpose of Scripture here - it is to make you wise for salvation, and that only through Christ Jesus. It is not to teach you science, or history, or geography or sociology or culture or anything else. Sure, there are interesting things you can glean from it in this regard, but its purpose is for your salvation! So next time you're seeking to make a historical point or a scientific argument from the Bible, just remember that it's not what it was built for.
vs 16
Who doesn't have this memorised? Start learnin'. Remember that in greek, spirit and breath have the same root and are basically the same word, pneuma, so God-breathed is also "infused with God's Spirit". I would also think by inference that teaching, correcting, rebuking and training all link to the "in righteousness" - so all these things, once again, are for the growth of righteousness.
vs 17
And it is through your righteousness that you can be equipped for good works that God has prepared for us to do (bit of an Ephesians crossover there). So Scripture is for wisdom to lead you to salvation. It is for growing your righteousness, and that is so you can do good works for God. Do we now understand what the Bible is for?
Saturday, October 07, 2006
2 Timothy chapter 3
vs 1
So even though Paul has spoken about being gentle to these people who aren't on the right track, he wants us (and possibly them) to be very aware of what the truth is.
vs 2-4
Isn't it funny how disobeying your parents always pops up. The concept of love and where your love is directed is very important in this passage. If you're curious, it's "phila" every time. The word for lacking self control literally means "incontinent" which I thought was funny. Heh.
vs 5
These people pretend to act in a godly way (perhaps on meeting days?) but in reality are denying the need to do so or the power of doing so (very gnostic). You're not meant to hang around with heretics and false teachers.
vs 6-7
Another list of what they do. In the greek they only creep into houses and capture silly women. Now here the NASB infers by its punctuation that it's these women who are weighed down with sins, and I thought the NIV punctuation more accurately gives the flow of the verse by putting the false teachers as those who are loaded with sin and so on. But in the greek, weighed down (lit. heaped up), swayed (lit. being led), and learning and never able are all agreeing with "silly women". So these verses are describing the women whom these guys worm their way into the houses of. I guess then that this is a warning as much about the fact that there are people who do the worming, as to look out for the ones with whom they will worm.
vs 8
Back to the men now. The use of Jannes and Jambres in this example points to the fact that even though the church Timothy is working in is mainly (probably almost entirely) greek, they still had an understanding of the OT. Many were probably God-fearers. We have to be wary here - the people Paul is talking about are rejected from the faith. We can't apply these verses to anyone - they are actually not faithful Christians who have gone astray. They are faithless people who may still be in the church, but are not believers.
vs 9
Thankfully, says Paul, such folly is clear and it should be easy to spot them, so people shouldn't fall for their facades (except silly women of course, who it turns out are like a litmus test for heretics).
So even though Paul has spoken about being gentle to these people who aren't on the right track, he wants us (and possibly them) to be very aware of what the truth is.
vs 2-4
Isn't it funny how disobeying your parents always pops up. The concept of love and where your love is directed is very important in this passage. If you're curious, it's "phila" every time. The word for lacking self control literally means "incontinent" which I thought was funny. Heh.
vs 5
These people pretend to act in a godly way (perhaps on meeting days?) but in reality are denying the need to do so or the power of doing so (very gnostic). You're not meant to hang around with heretics and false teachers.
vs 6-7
Another list of what they do. In the greek they only creep into houses and capture silly women. Now here the NASB infers by its punctuation that it's these women who are weighed down with sins, and I thought the NIV punctuation more accurately gives the flow of the verse by putting the false teachers as those who are loaded with sin and so on. But in the greek, weighed down (lit. heaped up), swayed (lit. being led), and learning and never able are all agreeing with "silly women". So these verses are describing the women whom these guys worm their way into the houses of. I guess then that this is a warning as much about the fact that there are people who do the worming, as to look out for the ones with whom they will worm.
vs 8
Back to the men now. The use of Jannes and Jambres in this example points to the fact that even though the church Timothy is working in is mainly (probably almost entirely) greek, they still had an understanding of the OT. Many were probably God-fearers. We have to be wary here - the people Paul is talking about are rejected from the faith. We can't apply these verses to anyone - they are actually not faithful Christians who have gone astray. They are faithless people who may still be in the church, but are not believers.
vs 9
Thankfully, says Paul, such folly is clear and it should be easy to spot them, so people shouldn't fall for their facades (except silly women of course, who it turns out are like a litmus test for heretics).
Friday, October 06, 2006
2 Timothy Chapter 2
vs 14
Once again Paul wants Timothy to remind these people of the truths of the gospel, and to warn them against arguing over words. What does arguing over words mean? It sounds to me like useless pedantry over specific words. Of course we get into that all the time - I mean, I do it on here comparing translations! No doubt they would have done the same thing, but more probably with the Old Testament (as they would have only had scraps of any NT books). And it doesn't take much imagination to see what sorts of wierd heresies come out of arguments over words in the OT.
The lesson for us is not to base too much on the use of any one word. Definitions of words help us to qualify meanings, and in a way we need to do it in a comparative way to understand how the word was naturally understood in its context. But focussing on words to the exclusion of their context in the whole is dangerous. A fine balance I guess.
vs 15
This exhortation to Timothy shows just how important it is to act the part. You can't just be given it (by laying on of hands or whatever) - you've got to live it.
Accurately handling is literally "orthotomeo", which means "cutting straight". The idea being that you cut a straight path, so you don't deviate. Only time that word is used in the NT.
vs 16
Well, I would continue writing about verse 16, but I have to go and pick up my stolen car! Praise the Lord for answering my prayer!
Anyway, back to study. It's quite important to find out what the definition of "godless chatter" is for you to make sense of this verse. It comes later down this passage.
The point being that if you get involved in this godless chatter, then it makes you ungodly.
vs 17
This verse was probably very meaningful to Timothy, because he knew who these guys were. But we've got precious little idea, so we can't really compare their teaching except for what Paul tells us about them here.
vs 18
It turns out that they have wandered from the truth. In talking about the resurrection of all people, they say it has already happened, which destroys some people's faith and also gives us a fair idea of what Paul means by 'godless chatter'. It's not godless because it's not about God - it's godless becuase it's not from God.
vs 19
I don't know where the second quote comes from. But the point is that even though these guys might talk a lot of crap, God's truth is laid on the foundation of Christ, not on what they say.
vs 20-21
Ok, wha? For those people who like to take things literally, tell me that this verse doesn't mean you should only have silver and gold things in your house. Of course, that would be dumb.
So what does it really mean? The point seems to be that if you clear away your ignoble purposes, then you will be ready to do noble purposes for God. In the context of the verse, we can assume that Paul is talking about the next few verses, and this is just an illustration.
vs 22
Our desires here are not necessarily to be controllable by us. We might still have a desire for some evil thing, but we are to flee it and replace it with a pursuit of godliness. We might not even have a great deal of desire for it at times, but we are to pursue it none the less. So should all the other Christians we know, so we should join together in doing it. Probably makes it easier, like having a diet buddy.
vs 23
To us having a quarrel might not seem like too bad a thing. But in a society where relationships are very important, this is dynamite. Breaking up relationships by having arguments about stupid things is just not on. And a lot of us are not immune from having these stupid arguments - me included.
vs 24
The way of the servant of God is not to quarrel, but to teach, and to be kind and not resentful. It's harder than it sounds, especially when you collect with it the stuff from the other verses.
vs 25
This attitude shows a hell of a lot of faith in God. A lot of the time we want our excellent arguments to sway people's opinions, and so we get quite passionate about them. But this says that we've got to do our instruction gently, in the hope that God will do the work. The truth is that God might not work in them, and they might just keep on going in their stupid ways. But to do it any other way denies the work of God in people's lives.
vs 26
We can't really blame them though. Paul says here that these people are trapped by Satan, and Satan takes them captive to do his will. I wonder if people outside of Christianity often feel trapped by the advertising pushy individualistic expectationist world out there?
Once again Paul wants Timothy to remind these people of the truths of the gospel, and to warn them against arguing over words. What does arguing over words mean? It sounds to me like useless pedantry over specific words. Of course we get into that all the time - I mean, I do it on here comparing translations! No doubt they would have done the same thing, but more probably with the Old Testament (as they would have only had scraps of any NT books). And it doesn't take much imagination to see what sorts of wierd heresies come out of arguments over words in the OT.
The lesson for us is not to base too much on the use of any one word. Definitions of words help us to qualify meanings, and in a way we need to do it in a comparative way to understand how the word was naturally understood in its context. But focussing on words to the exclusion of their context in the whole is dangerous. A fine balance I guess.
vs 15
This exhortation to Timothy shows just how important it is to act the part. You can't just be given it (by laying on of hands or whatever) - you've got to live it.
Accurately handling is literally "orthotomeo", which means "cutting straight". The idea being that you cut a straight path, so you don't deviate. Only time that word is used in the NT.
vs 16
Well, I would continue writing about verse 16, but I have to go and pick up my stolen car! Praise the Lord for answering my prayer!
Anyway, back to study. It's quite important to find out what the definition of "godless chatter" is for you to make sense of this verse. It comes later down this passage.
The point being that if you get involved in this godless chatter, then it makes you ungodly.
vs 17
This verse was probably very meaningful to Timothy, because he knew who these guys were. But we've got precious little idea, so we can't really compare their teaching except for what Paul tells us about them here.
vs 18
It turns out that they have wandered from the truth. In talking about the resurrection of all people, they say it has already happened, which destroys some people's faith and also gives us a fair idea of what Paul means by 'godless chatter'. It's not godless because it's not about God - it's godless becuase it's not from God.
vs 19
I don't know where the second quote comes from. But the point is that even though these guys might talk a lot of crap, God's truth is laid on the foundation of Christ, not on what they say.
vs 20-21
Ok, wha? For those people who like to take things literally, tell me that this verse doesn't mean you should only have silver and gold things in your house. Of course, that would be dumb.
So what does it really mean? The point seems to be that if you clear away your ignoble purposes, then you will be ready to do noble purposes for God. In the context of the verse, we can assume that Paul is talking about the next few verses, and this is just an illustration.
vs 22
Our desires here are not necessarily to be controllable by us. We might still have a desire for some evil thing, but we are to flee it and replace it with a pursuit of godliness. We might not even have a great deal of desire for it at times, but we are to pursue it none the less. So should all the other Christians we know, so we should join together in doing it. Probably makes it easier, like having a diet buddy.
vs 23
To us having a quarrel might not seem like too bad a thing. But in a society where relationships are very important, this is dynamite. Breaking up relationships by having arguments about stupid things is just not on. And a lot of us are not immune from having these stupid arguments - me included.
vs 24
The way of the servant of God is not to quarrel, but to teach, and to be kind and not resentful. It's harder than it sounds, especially when you collect with it the stuff from the other verses.
vs 25
This attitude shows a hell of a lot of faith in God. A lot of the time we want our excellent arguments to sway people's opinions, and so we get quite passionate about them. But this says that we've got to do our instruction gently, in the hope that God will do the work. The truth is that God might not work in them, and they might just keep on going in their stupid ways. But to do it any other way denies the work of God in people's lives.
vs 26
We can't really blame them though. Paul says here that these people are trapped by Satan, and Satan takes them captive to do his will. I wonder if people outside of Christianity often feel trapped by the advertising pushy individualistic expectationist world out there?
Thursday, October 05, 2006
2 Timothy chapter 2
vs 1
Timothy is encouraged to draw his strength from the grace of Christ. This is a typical statement of us not needing to draw on our own strength, but of our ability to draw on God's strength, which logically is far more likely to work.
vs 2
Those that we remember in the Christian church either stuffed something up so royally that it's unforgettable, or were given the organisational skills to keep their work going long after they were gone. Everyone knows the names of Jonathon Edwards (US Revivalist) and John Wesley (started the Methodists), but who knows the name of George Whitefield? Even though he was fundamental in the starting of the revivals both in America and in England, Whitefield never started a movement.
Paul here is starting a movement, by ensuring that what he taught is passed on to other teachers to teach.
vs 3
Paul wants to start an analogy about endurance - in particular enduring hardship.
vs 4
In modern scholarship using the historical-critical method, we would seek to independently verify whether this statement about soldiers and civil matters was true. While this method of criticism is valuable for historical certainty, since I think we can trust Paul to not be lying, we can just assume that soldiers on the whole who wanted to please their commanders didn't get involved in civilian matters.
The NASB (and greek) explain it a little better, saying that "No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier." Remember that regular armies are not in existance. They are raised up out of the population for specific purposes. Even 'enlist' is probably a bit of a misnomer - some people had less choice than others, depending on the culture.
The fact is that whether you're doing compulsory service, or you are being forced, you don't want to make your boss unhappy. So you stick to the job at hand that you have been given.
vs 5
I don't like this translation at all. Literally it reads "And if you wrestle with someone, you are only crowned if you are wrestling lawfully". It sort of gives me the idea that if you grab someone off the street and beat the snot out of them, you're not going to get a medal for it. Of course I agree that you've got to follow the rules as well - but if you know greek wrestling, you'll know there isn't many rules. People don't get medals for pub brawls - only in wrestling rings. You've got to do things at the right time and in the right way.
vs 6
Now this statement is a funny one. I would say that here Paul is again defending his statement that a worker deserves his wages from 1 Timothy. If you put all of these previous statements into the context of verse 2, then you will see that Paul wants teachers of the gospel to stay focused on their teaching (remember the Apostles in Acts got distracted because of the needs of widows etc), to teach by the rules (probably means to teach Paul's stuff and not false stuff - but also that you can only teach the gospel if you're prepared to live by its rules), and finally here to accept that you do have a reasonable claim to some fruit from your ministry.
vs 7
Thankfully, if we don't get all this stuff right straight away, God will give us insight into it. It seems Timothy might have needed it as much as we do.
vs 8
Paul's succinct gospel (this time) is Jesus the man, as Christ the anointed one of God, raised from the dead by God's power, descended from David as a king. These summary statements of the gospel are really precious. They give us a great insight into what Paul thought were the key points people needed to understand.
vs 9
This is what Paul preaches, and what gets him into gaol. But just because he is in gaol, the word of God is not trapped with him. He has been teaching people to teach, and so they are going out and doing it! Of course we know that Paul was able to teach some people while under arrest, but his influence was far more widely felt because of his instruction of teachers.
vs 10
Paul is getting on, and is starting to feel like his own suffering is ver much in the mould of Christ. Just as Christ suffered for the salvation of the elect, so Paul is now suffering for bringing that message to them. It's not the same thing, but it is a vital part of the work of Christ, and Paul is doing it in obedience, to the point of sharing in the sufferings of Christ - which we are all called to do.
vs 11
An early hymn or song or perhaps even liturgy. Paul certainly wants it to be trustworthy, because the first part directly relates to him! If we die in the pattern of Christ (ie for the gospel) then we will live forever with him
vs 12
If we don't die, but instead we endure this life and stick to our faith, we will also live with him (but changing it to reign with him probably makes it sound better in greek).
If we drop Christ, he drops us too. Now not everyone agrees with me, but this fits my model of salvation-losing pretty well. I totally agree that there is nothing that can strip us of our salvation (height, depths, you know the drill). But there's a difference between us having our salvation taken away, and we ourselves deciding that we want to turn our backs on God and drop our salvation. This model of course has its problems (what happens to people who fall away but then turn back?) but it is, in my opinion, just as reasonable as a moderate calvinist position, and more reasonable than a hyper-calvinist one.
vs 13
But even if we are faithless and do not hold out for Christ, then he is still faithful, because Christ is not reliant on us to do his work. We are only in him in the first place because of him. He cannot disown his own work. We don't have to worry about him letting us down.
Timothy is encouraged to draw his strength from the grace of Christ. This is a typical statement of us not needing to draw on our own strength, but of our ability to draw on God's strength, which logically is far more likely to work.
vs 2
Those that we remember in the Christian church either stuffed something up so royally that it's unforgettable, or were given the organisational skills to keep their work going long after they were gone. Everyone knows the names of Jonathon Edwards (US Revivalist) and John Wesley (started the Methodists), but who knows the name of George Whitefield? Even though he was fundamental in the starting of the revivals both in America and in England, Whitefield never started a movement.
Paul here is starting a movement, by ensuring that what he taught is passed on to other teachers to teach.
vs 3
Paul wants to start an analogy about endurance - in particular enduring hardship.
vs 4
In modern scholarship using the historical-critical method, we would seek to independently verify whether this statement about soldiers and civil matters was true. While this method of criticism is valuable for historical certainty, since I think we can trust Paul to not be lying, we can just assume that soldiers on the whole who wanted to please their commanders didn't get involved in civilian matters.
The NASB (and greek) explain it a little better, saying that "No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier." Remember that regular armies are not in existance. They are raised up out of the population for specific purposes. Even 'enlist' is probably a bit of a misnomer - some people had less choice than others, depending on the culture.
The fact is that whether you're doing compulsory service, or you are being forced, you don't want to make your boss unhappy. So you stick to the job at hand that you have been given.
vs 5
I don't like this translation at all. Literally it reads "And if you wrestle with someone, you are only crowned if you are wrestling lawfully". It sort of gives me the idea that if you grab someone off the street and beat the snot out of them, you're not going to get a medal for it. Of course I agree that you've got to follow the rules as well - but if you know greek wrestling, you'll know there isn't many rules. People don't get medals for pub brawls - only in wrestling rings. You've got to do things at the right time and in the right way.
vs 6
Now this statement is a funny one. I would say that here Paul is again defending his statement that a worker deserves his wages from 1 Timothy. If you put all of these previous statements into the context of verse 2, then you will see that Paul wants teachers of the gospel to stay focused on their teaching (remember the Apostles in Acts got distracted because of the needs of widows etc), to teach by the rules (probably means to teach Paul's stuff and not false stuff - but also that you can only teach the gospel if you're prepared to live by its rules), and finally here to accept that you do have a reasonable claim to some fruit from your ministry.
vs 7
Thankfully, if we don't get all this stuff right straight away, God will give us insight into it. It seems Timothy might have needed it as much as we do.
vs 8
Paul's succinct gospel (this time) is Jesus the man, as Christ the anointed one of God, raised from the dead by God's power, descended from David as a king. These summary statements of the gospel are really precious. They give us a great insight into what Paul thought were the key points people needed to understand.
vs 9
This is what Paul preaches, and what gets him into gaol. But just because he is in gaol, the word of God is not trapped with him. He has been teaching people to teach, and so they are going out and doing it! Of course we know that Paul was able to teach some people while under arrest, but his influence was far more widely felt because of his instruction of teachers.
vs 10
Paul is getting on, and is starting to feel like his own suffering is ver much in the mould of Christ. Just as Christ suffered for the salvation of the elect, so Paul is now suffering for bringing that message to them. It's not the same thing, but it is a vital part of the work of Christ, and Paul is doing it in obedience, to the point of sharing in the sufferings of Christ - which we are all called to do.
vs 11
An early hymn or song or perhaps even liturgy. Paul certainly wants it to be trustworthy, because the first part directly relates to him! If we die in the pattern of Christ (ie for the gospel) then we will live forever with him
vs 12
If we don't die, but instead we endure this life and stick to our faith, we will also live with him (but changing it to reign with him probably makes it sound better in greek).
If we drop Christ, he drops us too. Now not everyone agrees with me, but this fits my model of salvation-losing pretty well. I totally agree that there is nothing that can strip us of our salvation (height, depths, you know the drill). But there's a difference between us having our salvation taken away, and we ourselves deciding that we want to turn our backs on God and drop our salvation. This model of course has its problems (what happens to people who fall away but then turn back?) but it is, in my opinion, just as reasonable as a moderate calvinist position, and more reasonable than a hyper-calvinist one.
vs 13
But even if we are faithless and do not hold out for Christ, then he is still faithful, because Christ is not reliant on us to do his work. We are only in him in the first place because of him. He cannot disown his own work. We don't have to worry about him letting us down.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
2 Timothy Chapter 1
vs 10
So even though we have been marked for salvation since before the beginning of time, we could only really see it because of Christ's appearance. I mean, you might have caught a whiff of the fact that we would be living forever in eternal glory with God somehow, but that would have been a long shot. But when Jesus came and said "I'm going to die to give you eternal life, then I'll be resurrected from the dead to prove it", well, then it's easy to see the plan with 20/20 hindsight. But Jesus doesn't just bring this whole thing to light through his actions - he does it through the gospel. His life, actions and words all seek to bring to fufillment the salvation-history of God's great plan.
Why does Paul use the term "life and immortality"? Well, the word is aphtharsia and I think it would be better translated "incorruption" even though that sounds stupid. Certainly I'm not saying immortality is wrong - just that saying life and "not death" sounds funny to me. It probably sounds better in greek.
vs 11
The gospel - not just Jesus' death and resurrection, but the entire story of God's work to bring mankind back to himself - is what drove Paul. It is what God appointed him to bring and to shout and to teach.
vs 12
Who can't read this verse and think of that hymn based on it? Ugh. Hymns that require you to be castrated are bad, mmmk? Paul is suffering, and he's suffering because of the gospel and his job in spreading it. Not only is he suffering, but he is suffering at the hands of people with lots of "authority" - Jewish religious leaders (he probably knew some of them!) and Roman officials. And it's easy when you're being persecuted by figures in authority to feel ashamed. But Paul doesn't. He knows that the important thing - his eternal life in Christ - is guarded in heaven, and no matter what they do to him, God can protect that.
vs 13
Paul is, after all, the one who was appointed to teach this stuff, so keeping to what he taught is probably a good idea. But the teaching on its own isn't enough - without faith and love in Christ, it is just empty words.
vs 14
Just as Paul knows that God can keep his eternal life secure with him up in heaven, he trusts Timothy to keep the message of the gospel secure. But this message isn't something that can be stolen. Rather, it is in danger of being corrupted by false teaching, or distorted and forgotten because of useless arguing. The Holy Spirit is needed to keep us on track with the gospel, with the important things.
vs 15
Paul's in a dark place. He feels deserted, and to some extent he has been. Many of those who were seeking to comfort him and bless him have moved on. They might have even moved on to do the Lord's work. But he still feels lonely and abandoned.
vs 16
Onesiphorus is a name I hope I don't have to type often. I'm glad Paul was the writer of the majority of the NT books rather than him! However, he was a blessing to Paul. Note that Paul says that he was not ashamed of Paul's chains - which suggests that others might have been, and were too ashamed to go visiting someone who was in prison (it probably almost certainly marked you as a Christian).
vs 17
But Onesiphorus was dead keen to serve Paul. I can't imagine Rome was anything like as huge as it is today, but it still would have been one of the biggest, if not the biggest, city in the whole western world. So searching for someone there is no mean feat.
vs 18
I think we're assumed to know what 'that day' is. I assume he means on the day of glory, the Day of the Lord. And of course, while Timothy might have well known all the things Onesiphorus did for Paul in Ephesus, we have no idea. I guess we don't need to know. But he did do stuff, and he was from Ephesus (or at least with Paul in Ephesus). That's a little important - Paul probably did have other people there with him (that comes out later in the letter) but he probably mentions Onesiphorus because he's from Ephesus, and the church there would know him and would appreciate his example of service.
So even though we have been marked for salvation since before the beginning of time, we could only really see it because of Christ's appearance. I mean, you might have caught a whiff of the fact that we would be living forever in eternal glory with God somehow, but that would have been a long shot. But when Jesus came and said "I'm going to die to give you eternal life, then I'll be resurrected from the dead to prove it", well, then it's easy to see the plan with 20/20 hindsight. But Jesus doesn't just bring this whole thing to light through his actions - he does it through the gospel. His life, actions and words all seek to bring to fufillment the salvation-history of God's great plan.
Why does Paul use the term "life and immortality"? Well, the word is aphtharsia and I think it would be better translated "incorruption" even though that sounds stupid. Certainly I'm not saying immortality is wrong - just that saying life and "not death" sounds funny to me. It probably sounds better in greek.
vs 11
The gospel - not just Jesus' death and resurrection, but the entire story of God's work to bring mankind back to himself - is what drove Paul. It is what God appointed him to bring and to shout and to teach.
vs 12
Who can't read this verse and think of that hymn based on it? Ugh. Hymns that require you to be castrated are bad, mmmk? Paul is suffering, and he's suffering because of the gospel and his job in spreading it. Not only is he suffering, but he is suffering at the hands of people with lots of "authority" - Jewish religious leaders (he probably knew some of them!) and Roman officials. And it's easy when you're being persecuted by figures in authority to feel ashamed. But Paul doesn't. He knows that the important thing - his eternal life in Christ - is guarded in heaven, and no matter what they do to him, God can protect that.
vs 13
Paul is, after all, the one who was appointed to teach this stuff, so keeping to what he taught is probably a good idea. But the teaching on its own isn't enough - without faith and love in Christ, it is just empty words.
vs 14
Just as Paul knows that God can keep his eternal life secure with him up in heaven, he trusts Timothy to keep the message of the gospel secure. But this message isn't something that can be stolen. Rather, it is in danger of being corrupted by false teaching, or distorted and forgotten because of useless arguing. The Holy Spirit is needed to keep us on track with the gospel, with the important things.
vs 15
Paul's in a dark place. He feels deserted, and to some extent he has been. Many of those who were seeking to comfort him and bless him have moved on. They might have even moved on to do the Lord's work. But he still feels lonely and abandoned.
vs 16
Onesiphorus is a name I hope I don't have to type often. I'm glad Paul was the writer of the majority of the NT books rather than him! However, he was a blessing to Paul. Note that Paul says that he was not ashamed of Paul's chains - which suggests that others might have been, and were too ashamed to go visiting someone who was in prison (it probably almost certainly marked you as a Christian).
vs 17
But Onesiphorus was dead keen to serve Paul. I can't imagine Rome was anything like as huge as it is today, but it still would have been one of the biggest, if not the biggest, city in the whole western world. So searching for someone there is no mean feat.
vs 18
I think we're assumed to know what 'that day' is. I assume he means on the day of glory, the Day of the Lord. And of course, while Timothy might have well known all the things Onesiphorus did for Paul in Ephesus, we have no idea. I guess we don't need to know. But he did do stuff, and he was from Ephesus (or at least with Paul in Ephesus). That's a little important - Paul probably did have other people there with him (that comes out later in the letter) but he probably mentions Onesiphorus because he's from Ephesus, and the church there would know him and would appreciate his example of service.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
2 Timothy chapter 1
vs 1-2
Hey, this looks fairly similar to the last letter I did. Written by Paul, sent to Timothy.
vs 3
This is the sort of sentence that high school kids write and get bad marks for in their creative writing. The NASB at least tries to take a few commas out. So Paul serves God with a clear conscience, just as his forefathers did. And he thanks God when he remembers Timothy in his prayers.
vs 4
Paul has been reminded of Timothy's tears (I don't quite know what this means), but it is this reminding that makes him want to go and see Timothy, and such a visit would fill him with joy.
Most probably Timothy is upset because Paul is on his way to be executed, or at least has been in prison for a long time. He might also be upset because things aren't going so well for him in Ephesus.
vs 5
Timothy's grandmother and mother were both Christian (or at least failthfully Jewish), and this has flowed on to Timothy. Not in a hereditary way, though - notice that Paul needed to be convinced that this sincere faith was in him. It's interesting that his father or grandfather aren't mentioned. This might suggest that only the female lineage was affected by the message, or that Jewishness comes through your mother.
vs 6
Another reference to a gift of God being given through the laying on of hands. Last letter it was through a prophecy and a laying on of hands from the elders. Whether laying on hands is some symbol of acceptance is uncertain - certainly there's no reason God couldn't cause people to gain gifts at range. In other parts of the Bible, it does seem exclusive to gifts being given or things happening, but necessary to the acceptance of people, whether it be to the church or to a ministry by the church.
vs 7
Because Timothy's gift was one of speaking, he was to go and use it! But even way back in the stupid ages, public speaking was still frightening. But through the Holy Spirit, Timothy should be dominated not by timidity, but by power, love and self-discipline.
vs 8
Perhaps we are now in the stupid ages - I mean, all we are afraid of is that people will think we're stupid or bad at speaking. Paul here is saying "Don't be ashamed to be linked to Christ or to me - sure, I'm in gaol and they nailed Christ to a cross, and it seems that things are in fact only getting worse for those who do testify to him. But come and suffer with me, huzzah!"
vs 9
And we do this crazy thing by the power of God who not only saved us, but has separated us from the normal life people lead. God was moved by grace to act on our behalf, but he also has his own purposes. He's had a plan for ages, and everthing is going according to plan. Yes, that includes your suffering.
Hey, this looks fairly similar to the last letter I did. Written by Paul, sent to Timothy.
vs 3
This is the sort of sentence that high school kids write and get bad marks for in their creative writing. The NASB at least tries to take a few commas out. So Paul serves God with a clear conscience, just as his forefathers did. And he thanks God when he remembers Timothy in his prayers.
vs 4
Paul has been reminded of Timothy's tears (I don't quite know what this means), but it is this reminding that makes him want to go and see Timothy, and such a visit would fill him with joy.
Most probably Timothy is upset because Paul is on his way to be executed, or at least has been in prison for a long time. He might also be upset because things aren't going so well for him in Ephesus.
vs 5
Timothy's grandmother and mother were both Christian (or at least failthfully Jewish), and this has flowed on to Timothy. Not in a hereditary way, though - notice that Paul needed to be convinced that this sincere faith was in him. It's interesting that his father or grandfather aren't mentioned. This might suggest that only the female lineage was affected by the message, or that Jewishness comes through your mother.
vs 6
Another reference to a gift of God being given through the laying on of hands. Last letter it was through a prophecy and a laying on of hands from the elders. Whether laying on hands is some symbol of acceptance is uncertain - certainly there's no reason God couldn't cause people to gain gifts at range. In other parts of the Bible, it does seem exclusive to gifts being given or things happening, but necessary to the acceptance of people, whether it be to the church or to a ministry by the church.
vs 7
Because Timothy's gift was one of speaking, he was to go and use it! But even way back in the stupid ages, public speaking was still frightening. But through the Holy Spirit, Timothy should be dominated not by timidity, but by power, love and self-discipline.
vs 8
Perhaps we are now in the stupid ages - I mean, all we are afraid of is that people will think we're stupid or bad at speaking. Paul here is saying "Don't be ashamed to be linked to Christ or to me - sure, I'm in gaol and they nailed Christ to a cross, and it seems that things are in fact only getting worse for those who do testify to him. But come and suffer with me, huzzah!"
vs 9
And we do this crazy thing by the power of God who not only saved us, but has separated us from the normal life people lead. God was moved by grace to act on our behalf, but he also has his own purposes. He's had a plan for ages, and everthing is going according to plan. Yes, that includes your suffering.
Monday, October 02, 2006
1 Timothy Chapter 6
vs 11
No, Timothy is not the Elect Vessel of the Exclusive Brethren. Man I'm getting sick of hearing about them.
Paul here offers Timothy an alternative - a wealth of character. But in order to do so, you must flee from the temptation of money wealth, probably much like Joseph fled from Potiphar's wife.
vs 12
Timothy is not to flee from defending the faith, only from ungodly desires and false doctrines. He is to have nothing to do with them. You could actually translate this verse "struggle the good struggle". So the having nothing to do with these things is not a monastic separation from them, but a "meet them only on the battlefield" type thing.
Timothy was called to eternal life - by God or by preacher (Paul?) it doesn't really matter, because Paul is now exhorting him to grasp hold of it. Note that Paul's call to Timothy here is not a conversion call! He's already made his confession in front of witnesses (probably at baptism). We also have no reason to believe that Timothy was sliding away from his faith - after all, he's in charge of the church at Ephesus. Paul's words here are a continuing encouragement. And yet if someone told us to hold firmly to our salvation, we'd probably take it as an insult, "Are you saying I'm weak in the faith?".
vs 13
Paul is now giving Timothy a solemn charge. He does it in almost a vow-like fashion, making it in the sight of God in his position as life-giver, and Jesus in his position as confessor to himself (as Lord and as Son of God - but actually more accurately he confessed himself as King of the Jews before Pilate according to Luke. And I use Luke because Paul quoted it earlier). What is the charge?
vs 14
No doubt the command is to hold on to your eternal life. It might stretch back as far as vs 11, but if it does then it just gets harder and harder to do without spot or blame. And considering it's a command from God, it's probably impossible to keep anyway. But that is what Timothy is to strive for.
vs 15-16
When will Jesus return? In God's own time! There's the answer we've all been looking for - all you number-crunching verse-dismantling wackos can stop berating me about it now.
Paul now goes into a doxology about God, which is focused on God's rulership and authority. He speaks of a powerful, unapproachable God. Very different to your average doxology. Amen.
vs 17
Having an attitude of haughtiness or arrogance because you are rich is completely counter to God's ideal, and it shows that even if you don't put your hope in wealth to save you, you probably still put your hope in it for something. I know some of the pentes (but not only them) who preach a false prosperity doctrine, they put their hope in wealth. Not to save them (they know only Jesus can do that) but for them their wealth is proof to them that God has blessed them. So they put their hope in their wealth as being a badge of honour showing their salvation to be true. But wealth is uncertain!
God provides everything for our enjoyment. It is actually ok to have stuff and enjoy it. We don't need to live in sparse monk cells with nothing to concentrate on but a cross we've drawn in the sand with our own finger. If you really think you should give away everything you've got because you've got some complex about being rich while other people are poor, then go donate a kidney and part of your liver, because that's the logical conclusion of such beliefs. In 2 Corinthians, Paul states that godly equality is the rich not being too rich, and the poor not being too poor. Now the rich are always going to point at the "richer" and say those are the ones that are too rich. We could all probably trim some fat from our largesse. But the poor are always going to be poor. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to make them rich like us, I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't try, but we'll never reach an equality. And we don't have to. The act of trying is what God wants from us.
vs 18
Your mind should be more on good deeds and being wealthy in goodness, rather than in wealth. Such an exercise is a good way of separating yourself from your wealth, and seeing that there's more to life than money. Why do you think people like Bill Gates and Richard Branson donate huge amounts of money to charity? Not because of this verse I assure you, but because the doing of good deeds is a wealth of its own. That and it gives them more press coverage.
The command here is to be willing to share, not to be willing to give it all up. Of course, you do have to be willing to give it all up - but not to the poor. Just because the poor come knocking is not a reason to sell your house. But if God comes knocking and says "I need to give your stuff to the poor now" then you have to say "OK!".
vs 19
The "you can't take it with you" argument is back again. But this time it's got its cure as well. The good deeds of the Christian are eternal - because they are pleasing and obedient to an eternal God, because they will give you a foundation in your own eternal life, and because they will most probably effect the eternal life of others too.
vs 20
We get a whiff here at the end that there is a gnostic or proto-gnostic heresy going down (because knowledge of course is gnosis). That is why it is all the more reason for Timothy to guard the message that he has been given. Those who are chattering and preaching the heresy of gnosticism are going to try and take the gospel away, but he can't let them do it.
vs 21
An obvious statement that this heresy is in fact heretical, and those who stick to it don't have the right faith in Christ. And that's the end of that story.
No, Timothy is not the Elect Vessel of the Exclusive Brethren. Man I'm getting sick of hearing about them.
Paul here offers Timothy an alternative - a wealth of character. But in order to do so, you must flee from the temptation of money wealth, probably much like Joseph fled from Potiphar's wife.
vs 12
Timothy is not to flee from defending the faith, only from ungodly desires and false doctrines. He is to have nothing to do with them. You could actually translate this verse "struggle the good struggle". So the having nothing to do with these things is not a monastic separation from them, but a "meet them only on the battlefield" type thing.
Timothy was called to eternal life - by God or by preacher (Paul?) it doesn't really matter, because Paul is now exhorting him to grasp hold of it. Note that Paul's call to Timothy here is not a conversion call! He's already made his confession in front of witnesses (probably at baptism). We also have no reason to believe that Timothy was sliding away from his faith - after all, he's in charge of the church at Ephesus. Paul's words here are a continuing encouragement. And yet if someone told us to hold firmly to our salvation, we'd probably take it as an insult, "Are you saying I'm weak in the faith?".
vs 13
Paul is now giving Timothy a solemn charge. He does it in almost a vow-like fashion, making it in the sight of God in his position as life-giver, and Jesus in his position as confessor to himself (as Lord and as Son of God - but actually more accurately he confessed himself as King of the Jews before Pilate according to Luke. And I use Luke because Paul quoted it earlier). What is the charge?
vs 14
No doubt the command is to hold on to your eternal life. It might stretch back as far as vs 11, but if it does then it just gets harder and harder to do without spot or blame. And considering it's a command from God, it's probably impossible to keep anyway. But that is what Timothy is to strive for.
vs 15-16
When will Jesus return? In God's own time! There's the answer we've all been looking for - all you number-crunching verse-dismantling wackos can stop berating me about it now.
Paul now goes into a doxology about God, which is focused on God's rulership and authority. He speaks of a powerful, unapproachable God. Very different to your average doxology. Amen.
vs 17
Having an attitude of haughtiness or arrogance because you are rich is completely counter to God's ideal, and it shows that even if you don't put your hope in wealth to save you, you probably still put your hope in it for something. I know some of the pentes (but not only them) who preach a false prosperity doctrine, they put their hope in wealth. Not to save them (they know only Jesus can do that) but for them their wealth is proof to them that God has blessed them. So they put their hope in their wealth as being a badge of honour showing their salvation to be true. But wealth is uncertain!
God provides everything for our enjoyment. It is actually ok to have stuff and enjoy it. We don't need to live in sparse monk cells with nothing to concentrate on but a cross we've drawn in the sand with our own finger. If you really think you should give away everything you've got because you've got some complex about being rich while other people are poor, then go donate a kidney and part of your liver, because that's the logical conclusion of such beliefs. In 2 Corinthians, Paul states that godly equality is the rich not being too rich, and the poor not being too poor. Now the rich are always going to point at the "richer" and say those are the ones that are too rich. We could all probably trim some fat from our largesse. But the poor are always going to be poor. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to make them rich like us, I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't try, but we'll never reach an equality. And we don't have to. The act of trying is what God wants from us.
vs 18
Your mind should be more on good deeds and being wealthy in goodness, rather than in wealth. Such an exercise is a good way of separating yourself from your wealth, and seeing that there's more to life than money. Why do you think people like Bill Gates and Richard Branson donate huge amounts of money to charity? Not because of this verse I assure you, but because the doing of good deeds is a wealth of its own. That and it gives them more press coverage.
The command here is to be willing to share, not to be willing to give it all up. Of course, you do have to be willing to give it all up - but not to the poor. Just because the poor come knocking is not a reason to sell your house. But if God comes knocking and says "I need to give your stuff to the poor now" then you have to say "OK!".
vs 19
The "you can't take it with you" argument is back again. But this time it's got its cure as well. The good deeds of the Christian are eternal - because they are pleasing and obedient to an eternal God, because they will give you a foundation in your own eternal life, and because they will most probably effect the eternal life of others too.
vs 20
We get a whiff here at the end that there is a gnostic or proto-gnostic heresy going down (because knowledge of course is gnosis). That is why it is all the more reason for Timothy to guard the message that he has been given. Those who are chattering and preaching the heresy of gnosticism are going to try and take the gospel away, but he can't let them do it.
vs 21
An obvious statement that this heresy is in fact heretical, and those who stick to it don't have the right faith in Christ. And that's the end of that story.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
1 Timothy chapter 6
vs 1
What people expect from a slave is respect. It might also be a bit of a fatalistic attitude - that if God has put you in the position of a slave, then be the best darn slave you can be. But Paul puts a different slant on it - if people see a Christian slave doing the right thing, then it will give them respect for God's name and the teaching of Christ. Now, that's not always how it works, but it is a generally accepted principle.
vs 2
And this is the sort of verse you expect to be followed by "And masters, if you've got slaves that are also saved, then free them - they're your brothers!". But no such verse exists (except the suggestion of it in Philemon).
The gospel isn't tied to one particular culture - the gospel is counter-cultural in every human culture, but usually has enough touching points to show its truth. How much of our own culture we should assimilate is a difficult question. I mean, we are always going to have part of it in us, and if we try to replace it we usually just end up replacing it with a false Christian culture (based on whatever our warped perceptions are of the first century greek/jewish culture we read about in the Bible).
Slavery to me is like divorce. God does not allow it because it is good - he allows for it because he is gracious. God does not want anyone to divorce, and in the same way doesn't want people to own slaves. But people are going to do it, and Christians are even going to do it (and Jews were even going to do it way back when). So God is gracious enough to show us how to deal with these matters when we get stuck in them, rather than leave us out in the cold.
vs 3-4
Could these verse numbers be in any worse places? Anyway, the point they make is powerful. People who are disagreeing with Jesus' teaching, and who are teaching things which are different to Paul and to Christ, these people are teaching out of their own brains, and so they know nothing. Then Paul shows how to pick these people - it is their unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrelsome topics. A focus on particular points of the gospel is fine, and a striving to understand some of the more difficult aspects is commendable. After all, the gospel is a mystery, and although it has been revealed to us, we still get stuck on topics like the Trinity, eschatology, the deep bones of salvation, the Holy Spirit and so on.
But a focus on conspiracies and on debatable things doesn't cause people to grow in Christ - it causes strife, and evil suspicions (like "are they really saved if they don't believe the Pope is the antichrist?") and malicious talk ("that guy's such a nutter, he can't stop talking about the Catholics controlling the Muslims to blow up the Twin Towers"). Envy is one I don't quite get - I'm open to suggestions there.
vs 5
Constant friction is a bad thing for any organisation - but in a family like the church, it is absolutely devastating. The worst thing is that this friction isn't even natural to the church! It's caused by false teachings by men who have a corrupt mind! I don't know how many of them think that it's a path to financial gain, but I will say there's a hell of a lot of crappy books out there that they write and sell.
vs 6
This attitude of Paul's completely turns capitalism and materialism on its head. The greatest gain cannot be measured with a dollar sign or a percentage. The greatest gain is not to get more money than anyone else - it is to have an attitude where you are content with what you have. Then, suddenly, you really do have more than the person who has so much. And with a healthy walk with God, that gives you contentment and eternal salvation. You're pretty rich if that's what you've got.
vs 7
Even non-Christians say "you can't take it with you" but I wonder how many of them actually let that rule their lives. Christians know where they're going, why they can't take it with them and why it doesn't matter even now, but they still live as though they can.
vs 8
Paul had learned the secret of contentment. And a content heart is capable of serving God in a way that one which is striving for all sorts of things never can.
vs 9
People who want to get rich seem to do a lot of falling. It's not the money that is the problem - it is the desires that come with money. Money brings temptation - usually a temptation to use it in a dishonest way (that is, any way which falsely suggests it's your money in the first place). It traps us (compare striving with contentment, and see the trap that has been built for the person who strives for money). And the foolish and harmful desires that money brings are many and plentiful! People desire a bigger house, a nicer car, a bigger family. They don't do it because they want to rule evil empires. They just want these things because they make life more comfortable. But what a price they pay! What sort of decisions to they have to make to get those things? Less time with that family. More mercenary attitudes in their moneymaking. A false understanding of objects, how we end up with them and what their importance is. Separation from God!
vs 10
There has never been a truer word about money ever spoken. Money represents power, influence, security, supply, plenty, comfort, measurable gain and worst of all happiness. It's a whole bunch of lies bundled into little metal coins and pieces of paper! How much more obvious could its falseness be! Money is not powerful, it is not influential. It does not bring security, plenty, happiness or comfort. It is a false measure of gain.
God is powerful. God is influential. God is security, supply, plenty, comfort. God is joy. And our godliness and our contentment are true measures of gain.
I find this a damn hard lesson to learn. There is so much stuff to want in our society. It is geared to feed it to us and convince us of our need. It's hard to be content. But that contentment is a vital part of the gospel. And I think only God, the great supplier, can bring us that contentment.
Of course, we shouldn't build a false dichotomy between contentment and striving. People who strive for money are not wrong because they are striving - they are wrong because they are striving for the wrong thing. Striving is a part of contentment, and we should be constantly striving for God. If we plateau out, or if we stagnate, we will not be content in our walk with God. And I think that's an important truth for our society, because we've got this false idea of reaching a point and then being content. But it doesn't work in spirituality any more than it works in money-mongering.
What people expect from a slave is respect. It might also be a bit of a fatalistic attitude - that if God has put you in the position of a slave, then be the best darn slave you can be. But Paul puts a different slant on it - if people see a Christian slave doing the right thing, then it will give them respect for God's name and the teaching of Christ. Now, that's not always how it works, but it is a generally accepted principle.
vs 2
And this is the sort of verse you expect to be followed by "And masters, if you've got slaves that are also saved, then free them - they're your brothers!". But no such verse exists (except the suggestion of it in Philemon).
The gospel isn't tied to one particular culture - the gospel is counter-cultural in every human culture, but usually has enough touching points to show its truth. How much of our own culture we should assimilate is a difficult question. I mean, we are always going to have part of it in us, and if we try to replace it we usually just end up replacing it with a false Christian culture (based on whatever our warped perceptions are of the first century greek/jewish culture we read about in the Bible).
Slavery to me is like divorce. God does not allow it because it is good - he allows for it because he is gracious. God does not want anyone to divorce, and in the same way doesn't want people to own slaves. But people are going to do it, and Christians are even going to do it (and Jews were even going to do it way back when). So God is gracious enough to show us how to deal with these matters when we get stuck in them, rather than leave us out in the cold.
vs 3-4
Could these verse numbers be in any worse places? Anyway, the point they make is powerful. People who are disagreeing with Jesus' teaching, and who are teaching things which are different to Paul and to Christ, these people are teaching out of their own brains, and so they know nothing. Then Paul shows how to pick these people - it is their unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrelsome topics. A focus on particular points of the gospel is fine, and a striving to understand some of the more difficult aspects is commendable. After all, the gospel is a mystery, and although it has been revealed to us, we still get stuck on topics like the Trinity, eschatology, the deep bones of salvation, the Holy Spirit and so on.
But a focus on conspiracies and on debatable things doesn't cause people to grow in Christ - it causes strife, and evil suspicions (like "are they really saved if they don't believe the Pope is the antichrist?") and malicious talk ("that guy's such a nutter, he can't stop talking about the Catholics controlling the Muslims to blow up the Twin Towers"). Envy is one I don't quite get - I'm open to suggestions there.
vs 5
Constant friction is a bad thing for any organisation - but in a family like the church, it is absolutely devastating. The worst thing is that this friction isn't even natural to the church! It's caused by false teachings by men who have a corrupt mind! I don't know how many of them think that it's a path to financial gain, but I will say there's a hell of a lot of crappy books out there that they write and sell.
vs 6
This attitude of Paul's completely turns capitalism and materialism on its head. The greatest gain cannot be measured with a dollar sign or a percentage. The greatest gain is not to get more money than anyone else - it is to have an attitude where you are content with what you have. Then, suddenly, you really do have more than the person who has so much. And with a healthy walk with God, that gives you contentment and eternal salvation. You're pretty rich if that's what you've got.
vs 7
Even non-Christians say "you can't take it with you" but I wonder how many of them actually let that rule their lives. Christians know where they're going, why they can't take it with them and why it doesn't matter even now, but they still live as though they can.
vs 8
Paul had learned the secret of contentment. And a content heart is capable of serving God in a way that one which is striving for all sorts of things never can.
vs 9
People who want to get rich seem to do a lot of falling. It's not the money that is the problem - it is the desires that come with money. Money brings temptation - usually a temptation to use it in a dishonest way (that is, any way which falsely suggests it's your money in the first place). It traps us (compare striving with contentment, and see the trap that has been built for the person who strives for money). And the foolish and harmful desires that money brings are many and plentiful! People desire a bigger house, a nicer car, a bigger family. They don't do it because they want to rule evil empires. They just want these things because they make life more comfortable. But what a price they pay! What sort of decisions to they have to make to get those things? Less time with that family. More mercenary attitudes in their moneymaking. A false understanding of objects, how we end up with them and what their importance is. Separation from God!
vs 10
There has never been a truer word about money ever spoken. Money represents power, influence, security, supply, plenty, comfort, measurable gain and worst of all happiness. It's a whole bunch of lies bundled into little metal coins and pieces of paper! How much more obvious could its falseness be! Money is not powerful, it is not influential. It does not bring security, plenty, happiness or comfort. It is a false measure of gain.
God is powerful. God is influential. God is security, supply, plenty, comfort. God is joy. And our godliness and our contentment are true measures of gain.
I find this a damn hard lesson to learn. There is so much stuff to want in our society. It is geared to feed it to us and convince us of our need. It's hard to be content. But that contentment is a vital part of the gospel. And I think only God, the great supplier, can bring us that contentment.
Of course, we shouldn't build a false dichotomy between contentment and striving. People who strive for money are not wrong because they are striving - they are wrong because they are striving for the wrong thing. Striving is a part of contentment, and we should be constantly striving for God. If we plateau out, or if we stagnate, we will not be content in our walk with God. And I think that's an important truth for our society, because we've got this false idea of reaching a point and then being content. But it doesn't work in spirituality any more than it works in money-mongering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)