vs 11
Ummmm... que? Impart spiritual gift? I mean, my first obvious thought is that Paul wants to go and teach them tongues or something. But how exactly does one impart a spiritual gifting? It's not the sort of thing that we expect in my churches. Does Paul feel that the Romans are inadequately spiritually gifted?
vs 12
Ok, so now he thinks that the Roman church may actually have something to offer him back. Mutual encouragement. Perhaps he's thinking they could give him some cash, and he could load them up with some spiritual gifts.
vs 13
Of course Paul would have had Rome on his agenda as a key place to do ministry. Looks like someone else got there first (which is unsurprising really - surely Christians went through Rome as regularly as anyone). Paul may think that he can reap yet more of a harvest among the Romans and add to the church there.
vs 14
Non-Greeks, I assume, includes the Romans, who were actually Roman. Wise and foolish probably include them too. Paul had spent a lot of time in and around Greece, so it might have been that people thought he was "Apostle to the Greeks", but he is saying that God wants him to go further afield than even that.
vs 15
"Preach the gospel" - these last few verses have sounded very evangelistically thrusted, and yet the letter is being written to a church. Is it perhaps that Paul thinks that he can firm up the foundations of the church at Rome, because he isn't sure that they are really firm in a solid understanding of the gospel?
vs 16
I know this is a great and famous verse among the protestant tradition. But does it seem to you to just pop up out of nowhere? Does Paul think the Romans are ashamed of the gospel? Where did shame come into it all of a sudden?
Thinking about the book as a whole, Paul obviously knows something about the Roman church. He addresses some pretty specific issues to them. Perhaps they are ashamed of the gospel, because it involves a crucified God and total grace. Perhaps they are struggling under a burden of false teaching.
Whatever the reason, Paul isn't ashamed. It is interesting to think that it is not Christ, or the Cross, that are the power of God for salvation. It is the gospel - the message of Christ and the Cross. Well, actually the TNIV makes it a little different. It says that the gospel is the power of God that brings salvation. Slight difference, but I think it's important. They TNIV people are suggesting, I think, that while the cross might produce salvation, it is the gospel that brings it to people so that they can believe.
vs 17
Paul is going to build on this idea a whole lot in the next few chapters. The goal is righteousness. The vehicle is faith. I think we often think of the gospel as salvation - that is that it saves us. And it does - vs 16 makes it clear. But the gospel is also what gives us faith, which is what makes us righteous.
The first of many Old Testament quotes here. His liberal use of the OT should tell us that Paul is either writing to a group with a number of Jews in it, or a group that is pretty well grounded in the OT. He mentioned it earlier in the letter too.
vs 18
Ok, this sentence comes out of the blue too.
Well, not completely. I mean, wickedness is pretty much the opposite of righteousness. So Paul is saying that by suppressing the truth about righteousness by being unrighteous, people are just pulling God's wrath down on them from heaven. They don't even need a block and tackle.
vs 19
And God's not just angry because they are doing it in an ignorant way, with nothing to point them to God. God has made himself plain to them, but they still bandy about being wicked.
vs 20
Paul here makes an argument from natural theology - perhaps the strongest one in the NT. The idea that God is creator means therefore that some of God's qualities - namely his power and divinity - are obviously visible through his creation.
This general revelation to all humanity is of course universally recogniseable. But it seems only enough to cause wrath. It doesn't seem that the gospel is apparent in general revelation.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Romans chapter 1
I feel totally underqualified for this one - all the big Christian players of the modern times have done Romans.
vs 1
Always the same, always a little different. Another letter by Paul. This time, his calling from God to be an apostle is key, and also his specific setting apart for the sake of spreading the gospel. This is of first importance in the book, but doesn't really show its head again until chapter 10 or so.
vs 2
This is still part of his introduction. Which gospel is it? It's the one promised through the prophets in the Holy Scriptures (that is, the Old Testament).
vs 3
It's the gospel that is about the Son of God, who followed in the line of king David.
vs 4
It's the gospel about the guy who, through the Holy Spirit, was appointed as Son of God because he was resurrected. His name is Jesus, and his position is Christ.
Tell me you don't find the word 'appointed' here kind of strange. It's a TNIV word - all the other of my translations translate that word 'declared', which makes perfect sense. The word is horizo, and it means "to define; to mark out boundaries; to ordain, determine, appoint; that which has been determined (acc. to appointment, decree)".
This word is only translated as "declare" once in the NT - and it's in Romans. It's only used 8 times, but it's translated mostly as determined (3) or appointed (2).
See, 'declare'ing Jesus as Son of God makes sense - it means he always was, but now it's just being shouted out by the resurrection. But to say that Jesus is 'appointed' God's Son sounds weird. Perhaps it is the "in power" that pulls us over the line here. Now, was the declaration (appointment) with power, or is it Son of God in power? I could probably tell you if I knew greek. However, I asked my local language scholar, and she is of the opinion that it is "Son of God in power" (NASB) rather than "declared with power the Son of God" (NIV).
The resurrection is a powerful declaration, so it's not like that is an untenable translation. Is it an appointment though? I guess you could argue that, but it feels uncomfortable. But the idea of the Son of God being 'in power', declaritively or appointedly, because of the resurrection is also quite legitimate.
vs 5
Paul's apostleship comes directly through this Christ. It is an apostleship not just to be a messenger, but to the gentiles specifically. This is still his introduction - so he is explaining more fully which gospel he's talking about, and what his calling for it is exactly.
vs 6
Paul wants the Romans to know that this includes them. That doesn't mean that Paul did preach to them - it means instead that they are included in the group "gentiles who should belong to Christ". This doesn't mean as much as it could mean. After all, Paul was called to call all gentiles to faith - so being a gentile makes you "among those gentiles".
I hate the term gentile.
vs 7
Ok, this is a little confusing. If we take "called" in the same sense as verse 5, then this letter is to every gentile in Rome - pretty much everybody. But it isn't - it's to the church in Rome. Paul is fairly obviously using the term 'called' here in two different ways. If he was in fact using the same word at all, which he was not. In fact, the greek is really sparse in verse 5 - it basically says "for obedience of faith" - so "to bring about" (NASB) is just as much an insert as "called" (NIV, TNIV).
So it would seem that when Paul uses the word 'called' (kletos), he means it in a specific sense. His personal calling, now the direct calling of the gentiles who are in the church in Rome.
Which is why the word 'called' shouldn't be used in verse 5 - it makes it sound like a call can be general and specific. But Paul doesn't say that.
So, letter is from Paul, and is to the church at Rome. Took us 7 verses to get there - I think that may be a record. Typical pleasantries follow.
vs 8
So many things to say! Paul thanks God for the Romans. Why? Because their faith is being reported all over the world. They are in Rome, after all, and it is a bit of a centre, so news from there travels fast no doubt. This may also be a slight wink at them to let them know that the world's eyes are on them, so they need to represent Christ fully.
But also notice that Paul thanks God 'through Christ' for the Roman church. You could dismiss this as idiomatic, but I think we'll see later in Romans that there's something to this - that Paul builds up an internally consistent theology of prayer. Point one - thanking God. Second- doing it through Jesus. Why? Not sure. Yet.
vs 9
Wow, Paul is being wordy and verbose. This is going to be a long letter. He reiterates here his service for God, and how it is service via the gospel of his Son. He's actually talking about how he prays for the Romans.
vs 10
Paul's never been to Rome, apparently - at least not to visit the Roman church. He wants to though. So this letter is to a church Paul has never visited. It's an interesting idea. I mean, that is in fact every modern church.
vs 1
Always the same, always a little different. Another letter by Paul. This time, his calling from God to be an apostle is key, and also his specific setting apart for the sake of spreading the gospel. This is of first importance in the book, but doesn't really show its head again until chapter 10 or so.
vs 2
This is still part of his introduction. Which gospel is it? It's the one promised through the prophets in the Holy Scriptures (that is, the Old Testament).
vs 3
It's the gospel that is about the Son of God, who followed in the line of king David.
vs 4
It's the gospel about the guy who, through the Holy Spirit, was appointed as Son of God because he was resurrected. His name is Jesus, and his position is Christ.
Tell me you don't find the word 'appointed' here kind of strange. It's a TNIV word - all the other of my translations translate that word 'declared', which makes perfect sense. The word is horizo, and it means "to define; to mark out boundaries; to ordain, determine, appoint; that which has been determined (acc. to appointment, decree)".
This word is only translated as "declare" once in the NT - and it's in Romans. It's only used 8 times, but it's translated mostly as determined (3) or appointed (2).
See, 'declare'ing Jesus as Son of God makes sense - it means he always was, but now it's just being shouted out by the resurrection. But to say that Jesus is 'appointed' God's Son sounds weird. Perhaps it is the "in power" that pulls us over the line here. Now, was the declaration (appointment) with power, or is it Son of God in power? I could probably tell you if I knew greek. However, I asked my local language scholar, and she is of the opinion that it is "Son of God in power" (NASB) rather than "declared with power the Son of God" (NIV).
The resurrection is a powerful declaration, so it's not like that is an untenable translation. Is it an appointment though? I guess you could argue that, but it feels uncomfortable. But the idea of the Son of God being 'in power', declaritively or appointedly, because of the resurrection is also quite legitimate.
vs 5
Paul's apostleship comes directly through this Christ. It is an apostleship not just to be a messenger, but to the gentiles specifically. This is still his introduction - so he is explaining more fully which gospel he's talking about, and what his calling for it is exactly.
vs 6
Paul wants the Romans to know that this includes them. That doesn't mean that Paul did preach to them - it means instead that they are included in the group "gentiles who should belong to Christ". This doesn't mean as much as it could mean. After all, Paul was called to call all gentiles to faith - so being a gentile makes you "among those gentiles".
I hate the term gentile.
vs 7
Ok, this is a little confusing. If we take "called" in the same sense as verse 5, then this letter is to every gentile in Rome - pretty much everybody. But it isn't - it's to the church in Rome. Paul is fairly obviously using the term 'called' here in two different ways. If he was in fact using the same word at all, which he was not. In fact, the greek is really sparse in verse 5 - it basically says "for obedience of faith" - so "to bring about" (NASB) is just as much an insert as "called" (NIV, TNIV).
So it would seem that when Paul uses the word 'called' (kletos), he means it in a specific sense. His personal calling, now the direct calling of the gentiles who are in the church in Rome.
Which is why the word 'called' shouldn't be used in verse 5 - it makes it sound like a call can be general and specific. But Paul doesn't say that.
So, letter is from Paul, and is to the church at Rome. Took us 7 verses to get there - I think that may be a record. Typical pleasantries follow.
vs 8
So many things to say! Paul thanks God for the Romans. Why? Because their faith is being reported all over the world. They are in Rome, after all, and it is a bit of a centre, so news from there travels fast no doubt. This may also be a slight wink at them to let them know that the world's eyes are on them, so they need to represent Christ fully.
But also notice that Paul thanks God 'through Christ' for the Roman church. You could dismiss this as idiomatic, but I think we'll see later in Romans that there's something to this - that Paul builds up an internally consistent theology of prayer. Point one - thanking God. Second- doing it through Jesus. Why? Not sure. Yet.
vs 9
Wow, Paul is being wordy and verbose. This is going to be a long letter. He reiterates here his service for God, and how it is service via the gospel of his Son. He's actually talking about how he prays for the Romans.
vs 10
Paul's never been to Rome, apparently - at least not to visit the Roman church. He wants to though. So this letter is to a church Paul has never visited. It's an interesting idea. I mean, that is in fact every modern church.
Monday, May 19, 2008
The story so far...
Remember: sometimes books or topics can be interrupted with psalms or ramblings. I've gone back to everywhere this has happened so far and put a little link in to take you to the next post of its kind.
If you're a fellow preacher and you come by this and use it, by all means go for it, although I'd suggest you at least mention you got it "from the Internet" if not the site specifically. I mean, I'm not going to stop you if you pawn one of my sermons and use it completely verbatim. But if you do that, I pity you.
Genesis ----------------> Matthew
Exodus ----------------> Mark
Leviticus ----------------> Luke
Numbers ----------------> John
Deuteronomy ----------------> Acts
Joshua ----------------> Romans
Judges ----------------> 1 Corinthians
Ruth ----------------> 2 Corinthians
1 Samuel ----------------> Galatians
2 Samuel ----------------> Ephesians
1 Kings ----------------> Philippians
2 Kings ----------------> Colossians
1 Chronicles ----------------> 1 Thessalonians
2 Chronicles ----------------> 2 Thessalonians
Ezra ----------------> 1 Timothy
Nehemiah ----------------> 2 Timothy
Job ----------------> Titus
Psalms ----------------> Philemon
(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31)
Proverbs ----------------> Hebrews
Ecclesiastes ----------------> James
Song of Songs ----------------> 1 Peter
Isaiah ----------------> 2 Peter
Jeremiah ----------------> 1 John
Lamentations ----------------> 2 John
Ezekiel ----------------> 3 John
Daniel ----------------> Jude
Hosea ----------------> Revelation
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Topics:
Work
Sermons:
1 Corinthians 10
1 Corinthians 15:12-34
1 Corinthians 15:35-58
Priscilla and Aquila
If you're a fellow preacher and you come by this and use it, by all means go for it, although I'd suggest you at least mention you got it "from the Internet" if not the site specifically. I mean, I'm not going to stop you if you pawn one of my sermons and use it completely verbatim. But if you do that, I pity you.
Genesis ----------------> Matthew
Exodus ----------------> Mark
Leviticus ----------------> Luke
Numbers ----------------> John
Deuteronomy ----------------> Acts
Joshua ----------------> Romans
Judges ----------------> 1 Corinthians
Ruth ----------------> 2 Corinthians
1 Samuel ----------------> Galatians
2 Samuel ----------------> Ephesians
1 Kings ----------------> Philippians
2 Kings ----------------> Colossians
1 Chronicles ----------------> 1 Thessalonians
2 Chronicles ----------------> 2 Thessalonians
Ezra ----------------> 1 Timothy
Nehemiah ----------------> 2 Timothy
Job ----------------> Titus
Psalms ----------------> Philemon
(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31)
Proverbs ----------------> Hebrews
Ecclesiastes ----------------> James
Song of Songs ----------------> 1 Peter
Isaiah ----------------> 2 Peter
Jeremiah ----------------> 1 John
Lamentations ----------------> 2 John
Ezekiel ----------------> 3 John
Daniel ----------------> Jude
Hosea ----------------> Revelation
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Topics:
Work
Sermons:
1 Corinthians 10
1 Corinthians 15:12-34
1 Corinthians 15:35-58
Priscilla and Aquila
One Hand With Tranquility (sermon on work)
Oasis Evangelistic Talk - The Ultimate Relationship
The Rich Man and Lazarus
The Rich Fool
Revelation: The People of God
The Lost Sons
More To Life than ATAR
Jesus' Position
Suffering Church Sunday talk
1 Peter
Adoptification
Luke 19: 28-48 - Triumphal Entry and Temple Cleansing
Sermon - Psalms of complaint (Psalm 22)
Cursing Psalms (Psalm 109)
Mark 14:43-72 (Betrayal, Trial, Denial)
Revelation overview talk (1 of 2)
Ecclesiastes 9:1-11:6
Ecclesiastes 11:7-12:14
Suffering Church Sunday 2010
Spiritually Preparing for Christmas: Grace of Incarnation
Spiritually Preparing for Christmas: Motion of Incarnation
St Ives 15 minute Christmas talk
Mark 4:1-20 - Parable of the sower
John 3 - How we don't know better than God
Oasis Evangelistic Talk - The Ultimate Relationship
The Rich Man and Lazarus
The Rich Fool
Revelation: The People of God
The Lost Sons
More To Life than ATAR
Jesus' Position
Suffering Church Sunday talk
1 Peter
Adoptification
Luke 19: 28-48 - Triumphal Entry and Temple Cleansing
Sermon - Psalms of complaint (Psalm 22)
Cursing Psalms (Psalm 109)
Mark 14:43-72 (Betrayal, Trial, Denial)
Revelation overview talk (1 of 2)
Ecclesiastes 9:1-11:6
Ecclesiastes 11:7-12:14
Suffering Church Sunday 2010
Spiritually Preparing for Christmas: Grace of Incarnation
Spiritually Preparing for Christmas: Motion of Incarnation
St Ives 15 minute Christmas talk
Mark 4:1-20 - Parable of the sower
John 3 - How we don't know better than God
Prayers:
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Psalm 19
Lazy day
vs 8
Now that we've transferred from natural relevation to special revelation, David wants to make the most of it. God's commands not only are right and radiant (how exactly are laws radiant?), but David also wants to tell us what effects these laws have on us. The joy to the heart thing is fairly self explanitory. Is it linked to the laws' rightness? I wouldn't have a problem with that.
I also wouldn't have a problem with radiance being linked to the 'giving light to the eyes' - they seem aptly paired metaphors. But what do they mean? I know some people say that "light to the eyes" is an idiom for 'providing light so you can see your way'. I can't authenticate the veracity of that. I can tell you that eyes apparently had something to do with good health back then, so it is possible that light in the eyes means that you're healthy. But then, what does radiant word mean?
I mean, in its most basic meaning you'd say it provides light. So what is light a metaphor for? Is it the path guiding thing? That is certainly a reasonable thing to say about God's word. In the end I can't say for sure. Look up a commentary.
vs 9
Whoever translated that, and made it able to rhyme, is probably very proud of themselves.
The idea of fear being pure I think makes us think of pure terror. But actually, I think if we took out the selfish concern for personal welfare, then pure fear might actually look a lot more like a deep respect and awe for the thing that is mighty, powerful and worthy of fear.
As for God's word, it gets an excellent rap in this psalm. Sure, meaning trustworthy, and righteous, meaning there's nothing wrong about them at all. They are always in the right. Note, I wouldn't use God's word being 'righteous' to say that it's completely factually correct. Only that it is never morally wrong. Of course, I'm also not saying that I necessarily think God's word isn't factually correct - only that I wouldn't use this verse to defend it.
vs 10
We do well to value God's commands as precious. I mean, they are words directly from God to us - they should be precious. The sweetness thing can sometimes let us down though. I mean, preciousness and value are subjective in a way, but also objective in a way. Sweetness may be the same, but I think we can easily value it subjectively more, and that means that sometimes, like a honeycomb, it can be bitter and full of wax. But I think that bitterness comes from us and not from the Bible. Still, since we're reading it, we need to pray to God that he'll remove our bitterness so we can taste his sweetness.
vs 11
So they provide both warning and reward. That's a great verse. This is a really good psalm to keep in mind I think. And short.
vs 12
It's a novel idea - that we know ourselves better than anyone else. It's completely not true - you just ask a married person. There are things about yourself that you just never notice. So we can rely on God to forgive even our 'hidden faults' - the ones that we don't even see we have.
vs 13
Wow. I never knew a verse like this existed. Combined with the previous verse, we basically have a theology of hidden error (sins hidden from ourselves), and wilful sins (sins we know we do but do anyway). Potent stuff. This is fast becoming my favourite psalm.
David wants to be forgiven not just from his hidden sins, but also kept from wilfully sinning. Even though it's wilful, he acknowledges that he doesn't have the power to stop himself from doing it. He asks God to prevent him, because it is the wilful sins, not the hidden sins, that can rule over us. I totally agree with this. And it's a terrible truth.
But David sees it positively - he sees God's keeping of him as a key to him being innocent and blameless before God - which is of great worth to him. And to us all.
vs 14
I'm sure they were, David. You did well on this one.
vs 8
Now that we've transferred from natural relevation to special revelation, David wants to make the most of it. God's commands not only are right and radiant (how exactly are laws radiant?), but David also wants to tell us what effects these laws have on us. The joy to the heart thing is fairly self explanitory. Is it linked to the laws' rightness? I wouldn't have a problem with that.
I also wouldn't have a problem with radiance being linked to the 'giving light to the eyes' - they seem aptly paired metaphors. But what do they mean? I know some people say that "light to the eyes" is an idiom for 'providing light so you can see your way'. I can't authenticate the veracity of that. I can tell you that eyes apparently had something to do with good health back then, so it is possible that light in the eyes means that you're healthy. But then, what does radiant word mean?
I mean, in its most basic meaning you'd say it provides light. So what is light a metaphor for? Is it the path guiding thing? That is certainly a reasonable thing to say about God's word. In the end I can't say for sure. Look up a commentary.
vs 9
Whoever translated that, and made it able to rhyme, is probably very proud of themselves.
The idea of fear being pure I think makes us think of pure terror. But actually, I think if we took out the selfish concern for personal welfare, then pure fear might actually look a lot more like a deep respect and awe for the thing that is mighty, powerful and worthy of fear.
As for God's word, it gets an excellent rap in this psalm. Sure, meaning trustworthy, and righteous, meaning there's nothing wrong about them at all. They are always in the right. Note, I wouldn't use God's word being 'righteous' to say that it's completely factually correct. Only that it is never morally wrong. Of course, I'm also not saying that I necessarily think God's word isn't factually correct - only that I wouldn't use this verse to defend it.
vs 10
We do well to value God's commands as precious. I mean, they are words directly from God to us - they should be precious. The sweetness thing can sometimes let us down though. I mean, preciousness and value are subjective in a way, but also objective in a way. Sweetness may be the same, but I think we can easily value it subjectively more, and that means that sometimes, like a honeycomb, it can be bitter and full of wax. But I think that bitterness comes from us and not from the Bible. Still, since we're reading it, we need to pray to God that he'll remove our bitterness so we can taste his sweetness.
vs 11
So they provide both warning and reward. That's a great verse. This is a really good psalm to keep in mind I think. And short.
vs 12
It's a novel idea - that we know ourselves better than anyone else. It's completely not true - you just ask a married person. There are things about yourself that you just never notice. So we can rely on God to forgive even our 'hidden faults' - the ones that we don't even see we have.
vs 13
Wow. I never knew a verse like this existed. Combined with the previous verse, we basically have a theology of hidden error (sins hidden from ourselves), and wilful sins (sins we know we do but do anyway). Potent stuff. This is fast becoming my favourite psalm.
David wants to be forgiven not just from his hidden sins, but also kept from wilfully sinning. Even though it's wilful, he acknowledges that he doesn't have the power to stop himself from doing it. He asks God to prevent him, because it is the wilful sins, not the hidden sins, that can rule over us. I totally agree with this. And it's a terrible truth.
But David sees it positively - he sees God's keeping of him as a key to him being innocent and blameless before God - which is of great worth to him. And to us all.
vs 14
I'm sure they were, David. You did well on this one.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Psalm 19
vs 1
It's an interesting thought to think that if you look up, you will see a thing that shows the marks of its creator, and just how glorious that creator is. I think people have always had a fascination with clouds, and stars, and lightning storms, and sunsets and the like. David sees past that stuff, which is already so awesome and grand that many cultures worshipped it, and sees chisel marks on it, showing to him that it's been created.
I'll admit I don't look that hard. I find the concept more interesting than its practicality.
vs 2
This is one of those psalms that some people use to back up their idea that you can really tell the future with stars, that God has placed in them a mystical message , even the gospel message, up in the sky for everyone to see.
Personally, I think if you read these verses as saying any more than verse 1, then you're going to have problems. It's poetic repetition of an idea. Vs 1 says "declare the glory" and "proclaim the work", vs 2 says "pour forth speech" and "display knowledge". We're still on the same topic.
vs 3
Lest anyone think David is talking about actual words, this verse should sort them out.
vs 4
This is the whole point about a natural theology - that it is equally available to everyone. The message that David is attributing to the sky and heaven is one that everyone looking at sky and heaven should see and understand.
Now David wants to get a little more specific and poetic - the sun, as mighty and uncontrollable by man as anything, is given a place to sleep by God.
vs 5
I'm not quite sure what a bridgegroom and a champion have in common - eagerness to go out? So the sun is eager to come out every day?
vs 6
Doubly so in the Middle East.
vs 7
Ok, what now? I mean, we've made a pretty startling jump from natural theology to the statues and law of God. Now they're not written on the sky.
But David perhaps is relating the glory of natural theology to the perfection and refreshment of God's specific revelation through his Law. As much as you can trust the sun to tell you about God, you can trust the Law to do the same.
It's an interesting thought to think that if you look up, you will see a thing that shows the marks of its creator, and just how glorious that creator is. I think people have always had a fascination with clouds, and stars, and lightning storms, and sunsets and the like. David sees past that stuff, which is already so awesome and grand that many cultures worshipped it, and sees chisel marks on it, showing to him that it's been created.
I'll admit I don't look that hard. I find the concept more interesting than its practicality.
vs 2
This is one of those psalms that some people use to back up their idea that you can really tell the future with stars, that God has placed in them a mystical message , even the gospel message, up in the sky for everyone to see.
Personally, I think if you read these verses as saying any more than verse 1, then you're going to have problems. It's poetic repetition of an idea. Vs 1 says "declare the glory" and "proclaim the work", vs 2 says "pour forth speech" and "display knowledge". We're still on the same topic.
vs 3
Lest anyone think David is talking about actual words, this verse should sort them out.
vs 4
This is the whole point about a natural theology - that it is equally available to everyone. The message that David is attributing to the sky and heaven is one that everyone looking at sky and heaven should see and understand.
Now David wants to get a little more specific and poetic - the sun, as mighty and uncontrollable by man as anything, is given a place to sleep by God.
vs 5
I'm not quite sure what a bridgegroom and a champion have in common - eagerness to go out? So the sun is eager to come out every day?
vs 6
Doubly so in the Middle East.
vs 7
Ok, what now? I mean, we've made a pretty startling jump from natural theology to the statues and law of God. Now they're not written on the sky.
But David perhaps is relating the glory of natural theology to the perfection and refreshment of God's specific revelation through his Law. As much as you can trust the sun to tell you about God, you can trust the Law to do the same.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Psalm 18
vs 41
The first half of this verse makes you assume that they were turning to false foreign gods, and so hence they received no help.
It's the second half that of course is more striking. They called out to God, but he didn't answer them either. Should we be surprised? They had set themselves against God's people, and then suddenly think they can summon him?
vs 42
Not exactly a charming image, but remember that the image is not to show how much defeat his enemies found, but more how much God was on David's side.
vs 43-44
David did have quite a few dealings with nations that weren't right up close. The ones up close were the ones he trampled and devoured. The ones far away seem to not just make peace, but out and out give up early so that he doesn't trounce them too.
vs 45
From their perspective, Israel has a king who is a great military genius, and a God that seems to smash all opposition - better to come cap in hand early and see if you can buy freedom cheaper than the lives of thousands of soldiers.
vs 46
God was a living God well before Jesus was incarnated. The idea of God being alive is that for one, he's not trapped in a little golden statue. And also, he is working and active. This thought that an active God can be relied upon, and will save his people, is something of great joy to David.
vs 47
I'm not quite sure what David had to avenge - perhaps the defeat and death of Saul, or even just the spankery that Israel had received for a long while.
vs 48
His foes were violent foes. They were out to kill him. But God didn't let that happen. So he is therefore awesome.
vs 49
The therefore probably refers to the whole psalm, not just the last bit. God is worthy of praise for all that he has done for David. Mostly in the defeat of his enemies and the success of David militarily. Those would be some pretty stressful issues though, so I assume they are worth writing 50 verses about.
vs 50
That's a good summary of this psalm.
The first half of this verse makes you assume that they were turning to false foreign gods, and so hence they received no help.
It's the second half that of course is more striking. They called out to God, but he didn't answer them either. Should we be surprised? They had set themselves against God's people, and then suddenly think they can summon him?
vs 42
Not exactly a charming image, but remember that the image is not to show how much defeat his enemies found, but more how much God was on David's side.
vs 43-44
David did have quite a few dealings with nations that weren't right up close. The ones up close were the ones he trampled and devoured. The ones far away seem to not just make peace, but out and out give up early so that he doesn't trounce them too.
vs 45
From their perspective, Israel has a king who is a great military genius, and a God that seems to smash all opposition - better to come cap in hand early and see if you can buy freedom cheaper than the lives of thousands of soldiers.
vs 46
God was a living God well before Jesus was incarnated. The idea of God being alive is that for one, he's not trapped in a little golden statue. And also, he is working and active. This thought that an active God can be relied upon, and will save his people, is something of great joy to David.
vs 47
I'm not quite sure what David had to avenge - perhaps the defeat and death of Saul, or even just the spankery that Israel had received for a long while.
vs 48
His foes were violent foes. They were out to kill him. But God didn't let that happen. So he is therefore awesome.
vs 49
The therefore probably refers to the whole psalm, not just the last bit. God is worthy of praise for all that he has done for David. Mostly in the defeat of his enemies and the success of David militarily. Those would be some pretty stressful issues though, so I assume they are worth writing 50 verses about.
vs 50
That's a good summary of this psalm.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Psalm 18
vs 31
All jokes about pro-wrestlers turned moviestars aside, remember that these people lived in a situation where they were surrounded by foreign gods. But David's point is, if you look at his life, and his circumstances, and his deliverance, then you'll see that YHWH is God.
vs 32
David now builds on this, by showing things that God has done for him - like arming him. Not the one I'd start with, I guess... but weapons are important in times of war. I bet if I were in a trench I'd be praying that prayer.
vs 33
I assume deer's feet are fast. The standing on heights thing might be about his ability to climb? Or it might be that God gives him high ground? Or that God enables him to get into positions with good vantage points so he can see more?
vs 34
God gives not just strength, but skill.
vs 35
No doubt that David was great - just read about some of his exploits in Samuel. But he makes it clear that without God, he would have not been protected or sustained.
vs 36
I think the idea is just that you don't slip and twist your ankle. I guess that's important in battle, or even in marching towards battle. It's funny what you prioritise when you are involved in something particular. Like, praying for a carpark is not a big deal when you're going shopping - but it would be far more poignant if you were going to the hospital with a dying child or something.
vs 37
Now you might think "Hang on just a sec, why is he speaking about this to God so proudly?" But remember, the reason Saul screwed up as king was that he didn't follow God's commands to totally crush kill destroy his enemies and leave none standing. So David is affirming his obedience in this verse.
vs 38
Not only is he affirming his obedience, but the strength that God gave him to be obedient. Now in this case it was strength to allow David to kill bunches of people. Which we might not think is super cool. But what is cool is that when God calls us to be obedient to him, he also gives us the strength to fulfil his purposes.
Which becomes very complicated when we fail in things as Christians. How are we meant to tell whether we have not been relying on God's strength, and have failed, or we have been relying on God's strength, and it was his will that we fail anyway? This verse doesn't give us any guidance in that.
Oh, and before you tell me that God never wants us to fail in what we do - read Jeremiah.
vs 39
A bit of a reiteration of previous statements - pointing out again God's strengthening of David, but this time also God's weakening of his enemies. God tips the scales from both ends.
vs 40
When you start running away in old-school combat, you're toast. Morale is of such massive importance in combat - with God on their side giving them victory, it's little wonder David is so chirpy in his psalm.
All jokes about pro-wrestlers turned moviestars aside, remember that these people lived in a situation where they were surrounded by foreign gods. But David's point is, if you look at his life, and his circumstances, and his deliverance, then you'll see that YHWH is God.
vs 32
David now builds on this, by showing things that God has done for him - like arming him. Not the one I'd start with, I guess... but weapons are important in times of war. I bet if I were in a trench I'd be praying that prayer.
vs 33
I assume deer's feet are fast. The standing on heights thing might be about his ability to climb? Or it might be that God gives him high ground? Or that God enables him to get into positions with good vantage points so he can see more?
vs 34
God gives not just strength, but skill.
vs 35
No doubt that David was great - just read about some of his exploits in Samuel. But he makes it clear that without God, he would have not been protected or sustained.
vs 36
I think the idea is just that you don't slip and twist your ankle. I guess that's important in battle, or even in marching towards battle. It's funny what you prioritise when you are involved in something particular. Like, praying for a carpark is not a big deal when you're going shopping - but it would be far more poignant if you were going to the hospital with a dying child or something.
vs 37
Now you might think "Hang on just a sec, why is he speaking about this to God so proudly?" But remember, the reason Saul screwed up as king was that he didn't follow God's commands to totally crush kill destroy his enemies and leave none standing. So David is affirming his obedience in this verse.
vs 38
Not only is he affirming his obedience, but the strength that God gave him to be obedient. Now in this case it was strength to allow David to kill bunches of people. Which we might not think is super cool. But what is cool is that when God calls us to be obedient to him, he also gives us the strength to fulfil his purposes.
Which becomes very complicated when we fail in things as Christians. How are we meant to tell whether we have not been relying on God's strength, and have failed, or we have been relying on God's strength, and it was his will that we fail anyway? This verse doesn't give us any guidance in that.
Oh, and before you tell me that God never wants us to fail in what we do - read Jeremiah.
vs 39
A bit of a reiteration of previous statements - pointing out again God's strengthening of David, but this time also God's weakening of his enemies. God tips the scales from both ends.
vs 40
When you start running away in old-school combat, you're toast. Morale is of such massive importance in combat - with God on their side giving them victory, it's little wonder David is so chirpy in his psalm.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Psalm 18
vs 21
More or less I guess this is true. One statement is different from the other. David probably hasn't turned away from God as such. I wouldn't say he's been perfect at keeping all of God's ways though. But that's not his point. He has asked for deliverance, and God has judged David according to righteousness, which as we know in the New Testament is accredited to him because of his faith.
vs 22
Of course, they don't use NT language in the OT, otherwise it would be... weird. This is the language that they use. Talking about the law poetically might seem a little weird to us, but that is how they knew God - through the Law he had given them that made them his people.
So when someone wants to talk about their relationship with God, they're going to talk about it through these Laws.
vs 23
Has he kept himself perfect? Well, obviously not. But he has lived a godly life. There is a difference. I think we think too much of "keeping free of sin" like "keeping free of chocolate cake". People who diet just give up on cake cold turkey, and they are seen as a 'good dieter'. And so people with that level of self control say "well, you should be able to just keep yourself from sin".
But keeping yourself from sin is much more like "keeping yourself from making mistakes". If a human being keeps writing something, either as a copy of a copy or copying someone's words, they will eventually make a mistake. In fact, history has shown us that they will continue to make mistakes. But if you are trying really hard not to make mistakes, you will make a lot fewer mistakes. You will keep yourself from making mistakes, as it were.
vs 24
And God has upheld his righteous ways by delivering him when he asked. So while we might not like it, or it might not fit into our beliefs, it's what happened. Not only was David delivered, but he then wrote a psalm about it, describing his deliverance this way, and it was then published in Psalms!
vs 25-26
It's an interesting thing to think that God responds to people dependent on how they respond to him. Of course, we also know that even in the face of human faithlessness God remains faithful, and that regardless of human frailty and sin God remains blameless, and that God remains pure regardless of human depravity. But these verses aren't about what God is, they are about how God shows himself to you. You will understand and experience the faithfulness of God if you yourself are faithful. If you are a devious bugger, then you're going to find that God shows something else to you - a shrewd side which we all know belongs to God, but we don't like talking about at parties.
vs 27
God is the ultimate Aussie. He doesn't like tall poppies. Not that God doesn't like success - he just doesn't like people who boast, regardless of their success.
vs 28
Have we forgotten our fear of darkness as a people, thanks to our cities being lit up 24/7? I don't think so. I think people still think that bad things go on mostly at night. Even with all of our modern ways of fighting the darkness, it is still something to be feared. Only God is light enough to take away that fear, and to take away all the nasties that really do lurk in the dark.
vs 29
You read this, and you think "So what? People do this stuff all the time - sounds like typical Marine training". But then when you actually read what David means when he talks about "advancing against troops" he means taking an army of 30 guys and killing hundreds and hundreds of Philistines, chopping off bits of their willies and bringing them back to Saul. He is acknowledging that he has done some pretty awesome stuff when it comes to killing armies and invading fortresses, but all of his accomplishments come back to God.
vs 30
While David may have described himself as blameless, and keeping away from sin, he reserves the word "perfect" for God. Flawless. In fact, God is so perfect and his words are so flawless that you can take refuge behind him like a shield, and know it will never break. David isn't saying that about himself - this constant, everlasting reliability belongs only to God.
More or less I guess this is true. One statement is different from the other. David probably hasn't turned away from God as such. I wouldn't say he's been perfect at keeping all of God's ways though. But that's not his point. He has asked for deliverance, and God has judged David according to righteousness, which as we know in the New Testament is accredited to him because of his faith.
vs 22
Of course, they don't use NT language in the OT, otherwise it would be... weird. This is the language that they use. Talking about the law poetically might seem a little weird to us, but that is how they knew God - through the Law he had given them that made them his people.
So when someone wants to talk about their relationship with God, they're going to talk about it through these Laws.
vs 23
Has he kept himself perfect? Well, obviously not. But he has lived a godly life. There is a difference. I think we think too much of "keeping free of sin" like "keeping free of chocolate cake". People who diet just give up on cake cold turkey, and they are seen as a 'good dieter'. And so people with that level of self control say "well, you should be able to just keep yourself from sin".
But keeping yourself from sin is much more like "keeping yourself from making mistakes". If a human being keeps writing something, either as a copy of a copy or copying someone's words, they will eventually make a mistake. In fact, history has shown us that they will continue to make mistakes. But if you are trying really hard not to make mistakes, you will make a lot fewer mistakes. You will keep yourself from making mistakes, as it were.
vs 24
And God has upheld his righteous ways by delivering him when he asked. So while we might not like it, or it might not fit into our beliefs, it's what happened. Not only was David delivered, but he then wrote a psalm about it, describing his deliverance this way, and it was then published in Psalms!
vs 25-26
It's an interesting thing to think that God responds to people dependent on how they respond to him. Of course, we also know that even in the face of human faithlessness God remains faithful, and that regardless of human frailty and sin God remains blameless, and that God remains pure regardless of human depravity. But these verses aren't about what God is, they are about how God shows himself to you. You will understand and experience the faithfulness of God if you yourself are faithful. If you are a devious bugger, then you're going to find that God shows something else to you - a shrewd side which we all know belongs to God, but we don't like talking about at parties.
vs 27
God is the ultimate Aussie. He doesn't like tall poppies. Not that God doesn't like success - he just doesn't like people who boast, regardless of their success.
vs 28
Have we forgotten our fear of darkness as a people, thanks to our cities being lit up 24/7? I don't think so. I think people still think that bad things go on mostly at night. Even with all of our modern ways of fighting the darkness, it is still something to be feared. Only God is light enough to take away that fear, and to take away all the nasties that really do lurk in the dark.
vs 29
You read this, and you think "So what? People do this stuff all the time - sounds like typical Marine training". But then when you actually read what David means when he talks about "advancing against troops" he means taking an army of 30 guys and killing hundreds and hundreds of Philistines, chopping off bits of their willies and bringing them back to Saul. He is acknowledging that he has done some pretty awesome stuff when it comes to killing armies and invading fortresses, but all of his accomplishments come back to God.
vs 30
While David may have described himself as blameless, and keeping away from sin, he reserves the word "perfect" for God. Flawless. In fact, God is so perfect and his words are so flawless that you can take refuge behind him like a shield, and know it will never break. David isn't saying that about himself - this constant, everlasting reliability belongs only to God.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Psalm 18
vs 11-13
This picture does not sound like happy God. It sounds like vengeful God. It actually sounds like God is manifesting in an enormous, angry storm. Perhaps this is where the "God is thunder and lightning" comes from?
vs 14
God smiting people with bolts of lightning? There it is, it really is in the Bible.
vs 15
I am guessing this is a poetic way of saying that nothing was hidden from God - if anyone or anything is going to be rebuked by God, then it can't hide.
vs 16
Wait, David was drowning? Well, metaphorically, he may well have felt that way - overcome by sorrow and overcome by his enemies.
vs 17
There you go.
vs 18
David's language skips from ultra-flowery to much more clarity right now. It's a nice change.
vs 19
I'm not quite sure what the relevance of a spacious place is - perhaps because his enemies were crowded all around him, the space shows God pulling him out of his crowded 'drowning' situation. Also, it might be a reference to God's giving the land to Israel - the idea that God is generous and gives lots (slight pun).
But the second sentence here is just as interesting - God rescued David because God delighted in David. It's almost like God was so happy with David's work on earth that he couldn't bare not getting to watch the King David show for a few more years.
vs 20
Ok, so the TV show thing was a bit off the mark, but this is far more revealing - David was God's delight because he was righteous and clean. Yes, we all know David wasn't perfect, but God delighted in him all the same.
This picture does not sound like happy God. It sounds like vengeful God. It actually sounds like God is manifesting in an enormous, angry storm. Perhaps this is where the "God is thunder and lightning" comes from?
vs 14
God smiting people with bolts of lightning? There it is, it really is in the Bible.
vs 15
I am guessing this is a poetic way of saying that nothing was hidden from God - if anyone or anything is going to be rebuked by God, then it can't hide.
vs 16
Wait, David was drowning? Well, metaphorically, he may well have felt that way - overcome by sorrow and overcome by his enemies.
vs 17
There you go.
vs 18
David's language skips from ultra-flowery to much more clarity right now. It's a nice change.
vs 19
I'm not quite sure what the relevance of a spacious place is - perhaps because his enemies were crowded all around him, the space shows God pulling him out of his crowded 'drowning' situation. Also, it might be a reference to God's giving the land to Israel - the idea that God is generous and gives lots (slight pun).
But the second sentence here is just as interesting - God rescued David because God delighted in David. It's almost like God was so happy with David's work on earth that he couldn't bare not getting to watch the King David show for a few more years.
vs 20
Ok, so the TV show thing was a bit off the mark, but this is far more revealing - David was God's delight because he was righteous and clean. Yes, we all know David wasn't perfect, but God delighted in him all the same.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Philosophy
I've been reading a book on the theology of work the past couple of days, because I have to return it to the library. But I've also been dialoguing with a friend of mine in Queensland about his philosophy course, so I've been quite philosophied up recently.
I just thought I'd share a little tidbit that came to me this morning.
A friend of mine who is my age, is married, has a mortgage and is also incubating a small human. She made the comment that she couldn't believe she was doing all these 'grown up' things. I've got to admit that I often wonder how 'grown up' I am too, even though I've lived out of home for ages and have been happily married for 5 years now (no babies or mortgages on the horizon).
For those of us pushing 30, we are probably reflecting back on what our parents and those of their generation were like at this age. That is why we equate marrige, mortgages, babies and full-time work with grown-ups. I think if I do my sums properly, when my mum was my age, she had a 4 year old daughter, and was about to have a son in a year or so.
The thing is, of course, that generational change (as well as other social changes) has made people our age have different values to those of our parents. Our generation are having kids later in life, if at all (although I think the "not having kids" thing may have turned a corner in the western world, what with every 2-bit celebrity pumping out a litter). Our generation seeks work-life balance, and doesn't go for every promotion, but instead looks for a job that allows us to enjoy more of our life, or to multi-task (work + study, salary + business on the side, work + family etc).
Apparently 60-70% of people in my generation don't think they will ever be able to afford to buy a home.
I guess a lot of that compiles into one point- that we have associated 'growing up' with 'doing the things our parents did', but because we have different values, we aren't doing them quite the same, or we're doing them later, or they're not as easily available to us. That means, through no fault of the preceding generation, that we are hindering our own understanding of maturity, because we tied it to a generation we do not easily resemble.
But let's not forget a second point, which seems to crop up in my mind every now and again - that our parent's generation did not make it easy for us to step up and assume leadership and responsibility, the other markers of 'growing up'. In a lot of ways, our generation ditched that of our parents when they clung rigidly to their positions of power and influence, and we went and made our own society. It exists where our parents won't go - anywhere from the internet to outside on the streets at night. I wonder if the charismatic movement doesn't correspond in some way with the breakdown of church succession between the boomers and Gen X. I don't know enough about the history to know that. I wonder if the emerging church isn't more of the same.
I just thought I'd share a little tidbit that came to me this morning.
A friend of mine who is my age, is married, has a mortgage and is also incubating a small human. She made the comment that she couldn't believe she was doing all these 'grown up' things. I've got to admit that I often wonder how 'grown up' I am too, even though I've lived out of home for ages and have been happily married for 5 years now (no babies or mortgages on the horizon).
For those of us pushing 30, we are probably reflecting back on what our parents and those of their generation were like at this age. That is why we equate marrige, mortgages, babies and full-time work with grown-ups. I think if I do my sums properly, when my mum was my age, she had a 4 year old daughter, and was about to have a son in a year or so.
The thing is, of course, that generational change (as well as other social changes) has made people our age have different values to those of our parents. Our generation are having kids later in life, if at all (although I think the "not having kids" thing may have turned a corner in the western world, what with every 2-bit celebrity pumping out a litter). Our generation seeks work-life balance, and doesn't go for every promotion, but instead looks for a job that allows us to enjoy more of our life, or to multi-task (work + study, salary + business on the side, work + family etc).
Apparently 60-70% of people in my generation don't think they will ever be able to afford to buy a home.
I guess a lot of that compiles into one point- that we have associated 'growing up' with 'doing the things our parents did', but because we have different values, we aren't doing them quite the same, or we're doing them later, or they're not as easily available to us. That means, through no fault of the preceding generation, that we are hindering our own understanding of maturity, because we tied it to a generation we do not easily resemble.
But let's not forget a second point, which seems to crop up in my mind every now and again - that our parent's generation did not make it easy for us to step up and assume leadership and responsibility, the other markers of 'growing up'. In a lot of ways, our generation ditched that of our parents when they clung rigidly to their positions of power and influence, and we went and made our own society. It exists where our parents won't go - anywhere from the internet to outside on the streets at night. I wonder if the charismatic movement doesn't correspond in some way with the breakdown of church succession between the boomers and Gen X. I don't know enough about the history to know that. I wonder if the emerging church isn't more of the same.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Work - Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians
vs 4:28
I wonder if this means that, while stealing, the person only had enough to feed themselves? I guess that's probably true.
Paul here could be talking to a specific person. In any case, he makes it clear that stealing is not a plausible occupation for a Christian. Interestingly, he says that work instead must be useful. Stealing is not really productive. But work should also provide such that you have something to share with those in need. Now I will point out that I don't think Paul is saying that workers should be paid enough so that they can give charity and still be comfortable. I think instead he is saying that anything beyond bare subsistence means that you will be able to share, perhaps sacrificially, with those who are worse off than you.
Col 3:17,23
These verses are really at the crux of the discussion about work in the New Testament, and even then they are not specifically about work. Sure, there are other verses that talk about work, servants, masters and so on. But these verses are really two of few that encompass work in a greater role - they take work, and put it into the context of the Kingdom, saying that any work you do (and anything else you do) comes from God (so be thankful), and is part of service to God (so do it well).
1 Thess 4:11
I've tussled with this verse before. Refer to here if you want to read that again. Basically, the verse says don't work yourself to death, to keep your affairs (if "mind your own business" is literal, then it's a shame for anyone working as a wageslave, eh?) and use what you've got to be productive.
These actually sound like good premises for practical statements about Christian work ethics. Don't live and die for work. Make sure you manage your affairs. Be productive with what you've been given. I don't know that I'd build a theology of workplace giftings on my dodgy translation of cheir, but I won't discount it either.
2 Thess 3:10
So do we here have a theology of smashing the welfare state? If we do, then ditch pensions, too, by the way. Slaughter the infirm, the disabled, and those on life support. Because if they are not working, they shouldn't eat! Moltmann made this point very well (some scholar). This verse has to be read in its context. Paul doesn't want people to to be lazy, or idle. He wants to use lack of food as a stimulant to get them back to work. We are, of course, talking about a marketplace where there was hardly ever large-scale unemployment.
Capitalism has made human resources just another tool in the market, and so they now fluctuate. So what, then, for the modern marketplace? It's a good question. I guess we have to continue to apply principles, but not specific rules to the period. So don't be idle. But don't starve sick people either. Make sure that, even if you're unemployed, you're working at something.
What of negative reinforcement? Starving healthy people to force them to find work? I wonder. It's like the arguments for beating your children because the Bible says you can. Bible commands it - must beat children! vs principle of raising children to be well disciplined, but you can use modern, non-stick methods.
Here's a bit of philosophising for you. Starving people is wrong, just like violence. So any method by which we can minimise these things is a positive. Sure, they may work as tools to achieve an end, and they may have been culturally acceptable at some stage. But surely, achieving the end without using questionable means would be in God's will? Perhaps starving/beating is a last resort? Difficult question. But I guess the Bible is prescriptive of a bunch of actions we don't do - we take their principles and re-apply them. Why not with these things?
I wonder if this means that, while stealing, the person only had enough to feed themselves? I guess that's probably true.
Paul here could be talking to a specific person. In any case, he makes it clear that stealing is not a plausible occupation for a Christian. Interestingly, he says that work instead must be useful. Stealing is not really productive. But work should also provide such that you have something to share with those in need. Now I will point out that I don't think Paul is saying that workers should be paid enough so that they can give charity and still be comfortable. I think instead he is saying that anything beyond bare subsistence means that you will be able to share, perhaps sacrificially, with those who are worse off than you.
Col 3:17,23
These verses are really at the crux of the discussion about work in the New Testament, and even then they are not specifically about work. Sure, there are other verses that talk about work, servants, masters and so on. But these verses are really two of few that encompass work in a greater role - they take work, and put it into the context of the Kingdom, saying that any work you do (and anything else you do) comes from God (so be thankful), and is part of service to God (so do it well).
1 Thess 4:11
I've tussled with this verse before. Refer to here if you want to read that again. Basically, the verse says don't work yourself to death, to keep your affairs (if "mind your own business" is literal, then it's a shame for anyone working as a wageslave, eh?) and use what you've got to be productive.
These actually sound like good premises for practical statements about Christian work ethics. Don't live and die for work. Make sure you manage your affairs. Be productive with what you've been given. I don't know that I'd build a theology of workplace giftings on my dodgy translation of cheir, but I won't discount it either.
2 Thess 3:10
So do we here have a theology of smashing the welfare state? If we do, then ditch pensions, too, by the way. Slaughter the infirm, the disabled, and those on life support. Because if they are not working, they shouldn't eat! Moltmann made this point very well (some scholar). This verse has to be read in its context. Paul doesn't want people to to be lazy, or idle. He wants to use lack of food as a stimulant to get them back to work. We are, of course, talking about a marketplace where there was hardly ever large-scale unemployment.
Capitalism has made human resources just another tool in the market, and so they now fluctuate. So what, then, for the modern marketplace? It's a good question. I guess we have to continue to apply principles, but not specific rules to the period. So don't be idle. But don't starve sick people either. Make sure that, even if you're unemployed, you're working at something.
What of negative reinforcement? Starving healthy people to force them to find work? I wonder. It's like the arguments for beating your children because the Bible says you can. Bible commands it - must beat children! vs principle of raising children to be well disciplined, but you can use modern, non-stick methods.
Here's a bit of philosophising for you. Starving people is wrong, just like violence. So any method by which we can minimise these things is a positive. Sure, they may work as tools to achieve an end, and they may have been culturally acceptable at some stage. But surely, achieving the end without using questionable means would be in God's will? Perhaps starving/beating is a last resort? Difficult question. But I guess the Bible is prescriptive of a bunch of actions we don't do - we take their principles and re-apply them. Why not with these things?
Monday, April 28, 2008
Work - Romans, 1 Corinthians
4:4
In case you're wondering, the word 'to work' (as a verb) in this verse is slightly different from the work 'works' (as a noun) in, say, verse 6. Both come from ergo, but apparently they have different nuanced meanings. You'd hope so, when one's translated as a noun and another as a verb!
Because I'm looking at work for my sermon, I'm looking more in the verb meaning as used in 4:4, and less so to the more theological meaning used in 4:6.
After all that, it is a perilously simple concept that I want to pull from this verse - that is, that when someone works, their wages are an obligation you have to them. They are not a gift, they are not charity, they are a debt. You owe them.
16
For a book that is so much about grace, and not works, I want you to take note of how many people are portrated as "hard workers" - Priscilla, Aquila, Mary, Urbanas, Tryphena and Tryphosa, Persis, and Timothy.
1 Corinthians 3
Just a couple of quick mentions. Even though Paul is talking about Kingdom work, he points out that there is a reward for building up God's Kingdom (vs 8). He also points out that how you work for God's Kingdom will also be measured, and can actually mean you 'suffer loss'. My understanding of that loss is that you lose all that you worked for, that is, that there's no extra reward for you.
4:12
I think this is a sideways mention to the Corinthians that Paul had to work as a tentmaker while teaching the gospel to them, because they were so sensitive about money that he didn't dare accept any payment from them.
9
Paul goes into great lengths here to show that, as an apostle, he has the right to be materially supported by his work. So did Barnabas. In fact, the Lord's brothers, and Peter, also had this right, and made use of it. They even brought wives along in tow (vs 5).
Paul chose not to use this right, firstly because he didn't want them to stumble over the idea of money, but secondly because he wanted to make a point to the Corinthians regarding his relationship with them, and their relationship to the gospel.
My point, however, focuses on the deserving of payment for those who serve the body of Christ. That is, they get paid for their work. vs 7-11 are key to my point. When someone works, they do so in expectation of getting a share of the harvest. Although it's really easy to read this in a Marxist "workers control the means of production and therefore get a share of the profits" sort of way, remember that isn't the kind of society they were living in. Day workers got paid a day's wage - that is, enough for their family to survive on for 1 day.
16:15-16
I might just point out quickly, although this isn't strictly to do with my point here, that in these verses Paul basically assumes that those who devote themselves to God's work in such a way should be seen as leaders of one kind or another. Interesting point.
In case you're wondering, the word 'to work' (as a verb) in this verse is slightly different from the work 'works' (as a noun) in, say, verse 6. Both come from ergo, but apparently they have different nuanced meanings. You'd hope so, when one's translated as a noun and another as a verb!
Because I'm looking at work for my sermon, I'm looking more in the verb meaning as used in 4:4, and less so to the more theological meaning used in 4:6.
After all that, it is a perilously simple concept that I want to pull from this verse - that is, that when someone works, their wages are an obligation you have to them. They are not a gift, they are not charity, they are a debt. You owe them.
16
For a book that is so much about grace, and not works, I want you to take note of how many people are portrated as "hard workers" - Priscilla, Aquila, Mary, Urbanas, Tryphena and Tryphosa, Persis, and Timothy.
1 Corinthians 3
Just a couple of quick mentions. Even though Paul is talking about Kingdom work, he points out that there is a reward for building up God's Kingdom (vs 8). He also points out that how you work for God's Kingdom will also be measured, and can actually mean you 'suffer loss'. My understanding of that loss is that you lose all that you worked for, that is, that there's no extra reward for you.
4:12
I think this is a sideways mention to the Corinthians that Paul had to work as a tentmaker while teaching the gospel to them, because they were so sensitive about money that he didn't dare accept any payment from them.
9
Paul goes into great lengths here to show that, as an apostle, he has the right to be materially supported by his work. So did Barnabas. In fact, the Lord's brothers, and Peter, also had this right, and made use of it. They even brought wives along in tow (vs 5).
Paul chose not to use this right, firstly because he didn't want them to stumble over the idea of money, but secondly because he wanted to make a point to the Corinthians regarding his relationship with them, and their relationship to the gospel.
My point, however, focuses on the deserving of payment for those who serve the body of Christ. That is, they get paid for their work. vs 7-11 are key to my point. When someone works, they do so in expectation of getting a share of the harvest. Although it's really easy to read this in a Marxist "workers control the means of production and therefore get a share of the profits" sort of way, remember that isn't the kind of society they were living in. Day workers got paid a day's wage - that is, enough for their family to survive on for 1 day.
16:15-16
I might just point out quickly, although this isn't strictly to do with my point here, that in these verses Paul basically assumes that those who devote themselves to God's work in such a way should be seen as leaders of one kind or another. Interesting point.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Work - John's gospel and Acts
4:35-38
This is said in the context of Jesus' comment that his food is doing God's work. That is what sustains him. So we have to ask whether his comments in chapter four are then alluding to work, or to sustenance. Of course that's a false question - he is alluding about both, because his sustenance is his work for God.
Although talk about "working for God" doesn't first pop up in the New Testament, with Jesus on the scene it takes on a thoroughly different dimension than it does in the Old Testament, where working for God mostly means building the temple or the tabernacle, or killing people or something similar.
Now we have Jesus talking about his work. So God, as Jesus, is also a working God. And man obviously has work to do that God gives them - because Jesus is giving the disciples work here. And yes, that work will be sustaining, but in a different way - a way without food.
I hope you're getting all this.
One other thing, though - Jesus talks about the seed having been sown by someone else. And that, apparently, is the real work, because you can reap for what you didn't "work for". Who did do the sowing? It would be comfortable to just say "God" and get it out of the way, and in a sense God of course does all the work, sowing and reaping. But in another sense, of course, other people did the work of sowing. Sowing for God is hard work.
5:17
I have purposefully not spoken too much about God's work (for which there are probably many more references than there are for man's work), but this one is a key one. God didn't stop working after day 6 of creation. So don't let anyone fool you into that.
Acts 13:2
In many ways this verse has been the tent peg for the protestant view of mission work for hundreds of years. The idea of a "calling" from God for people to go out and serve him has been around a long time. Of course, many people don't really accurately use the verse here, and they talk about a 'personal calling' which for some reason doesn't seem to spontaneously come to the leadership of their church at the same time, as it seems to have done in Acts 13. Nevertheless, this sort of 'calling' has been used to separate spiritual and secular work for many years.
18:3
This verse is one which tentpegs "tentmaking" ministries - whereby someone uses their professional skills to work, and uses their spare time to minister to people. there are people who "tentmake" only just enough to get by, so that they are really spending a large amount of time ministering, and there are some people who "tentmake" fulltime, and ministry more like a hobby (with regards to time devotion - I'm sure they treat it more seriously than model trains).
Again, this idea just begs for the sacred and the secular to be separated in the workplace.
This is said in the context of Jesus' comment that his food is doing God's work. That is what sustains him. So we have to ask whether his comments in chapter four are then alluding to work, or to sustenance. Of course that's a false question - he is alluding about both, because his sustenance is his work for God.
Although talk about "working for God" doesn't first pop up in the New Testament, with Jesus on the scene it takes on a thoroughly different dimension than it does in the Old Testament, where working for God mostly means building the temple or the tabernacle, or killing people or something similar.
Now we have Jesus talking about his work. So God, as Jesus, is also a working God. And man obviously has work to do that God gives them - because Jesus is giving the disciples work here. And yes, that work will be sustaining, but in a different way - a way without food.
I hope you're getting all this.
One other thing, though - Jesus talks about the seed having been sown by someone else. And that, apparently, is the real work, because you can reap for what you didn't "work for". Who did do the sowing? It would be comfortable to just say "God" and get it out of the way, and in a sense God of course does all the work, sowing and reaping. But in another sense, of course, other people did the work of sowing. Sowing for God is hard work.
5:17
I have purposefully not spoken too much about God's work (for which there are probably many more references than there are for man's work), but this one is a key one. God didn't stop working after day 6 of creation. So don't let anyone fool you into that.
Acts 13:2
In many ways this verse has been the tent peg for the protestant view of mission work for hundreds of years. The idea of a "calling" from God for people to go out and serve him has been around a long time. Of course, many people don't really accurately use the verse here, and they talk about a 'personal calling' which for some reason doesn't seem to spontaneously come to the leadership of their church at the same time, as it seems to have done in Acts 13. Nevertheless, this sort of 'calling' has been used to separate spiritual and secular work for many years.
18:3
This verse is one which tentpegs "tentmaking" ministries - whereby someone uses their professional skills to work, and uses their spare time to minister to people. there are people who "tentmake" only just enough to get by, so that they are really spending a large amount of time ministering, and there are some people who "tentmake" fulltime, and ministry more like a hobby (with regards to time devotion - I'm sure they treat it more seriously than model trains).
Again, this idea just begs for the sacred and the secular to be separated in the workplace.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Work - Gospels (Synoptic)
Ok, so I'm worried about not getting my sermon done on time, so I am going back to work stuff. Psalm will just have to wait.
Matt 9:37-38 / Luke 10:2
Both Matthew and Luke make it clear that what Jesus is talking about is the crowds of people, or many towns of people, that surrounded the area. You can certainly draw from this passage that where there is a situation where people are thirsting for the word, we should pray that Christians will go there and give it to them.
But anyway, the focus of my study here is work, and Jesus describes the crowds of people (or the surrounding towns) as a harvest field, and those who preach the word that the Kingdom is near are like workers in a field. Jesus described others as "fishers of men" - it's the same thing. Jesus sees the Kingdom as something to be gathered up, and sees that there needs to be people for whom this is a priority.
Matt: 10:10 / Luke 10:7
The guiding principle of these verses is that 'a worker deserves his wages'. Before we look at anything else, chalk that one up right away regarding a theology of work. In the last couple of generations, Christian organisations and churches have begged work from Christians tradesman either for free or on the cheap, seeking it to be a donation from them. While I'm not saying that's wrong, I am saying that if someone works, they should get paid what they deserve. That, to me, says "the going rate". I think any Christian organisation (including churches) that pays people less than a market wage (and I'm not talking about a corporate wage, I'm talking about a NFP wage) could conceiveably not be giving the worker the wages he deserves.
Matt 25 / Luke 19
There are several parables that talk about work or workers, (like the parable of the workers in the vineyard, or the parable of the two sons) but they aren't really about work. However, this parable, the parable of the talents (or minas) is about working faithfully with what you have been given, and not towards your own ends.
It's almost a shame that we don't have slaves anymore, and that we don't put our kids to work in profitable industry, because we miss out on an important symbolic lesson which simply doesn't hold up as well in a free market. We are like slaves to God. Slaves don't get a cut of the profits. If they work harder, they don't get a commission. They have a job to do, and they do it because it's their job. Their work, whether harvesting in the field or investing cash for their master, is for the benefit of their master. They are provided for, with food and shelter, so they can keep working. The reward they get, if any, is the positive favour of their master. Sure, they might have the ambition of being the head servant, or of one day getting their freedom. But their future wellbeing relies far more on the mercy of their master.
Children are similar, and if anything a better example for us. If you put a child to work in the fields, you don't pay them like a worker. They are your child, and they are working towards the benefit of the family. You feed them, clothe them, give them shelter. But you don't reward them with food and clothing and shelter based on the work they do. You do it because they are your children. However, you can still get productive work out of them. We are children of God. Of course he is going to provide for our needs. But it's not because of the work we do. You may feel like quoting 2 Thess 3:10 at me, but woah do I have a surprise for you when I get to that verse.
Looking forward to John tomorrow - he has a very different view of work, which might also shock you.
Matt 9:37-38 / Luke 10:2
Both Matthew and Luke make it clear that what Jesus is talking about is the crowds of people, or many towns of people, that surrounded the area. You can certainly draw from this passage that where there is a situation where people are thirsting for the word, we should pray that Christians will go there and give it to them.
But anyway, the focus of my study here is work, and Jesus describes the crowds of people (or the surrounding towns) as a harvest field, and those who preach the word that the Kingdom is near are like workers in a field. Jesus described others as "fishers of men" - it's the same thing. Jesus sees the Kingdom as something to be gathered up, and sees that there needs to be people for whom this is a priority.
Matt: 10:10 / Luke 10:7
The guiding principle of these verses is that 'a worker deserves his wages'. Before we look at anything else, chalk that one up right away regarding a theology of work. In the last couple of generations, Christian organisations and churches have begged work from Christians tradesman either for free or on the cheap, seeking it to be a donation from them. While I'm not saying that's wrong, I am saying that if someone works, they should get paid what they deserve. That, to me, says "the going rate". I think any Christian organisation (including churches) that pays people less than a market wage (and I'm not talking about a corporate wage, I'm talking about a NFP wage) could conceiveably not be giving the worker the wages he deserves.
Matt 25 / Luke 19
There are several parables that talk about work or workers, (like the parable of the workers in the vineyard, or the parable of the two sons) but they aren't really about work. However, this parable, the parable of the talents (or minas) is about working faithfully with what you have been given, and not towards your own ends.
It's almost a shame that we don't have slaves anymore, and that we don't put our kids to work in profitable industry, because we miss out on an important symbolic lesson which simply doesn't hold up as well in a free market. We are like slaves to God. Slaves don't get a cut of the profits. If they work harder, they don't get a commission. They have a job to do, and they do it because it's their job. Their work, whether harvesting in the field or investing cash for their master, is for the benefit of their master. They are provided for, with food and shelter, so they can keep working. The reward they get, if any, is the positive favour of their master. Sure, they might have the ambition of being the head servant, or of one day getting their freedom. But their future wellbeing relies far more on the mercy of their master.
Children are similar, and if anything a better example for us. If you put a child to work in the fields, you don't pay them like a worker. They are your child, and they are working towards the benefit of the family. You feed them, clothe them, give them shelter. But you don't reward them with food and clothing and shelter based on the work they do. You do it because they are your children. However, you can still get productive work out of them. We are children of God. Of course he is going to provide for our needs. But it's not because of the work we do. You may feel like quoting 2 Thess 3:10 at me, but woah do I have a surprise for you when I get to that verse.
Looking forward to John tomorrow - he has a very different view of work, which might also shock you.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Psalm 18
Well, this is the longest psalm by far so far. David really knew how to sing praises to God once he'd been delivered.
vs 1
If you had to sum up this entire psalm in one verse, this would be it. God is David's strength, and he loves God for it.
vs 2
Well, if you can think of any other metaphors for God being your strength and the thing you hide behind, then feel free to throw them in here. I say metaphors, because I don't believe God is actually a rock, or a shield, or a horn or a stronghold. He is a deliverer, though - and that is why David particularly is praising him in this psalm.
vs 3
I wonder if it is worth a comparison between the prayers of David when he is asking for deliverance (short, punchy, a little whiny) and his praise to God when he does get delivered (long, flowery, very much focused on God).
David wants everyone to know that he relied on God, and God came through. He's not alive because of his own skill, and his enemies have not been defeated because of his ability.
He also wants people to know that when you call on God, you will be saved. God answers the call. Whose calls does he answer? That comes later in the psalm.
vs 4-5
David now goes through a few verses to show just how irredeemable his situation was. His situation was hopeless - death and destruction were assured.
vs 6
David called God, and God heard his call. So God can hear the calls of those down here on earth. Now, I will point out that David calls out to God because God is his God. I don't know how worthwhile it is calling out to God if he's not your God.
Another thing - the temple had not been built yet. I wonder if there is a history of referring to heaven as God's temple... or if this betrays a later writing. Now David may well have lived to see the temple built - at the very least he lived to see the plans handed on to his son Solomon. And he may have even written the psalm in his old age, who knows. I'm sure that the stories of David's life were very popular. But God still wasn't "in" a temple that wasn't built yet.
vs 7-8
God not only heard, but David's words have elicited a response from God. God gets angry. God doesn't like injustice and suffering of his people. Now, was there really an earthquake when David prayed? Did God have burning coals in his mouth? Or are these just flowery poetic language for "God got angry".
vs 9-10
Did God really come down from heaven in the described way? I'm almost positive he didn't. But the reality doesn't matter so much. The fact is that, by God acting to help and relieve David in his time of need, God did 'come down from heaven' to assist him. He worked for a miraculous redeeming of David from his situation. And that makes David happy.
[Next Psalm 18 Post]
vs 1
If you had to sum up this entire psalm in one verse, this would be it. God is David's strength, and he loves God for it.
vs 2
Well, if you can think of any other metaphors for God being your strength and the thing you hide behind, then feel free to throw them in here. I say metaphors, because I don't believe God is actually a rock, or a shield, or a horn or a stronghold. He is a deliverer, though - and that is why David particularly is praising him in this psalm.
vs 3
I wonder if it is worth a comparison between the prayers of David when he is asking for deliverance (short, punchy, a little whiny) and his praise to God when he does get delivered (long, flowery, very much focused on God).
David wants everyone to know that he relied on God, and God came through. He's not alive because of his own skill, and his enemies have not been defeated because of his ability.
He also wants people to know that when you call on God, you will be saved. God answers the call. Whose calls does he answer? That comes later in the psalm.
vs 4-5
David now goes through a few verses to show just how irredeemable his situation was. His situation was hopeless - death and destruction were assured.
vs 6
David called God, and God heard his call. So God can hear the calls of those down here on earth. Now, I will point out that David calls out to God because God is his God. I don't know how worthwhile it is calling out to God if he's not your God.
Another thing - the temple had not been built yet. I wonder if there is a history of referring to heaven as God's temple... or if this betrays a later writing. Now David may well have lived to see the temple built - at the very least he lived to see the plans handed on to his son Solomon. And he may have even written the psalm in his old age, who knows. I'm sure that the stories of David's life were very popular. But God still wasn't "in" a temple that wasn't built yet.
vs 7-8
God not only heard, but David's words have elicited a response from God. God gets angry. God doesn't like injustice and suffering of his people. Now, was there really an earthquake when David prayed? Did God have burning coals in his mouth? Or are these just flowery poetic language for "God got angry".
vs 9-10
Did God really come down from heaven in the described way? I'm almost positive he didn't. But the reality doesn't matter so much. The fact is that, by God acting to help and relieve David in his time of need, God did 'come down from heaven' to assist him. He worked for a miraculous redeeming of David from his situation. And that makes David happy.
[Next Psalm 18 Post]
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Psalm 17
David just keeps maxxing up on the psalms.
vs 1
This psalm is a cry to God, a plea for something. David says that the reason God should hear it is because he is not deceitful, he is is seeking justice from God.
God, of course, being a just God, should therefore respond.
vs 2
David is seeking first vindication that he is in the right. It's not usually people who are in the wrong who seek justice. He trusts that God can see the true and just path, and therefore his plea goes to God.
vs 3
David focuses a lot on his mouth and his heart, his intentions and his words. Not that his actions don't come out later, but it is interesting that he opens with this.
vs 4
The idea that bribery and violence are linked with injustice is fairly common in the OT. So it seems that David is trying to show here his just position for the sake of God's judgement of his situation.
vs 5
Interesting to read David saying these words, isn't it? I mean, who of anyone in the Protestant tradition would ever say such a thing about themselves? We are forever told that we are sinful, and we would never make such a claim. David, who killed plenty of people, and who slept with another man's wife and then had him killed, makes this claim though.
vs 6
David knows that God listens, and also answers. He has faith in God's ability to hear David's prayer, and his love and justice in wanting to respond.
vs 7
The love part is actually very important. If God were simply a totally just omniscient being, calling on his for the purposes of justice would be like calling on the ultimate high court. But David isn't calling on God in that capacity. He calls on God because of God's love. God saves because God loves.
vs 8
Just as David has claimed that God saves those who take refuge in him, now he is specifically asking for refuge under God's wings. He is also asking to remain as a recipient of God's love.
vs 9 (Bah! Have to retype it because of stupid Blogger error)
Hmm, I don't think I can be bothered. Blogger seems to be having recurring errors. I read it, I philosophised, I got something out of it. I guess that is enough for Psalm 17.
vs 1
This psalm is a cry to God, a plea for something. David says that the reason God should hear it is because he is not deceitful, he is is seeking justice from God.
God, of course, being a just God, should therefore respond.
vs 2
David is seeking first vindication that he is in the right. It's not usually people who are in the wrong who seek justice. He trusts that God can see the true and just path, and therefore his plea goes to God.
vs 3
David focuses a lot on his mouth and his heart, his intentions and his words. Not that his actions don't come out later, but it is interesting that he opens with this.
vs 4
The idea that bribery and violence are linked with injustice is fairly common in the OT. So it seems that David is trying to show here his just position for the sake of God's judgement of his situation.
vs 5
Interesting to read David saying these words, isn't it? I mean, who of anyone in the Protestant tradition would ever say such a thing about themselves? We are forever told that we are sinful, and we would never make such a claim. David, who killed plenty of people, and who slept with another man's wife and then had him killed, makes this claim though.
vs 6
David knows that God listens, and also answers. He has faith in God's ability to hear David's prayer, and his love and justice in wanting to respond.
vs 7
The love part is actually very important. If God were simply a totally just omniscient being, calling on his for the purposes of justice would be like calling on the ultimate high court. But David isn't calling on God in that capacity. He calls on God because of God's love. God saves because God loves.
vs 8
Just as David has claimed that God saves those who take refuge in him, now he is specifically asking for refuge under God's wings. He is also asking to remain as a recipient of God's love.
vs 9 (Bah! Have to retype it because of stupid Blogger error)
Hmm, I don't think I can be bothered. Blogger seems to be having recurring errors. I read it, I philosophised, I got something out of it. I guess that is enough for Psalm 17.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Work - Ecclesiastes
Ecclesiastes has two main messages about work. Firstly, it is meaningless (1:3, 2:10-11, 2:17-23, 3:9, 4:4, 4:8, 5:16) - as if we didn't know that it would say it was meaningless already.
Secondly, though, he says that if you can work and find satisfaction, then that is a gift from God (2:24, 3:13, 3:22, 5:12, 5:18-19, 8:15, 9:9-10).
Ecclesiastes also tells us that working enough to be satisfied is better than working to have a whole lot of stuff you'll never get to use (4:6), and that teamwork is efficient (4:9).
While I haven't drawn much from Ecclesiastes, I think some of these points are possibly some of the most important points I will make in my sermon. That's an interesting thought.
[Next Work Post]
Secondly, though, he says that if you can work and find satisfaction, then that is a gift from God (2:24, 3:13, 3:22, 5:12, 5:18-19, 8:15, 9:9-10).
Ecclesiastes also tells us that working enough to be satisfied is better than working to have a whole lot of stuff you'll never get to use (4:6), and that teamwork is efficient (4:9).
While I haven't drawn much from Ecclesiastes, I think some of these points are possibly some of the most important points I will make in my sermon. That's an interesting thought.
[Next Work Post]
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Work - Proverbs
Well, first, Psalm 90
vs 17 of Psalm 90 is a request, apparently from Moses, for God to establish the work that the Israelites are doing. Moses is looking for God to bless their work. Well, this is all part of the Mosaic covenant to Israel, so perhaps it is to be expected.
But it does show that, since work is something that is God-given, asking him to bless it is totally within scope. God's favour should rest on his chosen people, and as such why should they not prosper, as a rule? If they are seeking his blessing, anyway.
Then Psalm 107
The psalmist here (in vs 10-12) indicates that God understands the bitterness of labor, and uses it as a device to punish or rebuke those who have wandered from him, in an effort to make them call out to him.
I just have to share Psalm 109
The whole Psalm is just an awesome spite-filled hate-trip, but vs 10-11 are about work - in that whoever wrote this psalm wants the fruits of the work of the wicked to be plundered as part of their punishment for being wicked. It might not even happen to them while they are alive (vs 8-9 basically is asking for God to kill them young). Psalm 128 has the opposite message - if you fear the Lord and walk in his ways, then your work will be blessed.
Psalm 127 is about 50% about work!
Solomon, in his dreary wisdom, points out that work, no matter how hard you do it, is useles if you do not recognise that it is God who is behind every successful venture, behind every job well done. Even the peaceful sleep of one who works hard only really comes from God (well, either that, or God provides to people while they are asleep).
And then, Job
While there are probably a few things we could pull from Job, I'll share 37:6-7 with you - which basically says that God sends snow and rain to interrupt people's work, so that they can focus on God's work. It's an interesting idea. Next time weather stops me working, that's probably how I'll think of it. The time after that? Who knows.
Proverbs
The message of Proverbs on the subject of work is a pretty simple one. Work hard - hard work is good work. Skilled work will be rewarded. Hard work means you get food. If you don't work, you'll die.
Proverbs 24:27 is particularly peculiar. I might think on that one some more. I mean, I can think up any number of things it could mean - but what does it mean?
vs 17 of Psalm 90 is a request, apparently from Moses, for God to establish the work that the Israelites are doing. Moses is looking for God to bless their work. Well, this is all part of the Mosaic covenant to Israel, so perhaps it is to be expected.
But it does show that, since work is something that is God-given, asking him to bless it is totally within scope. God's favour should rest on his chosen people, and as such why should they not prosper, as a rule? If they are seeking his blessing, anyway.
Then Psalm 107
The psalmist here (in vs 10-12) indicates that God understands the bitterness of labor, and uses it as a device to punish or rebuke those who have wandered from him, in an effort to make them call out to him.
I just have to share Psalm 109
The whole Psalm is just an awesome spite-filled hate-trip, but vs 10-11 are about work - in that whoever wrote this psalm wants the fruits of the work of the wicked to be plundered as part of their punishment for being wicked. It might not even happen to them while they are alive (vs 8-9 basically is asking for God to kill them young). Psalm 128 has the opposite message - if you fear the Lord and walk in his ways, then your work will be blessed.
Psalm 127 is about 50% about work!
Solomon, in his dreary wisdom, points out that work, no matter how hard you do it, is useles if you do not recognise that it is God who is behind every successful venture, behind every job well done. Even the peaceful sleep of one who works hard only really comes from God (well, either that, or God provides to people while they are asleep).
And then, Job
While there are probably a few things we could pull from Job, I'll share 37:6-7 with you - which basically says that God sends snow and rain to interrupt people's work, so that they can focus on God's work. It's an interesting idea. Next time weather stops me working, that's probably how I'll think of it. The time after that? Who knows.
Proverbs
The message of Proverbs on the subject of work is a pretty simple one. Work hard - hard work is good work. Skilled work will be rewarded. Hard work means you get food. If you don't work, you'll die.
Proverbs 24:27 is particularly peculiar. I might think on that one some more. I mean, I can think up any number of things it could mean - but what does it mean?
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Work - Blessing
Deuteronomy 14:29 and 15:10, 15:18 and others
The Mosaic covenant between God and Israel was about Land, Law and Priestliness (mediation between God and people). God wanted to bless his people, and he had a covenant with them to show them how to live in order to receive his blessings. But the blessings aren't just "money rains down from heaven" blessings. These two verses (and many others besides) show that God used people's work to bless them. I chose these verses because they make it clear - do a thing (tithe, give to the poor, free your slaves eventually) and God will bless "the work of your hands" or "everything you do".
Now I am hesitant to draw the same Do Stuff = Blessings lessons from God's OT promises. But the principle that God blesses people through the work they are doing, I am keen to uphold here at the moment.
Ruth (pretty much the whole book, but especially chapter 2
The book of Ruth shows Ruth and Boaz as godly characters who do everything right. So the way they treat their work or workers should be a good godly model.
So, say we started with vs 4 - it shows that Boaz has a good relationship with his workers. Work, like any other part of life, is a place where people build relationships with other people. God is a relational God, and values relationships. So in every relationship, we have we should strive to make it godly and good.
Vs 7 next, because it shows that Ruth has a good work ethic. Now, some people might say she doesn't have much choice - her and her mother-in-law are poor, after all. But look at how much she harvests - it's way more than you need for a day's meal. So she wasn't afraid of working hard not just to sustain herself and her mother-in-law, but she is actually seeking to better their position. Vs 17 bears this all up too.
Now, to spend some time reading the book I borrowed from Morling library.
The Mosaic covenant between God and Israel was about Land, Law and Priestliness (mediation between God and people). God wanted to bless his people, and he had a covenant with them to show them how to live in order to receive his blessings. But the blessings aren't just "money rains down from heaven" blessings. These two verses (and many others besides) show that God used people's work to bless them. I chose these verses because they make it clear - do a thing (tithe, give to the poor, free your slaves eventually) and God will bless "the work of your hands" or "everything you do".
Now I am hesitant to draw the same Do Stuff = Blessings lessons from God's OT promises. But the principle that God blesses people through the work they are doing, I am keen to uphold here at the moment.
Ruth (pretty much the whole book, but especially chapter 2
The book of Ruth shows Ruth and Boaz as godly characters who do everything right. So the way they treat their work or workers should be a good godly model.
So, say we started with vs 4 - it shows that Boaz has a good relationship with his workers. Work, like any other part of life, is a place where people build relationships with other people. God is a relational God, and values relationships. So in every relationship, we have we should strive to make it godly and good.
Vs 7 next, because it shows that Ruth has a good work ethic. Now, some people might say she doesn't have much choice - her and her mother-in-law are poor, after all. But look at how much she harvests - it's way more than you need for a day's meal. So she wasn't afraid of working hard not just to sustain herself and her mother-in-law, but she is actually seeking to better their position. Vs 17 bears this all up too.
Now, to spend some time reading the book I borrowed from Morling library.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Work - rules
Exodus 23:10-12
I know there are a number of people who say letting your land lie fallow for a year is good for the soil. I just want to note that it doesn't say that here. The same people probably say that eating pig and crayfish makes you more likely to die of cancer. But again, it's not the reason God gives. I can guarantee that leaving your olive trees and vines for a year was not God's design, because according to his Sabbath laws, those suckers were going to get picked - just not by you.
What is the reason? So that the poor can gather food from it, and also to allow wild animals somewhere to get some gnosh. I will point out that this is the equivalent of giving up 1/7 of your whole income to the poor. That's a hell of a lot. Now, I don't expect that they were expected to do their whole fields and olive groves and vineyards at once - they probably left 1/7 of their fields fallow every year or something.
The rules for following the Sabbath 1 day each week are here too. But the reason given now is so that everyone gets rest. Not just you, but also your pack animals, your slaves, your migrant workers, everyone.
Exodus (in between - the tabernacle mainly)
It's worth noting that many times, especially during the making of the tabernacle, there is work required of skilled craftsmen of many sorts. Skilled labour - even those skilled in artistry - is valuable and useful to God.
Exodus 31:12-17
Sabbath laws are again repeated here. They are in fact so important that if you don't follow them, you get cut off from the people or alternatively put to death. Once again it is portrayed as a sign between God and his people.
It is repeated again in Exodus 35. And Leviticus 23.
Leviticus 16:29-31
The day of atonement, apart from all the other stuff that goes on, is for the people a day of rest and fasting. Again, work is seen as a distraction between you and focussing on God, so it just has to take a place off to the side while the focus is put squarely on God.
I know there are a number of people who say letting your land lie fallow for a year is good for the soil. I just want to note that it doesn't say that here. The same people probably say that eating pig and crayfish makes you more likely to die of cancer. But again, it's not the reason God gives. I can guarantee that leaving your olive trees and vines for a year was not God's design, because according to his Sabbath laws, those suckers were going to get picked - just not by you.
What is the reason? So that the poor can gather food from it, and also to allow wild animals somewhere to get some gnosh. I will point out that this is the equivalent of giving up 1/7 of your whole income to the poor. That's a hell of a lot. Now, I don't expect that they were expected to do their whole fields and olive groves and vineyards at once - they probably left 1/7 of their fields fallow every year or something.
The rules for following the Sabbath 1 day each week are here too. But the reason given now is so that everyone gets rest. Not just you, but also your pack animals, your slaves, your migrant workers, everyone.
Exodus (in between - the tabernacle mainly)
It's worth noting that many times, especially during the making of the tabernacle, there is work required of skilled craftsmen of many sorts. Skilled labour - even those skilled in artistry - is valuable and useful to God.
Exodus 31:12-17
Sabbath laws are again repeated here. They are in fact so important that if you don't follow them, you get cut off from the people or alternatively put to death. Once again it is portrayed as a sign between God and his people.
It is repeated again in Exodus 35. And Leviticus 23.
Leviticus 16:29-31
The day of atonement, apart from all the other stuff that goes on, is for the people a day of rest and fasting. Again, work is seen as a distraction between you and focussing on God, so it just has to take a place off to the side while the focus is put squarely on God.
Leviticus 23
Not only does this list a bunch of feasts, but it shows that every time there is a sacred feast, there is no work to be done, either for one day, or two days. Like public holidays, really. vs 22 states the fact that when you reap, you shouldn't reap all the way to the edges, and you shouldn't glean from where you've already reaped. This is in the context of the Feast of Weeks, which is after harvest I think.
Leviticus 25
Again here are recorded the rules for the Sabbath year, which really does make it sound like their fields are to be left totally, not rotated. They are allowed to eat, but only eat stuff the land produces itself - they're not allowed to sow or prune.
It also includes the rules for the year of jubilee, which for the purposes of work is another sabbath year. It also basically states that while an Israelite can sell themselves off as a hired worker (or as a slave to a resident alien), it only lasts till jubilee anyway. I find it hard to transfer this sort of idea over to our modern situation, where land isn't really how you measure riches anymore, and I'm guessing the majority of people don't run businesses but work for someone else.
Numbers 8:23-26
This verse is a riot. I remember being in a church once, actually it was a leadership conference. The speaker said "Everyone over the age of 50 stand up" (it was a Brethren conference, so basically everyone stood up). "You're too old. According to Numbers 8, you should retire, and you should be assisting someone who's 25 as they do the work." Now, he said it jokingly. Well, I like to think half-jokingly.
Seriously though, what do we do with these numbers? I mean, from my understanding of how things worked back then, 25 was pretty old. I mean, you were almost definitely married by then, probably with some kids. Whereas 50 years old, while it might have been old, probably was about the same as 50 years old now. You probably still would have been fairly fit, assuming you didn't come down with some sort of incurable illness. I might have to leave these until next time.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Work - and Rest
Genesis 29
Just while I think of it, I want to throw this in. Jacob promises to work for Laban for 7 years in order to receive Laban's younger daughter Rachel as a wife. But Laban does the old switcheroo and marries Leah off to him.
Now this story isn't as clean cut as it seems. I thought that Jacob married Leah, then 7 years later married Rachel too. But that's now how it worked. Laban says that they had a culture of marrying off the older daughter first, so he rigged it so Jacob would get both.
Why am I bringing this up? Because I want to show that even back then, work had an understanding of payment, wages. And there was also the opportunity, then, of underpaying or ripping off hired workers. Genesis 31:41 is a classic example. And this is portrayed as an injustice.
Exodus 1:12-14
I've included these verses for two reasons. One is to set the context for future verses. Israel was enslaved by Egypt, and they were worked harshly, and long. Harsh work was one of the reasons that God called on Pharoah to "let my people go".
The second reason is to show that work can be gruelling and punishing. Because work has been cursed with painful toil, it can now be used to punish people.
Exodus 12:16
God commands that the Feast of Unleavened Bread last for a week, and that no work be done - either on the whole week of the feast, or on the two days on which an assembly is held (I think it's unclear - I should look that up somewhere). Why does he do this? Because he wants his people to focus on him, that is certainly one part. There are sacred assemblies for that - on the first and last day of the week. What about the days in between? I'll have to look it up and get back to it.
Well, I'm back - apparently, this is cleared up in Leviticus, which specifies that it's only the first and last day that are special assemblies and therefore are without work.
Exodus 20:8-11
It is here that God codifies the Sabbath rest. He wants a day set apart for himself, for his people to remember him. What does he want it set apart from? From work! It seems that, while God has no quarrel with work (he did invent it), he wants his people to keep work and God separate to a degree. Now that doesn't mean God isn't involved on the other six days of the week, on either side. God is obviously involved, but also the people would remember God because of the blessings he brings down on them. But once a week there is a special day, set apart from regular working routine, to remember God. No one works, not even animals.
I want to go into all the festivals and stuff, because there is more to say on this topic, but I don't have time. Remind myself to look at Exodus 23 tomorrow.
Just while I think of it, I want to throw this in. Jacob promises to work for Laban for 7 years in order to receive Laban's younger daughter Rachel as a wife. But Laban does the old switcheroo and marries Leah off to him.
Now this story isn't as clean cut as it seems. I thought that Jacob married Leah, then 7 years later married Rachel too. But that's now how it worked. Laban says that they had a culture of marrying off the older daughter first, so he rigged it so Jacob would get both.
Why am I bringing this up? Because I want to show that even back then, work had an understanding of payment, wages. And there was also the opportunity, then, of underpaying or ripping off hired workers. Genesis 31:41 is a classic example. And this is portrayed as an injustice.
Exodus 1:12-14
I've included these verses for two reasons. One is to set the context for future verses. Israel was enslaved by Egypt, and they were worked harshly, and long. Harsh work was one of the reasons that God called on Pharoah to "let my people go".
The second reason is to show that work can be gruelling and punishing. Because work has been cursed with painful toil, it can now be used to punish people.
Exodus 12:16
God commands that the Feast of Unleavened Bread last for a week, and that no work be done - either on the whole week of the feast, or on the two days on which an assembly is held (I think it's unclear - I should look that up somewhere). Why does he do this? Because he wants his people to focus on him, that is certainly one part. There are sacred assemblies for that - on the first and last day of the week. What about the days in between? I'll have to look it up and get back to it.
Well, I'm back - apparently, this is cleared up in Leviticus, which specifies that it's only the first and last day that are special assemblies and therefore are without work.
Exodus 20:8-11
It is here that God codifies the Sabbath rest. He wants a day set apart for himself, for his people to remember him. What does he want it set apart from? From work! It seems that, while God has no quarrel with work (he did invent it), he wants his people to keep work and God separate to a degree. Now that doesn't mean God isn't involved on the other six days of the week, on either side. God is obviously involved, but also the people would remember God because of the blessings he brings down on them. But once a week there is a special day, set apart from regular working routine, to remember God. No one works, not even animals.
I want to go into all the festivals and stuff, because there is more to say on this topic, but I don't have time. Remind myself to look at Exodus 23 tomorrow.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Work - In the beginning
My readings are going to change a bit, as I'm going to have to cover a lot of different stuff to get this sermon prepped. So watch them jump around.
Genesis 1-3
The first verse in the Bible that is about work is not about mankind at all, except in an indirect sense. It is God who has in fact been working. His work was the work of creation. He does it with authority ("and God said...And it was so"). He does it in an orderly fashion (the days, whether real or literary, divide the story up into distinct, orderly parts). The fruits of his labour are very good (1:31). Work is therefore foundational to creation.
So by the time we get to 2:2, we've already learned a fair bit about how God works. Then a curious, unexpected thing occurs - God rests. The NIV has a note that says "or ceases". Fair enough. But what does this tell us about God and his work pattern? I think we can extrapolate a few things.
Firstly, the universe is built on the foundation of work & rest. Later on, that day of rest would become the Sabbath - enshrined by God into his laws as a day of rest for his people. Mankind rests because God rested.
Did God have to rest? I'd say the answer is probably not. But in doing so he set a standard for his creation. No doubt it is part of God's grace.
Secondly, It tells us that God's work pattern has a beginning and an end. He started creation, he stopped creation. Not just stopped, though - completed. So God finishes what he starts. He also knows when to stop.
2:15
Man is now on the scene. The next thing we learn about work is that Man is involved. Mankind is given a job from God. Before the fall. Which means that work, like pretty much everything, had its beginnings in something good and right.
Also, since God has ceased his own work (of creation), he delegates to mankind some work. This is important - it means that the work mankind does is actually God's work! God is still the final author of it, and God is ultimately responsible for it. But he allows mankind to be a part of it, to have what we might call 'creative input'.
What kind of work is it? I am going to say that it involves both form and function - that is, that the work of mankind is to achieve both the practical and beautiful. My basis is 2:9 - the trees in the garden were both pleasing to the eye and good for food. God created the garden that way, and no doubt it was mankind's work to keep it that way.
And mankind does it, of course, because God has the authority to assign work to mankind.
2:18
We all know where this heads - woman ends up getting created. But the point here is that she is created as a helper for man. That is, someone to help him in his work. Mankind and womankind are both called to work by God.
But there's more. Now there exists in the work of mankind a structure of authority. One is the helper of the other. This is not to belittle the work of one against the work of the other. God did not give mankind work to do in order to belittle or shame.
Now I might point out that it is God who appoints woman to be the helper of man. That is, she reports to God, because God gave her the job.
Both positions of work given to people are given by God, partly to create a relationship between them and God. But they are also meant to work together and have relationship with one another.
It's hard not to read a hierarchical relationship into the man/woman relationship as it is written. However, a lot of that is probably based on order of creation (which actually means fish outrank humans, and are outranked by trees). The idea that the woman is called a "helper", and is formed from a part of the man also contributes, and these are more realistic arguments in my book. Having said that, man was made out of dust, and when you consider the authority of God over both men and women, then any authority we might hold between each other seems a little petty. I think it's also worth noting that mankind is given rulership over the animals, not over woman.
3:16-19
This is where everything stuffs up. I've included verse 16, but not really because of part 1 of the curse, regarding childbearing. Rather, I've added it to show that the relationship between man and woman has changed. Woman now is cursed with a desire for her husband. I had it explained to me once that the word 'desire' is the same word used in chapter 4 to describe sin's desire to overtake and control Cain. So it is not a carnal desire (why would that be a curse?), but rather it is a desire for control. It is further sharpened because now man will be put in rulership over woman. Man's rule over woman is part of a curse, not part of God's creation.
I might just add that the curses, while specifically given to man and woman, are shared by both too. So the curse of rulership over women is also a curse to men.
Anyway, onto the work-based curse that falls on mankind. Work existed before the fall. Now it is toil. Pre-fall, work seems to have involved encouraging a mix of growth and beauty. Now it involves sweat and pain. It is necessary simply to subsist. I think it would be fair to say that it also loses its "sweetness" of reward - a simple life of eating fruit is gone, replaced with seasonal growth of wheat-style crops. Sure, bread is nice, but fruit is the chocolate of the OT, without the work of processing it first. You don't have to process fruit unless you want a fruit salad or a smoothie. Eating heads of grain just isn't the same.
The big point to make here, of course, is that the curses don't ruin the things they curse. Relationships between men and woman are still good. Having kids is still good. Eating is still good. But they now have a mix of good and bad in them, like a field with wheat and thistles. The same, then, must be considered of work. Work gives us a creative outlet, allows us to participate in the work of God (he delegated it to us, after all). However, now it is also a 'live or die' imperative, and it is painful.
It's hard not to read a hierarchical relationship into the man/woman relationship as it is written. However, a lot of that is probably based on order of creation (which actually means fish outrank humans, and are outranked by trees). The idea that the woman is called a "helper", and is formed from a part of the man also contributes, and these are more realistic arguments in my book. Having said that, man was made out of dust, and when you consider the authority of God over both men and women, then any authority we might hold between each other seems a little petty. I think it's also worth noting that mankind is given rulership over the animals, not over woman.
3:16-19
This is where everything stuffs up. I've included verse 16, but not really because of part 1 of the curse, regarding childbearing. Rather, I've added it to show that the relationship between man and woman has changed. Woman now is cursed with a desire for her husband. I had it explained to me once that the word 'desire' is the same word used in chapter 4 to describe sin's desire to overtake and control Cain. So it is not a carnal desire (why would that be a curse?), but rather it is a desire for control. It is further sharpened because now man will be put in rulership over woman. Man's rule over woman is part of a curse, not part of God's creation.
I might just add that the curses, while specifically given to man and woman, are shared by both too. So the curse of rulership over women is also a curse to men.
Anyway, onto the work-based curse that falls on mankind. Work existed before the fall. Now it is toil. Pre-fall, work seems to have involved encouraging a mix of growth and beauty. Now it involves sweat and pain. It is necessary simply to subsist. I think it would be fair to say that it also loses its "sweetness" of reward - a simple life of eating fruit is gone, replaced with seasonal growth of wheat-style crops. Sure, bread is nice, but fruit is the chocolate of the OT, without the work of processing it first. You don't have to process fruit unless you want a fruit salad or a smoothie. Eating heads of grain just isn't the same.
The big point to make here, of course, is that the curses don't ruin the things they curse. Relationships between men and woman are still good. Having kids is still good. Eating is still good. But they now have a mix of good and bad in them, like a field with wheat and thistles. The same, then, must be considered of work. Work gives us a creative outlet, allows us to participate in the work of God (he delegated it to us, after all). However, now it is also a 'live or die' imperative, and it is painful.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Psalm 16
vs 1
This is really the only request of the psalm. The rest of the psalm assumes the comfort and protection of the Lord, really.
vs 2
This verse could mean two things. Either that because of God, all the good things David has are his, or the only good thing at the end of the day is God, because everything else is ephemeral.
It's true, and worthy of remembering, that everything we have now - not just material possessions either, but marriage relationships, children, friendships, ideas, insight - all of that stuff that is good is only as good as long as we live. None of them are represented in heaven to my understanding. So at the end of the day, we really should see Jesus as the most valuable thing we have, far more valuable than family which, while important, is fleeting in the scope of eternity.
vs 3
As a ruler who is trying to do God's will in the first place, having a population of people who seek to serve God and live holy lives must be a delight. Yes, at the end of the day they too are sinful. But overall, they will respect your laws. They will work for justice. They will even keep you accountable (which might not always be fun, but it is still good).
I wonder, today, how often Christian civil leaders are able to say this of their Christian electorate? I wonder how hard we try to be a delight, to be noble people in the sight of our leaders.
vs 4
Unfortunately, not all of David's citizens were noble and delightful followers of God. Some of them probably weren't any more rowdy or destructive (although some of them could have been). But because of the covenant that God had made with Israel, their very existence jeopardised the land's blessings. Now David talks about pouring out the libation of blood. As far as I know, there weren't any blood libations used in worship of God (a libation is when you pour out the liquid as a sacrifice - drink offerings were made to God this way). Furthermore, if blood was poured out (again, I have a feeling it was sprinkled?) then you would think a priest would do it and not David. Perhaps David, as king, felt the need to offer sacrifices for his country as they were his responsibility, but here he is saying that he wouldn't offer sacrifices for those who didn't worship God alone.
And then the next sentence seems to say that he also won't pray for them. Ouch! I want to say that we have a much different understanding of prayer, but I don't think it's true. I think, in reality, while they did have lots of sanctioned prayers and pre-written prayers and structured prayers, they also prayed off their own bat. David certainly does in recorded history, so no reason not to believe that he is talking about cutting off ALL prayers for these people.
vs 5
That would seem to indicate to me that this is an early psalm, because David's lot gets a whole lot less secure post-Bathsheeba.
But more generally, security is something that we seek from God, and we will find in God. But it is not security necessarily from our enemies, or from his enemies! It's not immediate, at any rate. Rather, it is an eternal security. Our portions are secure - perhaps not our temporal portions, which could dry up tomorrow - but rather our eternal portion and inheritance. And we'll see inheritance come in further down I think.
vs 6
Ok, I'm not 100% sure how boundary lines were drawn back then, especially when it comes to dividing existing land. But however they fall, David is saying that the inheritance he sees that God has given him is delightful. Utterly pleasant. Now sure, he might be talking about his family's historic land, the portion he would inherit from Jesse. But remember, he's the youngest son, so he'd be getting the smallest portion. He might be talking about the city of Jerusalem, which he conquered with his own forces, and therefore also belongs to him and his line. But I think most probably he is again looking forward to something in the future.
Questions about eternity in the Old Testament are always hard to fathom. They didn't write an awful lot about eschatology. The Day of the Lord was about it. But there are several things David says in this psalm that certainly we read as having an eternal focus. Whether they did to him or not, well, I can't bet the farm on it.
vs 7
I think this beautiful verse serves to enlighten us as to exactly what sort of language people used back then when they were talking about God. We tend to thank God for giving us which does this fine job. The exception I think is food or medical treatment, where we usually give thanks to God for healing or food, and those who prepared it or were involved in it get left on the outer. Well, David is thanking God here for his counsel, but he says that God's counsel comes from his own heart - his on conscience which guides and instructs him. Rather than saying "Thank you God for giving me a heart and conscience which instructs me", he just says "Thank you God for guiding me". Splitting hairs to an extent, I know, but it helps us to recognise that even back in the OT they recognised that there were things that helped them do things, but in their language they would often attribute things directly to God. Probably not unhealthily either.
vs 8
Now some cynical people might ask how you won't be shaken if you keep your eyes on the Lord when he's at your right hand, unless you're going around in circles. Well, they're cynics. But it is true that there is a confusing paradox here. David keeps his eyes on God, that is, he looks up to God. God is in the position of authority. And yet, then David says that God is at his right hand, which while that is a position of power, it is also a position of power under David!
It might well be that the person who sits at the right hand of the king (the position of second in command) is the one who acts on the king's behalf in a lot of things, and David is saying that God acts on David's behalf. Or a similar idea with a different action or focus. Regardless, after everything David has said so far, it would be hard to believe that he is putting himself in a position of authority over God. The fact is, though, that God serves our needs and provides for us, and very often does act on our behalf. Especially when we pray.
Whatever David meant by it, it is part of his security that God is beside him.
vs 9
Now these next three verses, in my opinion, get about as close as anyone in the OT does to discussing death and faith and what happens after.
David praises God with his mouth, and he is living a happy life because of God. But even when his body goes to rest (dies), he still feels that he will have security. Why?
vs 10
Ok, what's the realm of the dead? Well, we don't exactly know, really. It would seem, if you add this stuff up over the OT, that early on they believed that when you died you went to be with your ancestors. Now, of course, all your ancestors have also been buried in that cave, so that could just be a nice way of saying "we stuck him in the family grave". And it's hard to say either way, because they don't really talk about any hope after death. God's covenant with Israel doesn't talk about anything after death. Neither does his covenant with Abraham.
But David here is saying that he feels God won't let him stay dead. He says he will die, yes! He said that in the last verse. But he feels that God won't abandon him there, that it won't be the end. He won't see decay. Yes, I know that this line is used to describe Christ. And yes, prophecy is awesome. And yes, David may have seen this as a prophetic statement at the time too! But Surely this is David also talking about a hope that exceeds his lifetime.
vs 11
This verse is all about that time after death. The path of life will be known - probably so that he can continue to be alive. David will be in the presence of God! What an accurate presentation of heaven in a single sentence! And there will be eternal pleasures. Eternity is mentioned. I can't get past the importance of these last three verses. I'm not sure what commentators say, and to be honest, I already know that if I looked them up, they would have very different opinions about it. But just reading it, I get the feeling that David felt a security that expanded past his living time on this earth.
What does it mean for us? I mean, the NT makes it bold as brass that we've got an eternal faith and hope. But It's comforting to know that God's great man David also had that comfort.
This is really the only request of the psalm. The rest of the psalm assumes the comfort and protection of the Lord, really.
vs 2
This verse could mean two things. Either that because of God, all the good things David has are his, or the only good thing at the end of the day is God, because everything else is ephemeral.
It's true, and worthy of remembering, that everything we have now - not just material possessions either, but marriage relationships, children, friendships, ideas, insight - all of that stuff that is good is only as good as long as we live. None of them are represented in heaven to my understanding. So at the end of the day, we really should see Jesus as the most valuable thing we have, far more valuable than family which, while important, is fleeting in the scope of eternity.
vs 3
As a ruler who is trying to do God's will in the first place, having a population of people who seek to serve God and live holy lives must be a delight. Yes, at the end of the day they too are sinful. But overall, they will respect your laws. They will work for justice. They will even keep you accountable (which might not always be fun, but it is still good).
I wonder, today, how often Christian civil leaders are able to say this of their Christian electorate? I wonder how hard we try to be a delight, to be noble people in the sight of our leaders.
vs 4
Unfortunately, not all of David's citizens were noble and delightful followers of God. Some of them probably weren't any more rowdy or destructive (although some of them could have been). But because of the covenant that God had made with Israel, their very existence jeopardised the land's blessings. Now David talks about pouring out the libation of blood. As far as I know, there weren't any blood libations used in worship of God (a libation is when you pour out the liquid as a sacrifice - drink offerings were made to God this way). Furthermore, if blood was poured out (again, I have a feeling it was sprinkled?) then you would think a priest would do it and not David. Perhaps David, as king, felt the need to offer sacrifices for his country as they were his responsibility, but here he is saying that he wouldn't offer sacrifices for those who didn't worship God alone.
And then the next sentence seems to say that he also won't pray for them. Ouch! I want to say that we have a much different understanding of prayer, but I don't think it's true. I think, in reality, while they did have lots of sanctioned prayers and pre-written prayers and structured prayers, they also prayed off their own bat. David certainly does in recorded history, so no reason not to believe that he is talking about cutting off ALL prayers for these people.
vs 5
That would seem to indicate to me that this is an early psalm, because David's lot gets a whole lot less secure post-Bathsheeba.
But more generally, security is something that we seek from God, and we will find in God. But it is not security necessarily from our enemies, or from his enemies! It's not immediate, at any rate. Rather, it is an eternal security. Our portions are secure - perhaps not our temporal portions, which could dry up tomorrow - but rather our eternal portion and inheritance. And we'll see inheritance come in further down I think.
vs 6
Ok, I'm not 100% sure how boundary lines were drawn back then, especially when it comes to dividing existing land. But however they fall, David is saying that the inheritance he sees that God has given him is delightful. Utterly pleasant. Now sure, he might be talking about his family's historic land, the portion he would inherit from Jesse. But remember, he's the youngest son, so he'd be getting the smallest portion. He might be talking about the city of Jerusalem, which he conquered with his own forces, and therefore also belongs to him and his line. But I think most probably he is again looking forward to something in the future.
Questions about eternity in the Old Testament are always hard to fathom. They didn't write an awful lot about eschatology. The Day of the Lord was about it. But there are several things David says in this psalm that certainly we read as having an eternal focus. Whether they did to him or not, well, I can't bet the farm on it.
vs 7
I think this beautiful verse serves to enlighten us as to exactly what sort of language people used back then when they were talking about God. We tend to thank God for giving us
vs 8
Now some cynical people might ask how you won't be shaken if you keep your eyes on the Lord when he's at your right hand, unless you're going around in circles. Well, they're cynics. But it is true that there is a confusing paradox here. David keeps his eyes on God, that is, he looks up to God. God is in the position of authority. And yet, then David says that God is at his right hand, which while that is a position of power, it is also a position of power under David!
It might well be that the person who sits at the right hand of the king (the position of second in command) is the one who acts on the king's behalf in a lot of things, and David is saying that God acts on David's behalf. Or a similar idea with a different action or focus. Regardless, after everything David has said so far, it would be hard to believe that he is putting himself in a position of authority over God. The fact is, though, that God serves our needs and provides for us, and very often does act on our behalf. Especially when we pray.
Whatever David meant by it, it is part of his security that God is beside him.
vs 9
Now these next three verses, in my opinion, get about as close as anyone in the OT does to discussing death and faith and what happens after.
David praises God with his mouth, and he is living a happy life because of God. But even when his body goes to rest (dies), he still feels that he will have security. Why?
vs 10
Ok, what's the realm of the dead? Well, we don't exactly know, really. It would seem, if you add this stuff up over the OT, that early on they believed that when you died you went to be with your ancestors. Now, of course, all your ancestors have also been buried in that cave, so that could just be a nice way of saying "we stuck him in the family grave". And it's hard to say either way, because they don't really talk about any hope after death. God's covenant with Israel doesn't talk about anything after death. Neither does his covenant with Abraham.
But David here is saying that he feels God won't let him stay dead. He says he will die, yes! He said that in the last verse. But he feels that God won't abandon him there, that it won't be the end. He won't see decay. Yes, I know that this line is used to describe Christ. And yes, prophecy is awesome. And yes, David may have seen this as a prophetic statement at the time too! But Surely this is David also talking about a hope that exceeds his lifetime.
vs 11
This verse is all about that time after death. The path of life will be known - probably so that he can continue to be alive. David will be in the presence of God! What an accurate presentation of heaven in a single sentence! And there will be eternal pleasures. Eternity is mentioned. I can't get past the importance of these last three verses. I'm not sure what commentators say, and to be honest, I already know that if I looked them up, they would have very different opinions about it. But just reading it, I get the feeling that David felt a security that expanded past his living time on this earth.
What does it mean for us? I mean, the NT makes it bold as brass that we've got an eternal faith and hope. But It's comforting to know that God's great man David also had that comfort.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Psalm 15
I've got to say that, for all the little idiosyncracies of the TNIV, this psalm makes up for them all. It reads so naturally, I feel almost as if I'm singing it when I read it.
vs 1
This is the question posed by the song. Basically - who does God accept? Who would God have to come and stay at his place? It's a great idea for a song - a little ditty you can hum to your kids to remind them how to live. Of course, it's not meant to be all-inclusive - it's meant to paint a picture.
vs 2
The first two lines are pretty much repeats of the same idea in different language. If you were wanting to split hair between righteous action and a righteous walk, then I guess you could make some pretence (the walk is your everyday life at all times, and the actions are specific things you do) but I think that's reading too much into it.
Speaking truth is one thing, but speaking it from the heart - what does that mean? I think it means to speak from your convictions, rather than just from facts. You can say "The sky is blue" and yeah, it is. That's the truth. But it's not something your heart gets cut about. But when you, say, speak out against injustice, you either do it from your heart, or you're just presenting cold facts. It's an interesting distinction to make.
vs 3
Again we see the tongue and speech featuring large in the path of the righteous. They don't slander people. Slander is malicious falsehood. Again, it's not just telling a lie ("The sky is green"), it's telling a lie with the purpose of it being hurtful ("The sky is green because of poisonous gases that will only abait if you stick a fork in your eye").
The reference to the neighbour, of course, is a reference to the deuteronomic Law that we should love our neighbour as ourself.
Are the hebrew words for slur and slander technical terms? Or are they synonyms? I don't know. My understanding of 'slur' is to make unfavourable or damaging (not unecessarily untrue) remarks. Either David is seeking to make two points, or once again he is repeating himself like he did in vs 2. I think, given the poetic nature of a psalm, that is more likely. Let's just assume saying nasty things about people for the purpose of hurting them is bad.
vs 4
See, we can't talk like this in the New Testament (or perhaps just in modern times?). We like to separate a person from their actions, so that we can "love the sinner but hate the sin". David's wording doesn't really allow for that. You don't despise vile actions, but those who do them. You don't honour fear of the Lord, but those who fear. Righteousness, to a degree at least, must seek justice for those who are anti-God, and honour for those who are, well, righteous. Because justice is right, righteousness can't be righteousness without it.
What a strong statement about the righteous - they keep their oaths even when it hurts. That their integrity is more important to them than their comfort.
vs 5
Lending money without interest is not here a commandment - it is a mark of one who is compassionate. The poor need money. Giving it to them is not what is being suggested here. Instead, you lend it to them, so they can pay it back, but you don't make any money out of it. In fact, if you take inflation into account, you lose money on it. But the point really is that they are looked after in their time of need, but you don't hold it over them.
Anyone who would accept bribes is already in our bad books, but David goes the next step and denounces those who would take bribes to perpetuate injustice against innocent people.
David's final verse wraps up the whole psalm excellently - those who follow this path, who paint for themselves a life that looks like his picture, will never be shaken. They will be steady. Stable. Staltwart. Who doesn't want that?
vs 1
This is the question posed by the song. Basically - who does God accept? Who would God have to come and stay at his place? It's a great idea for a song - a little ditty you can hum to your kids to remind them how to live. Of course, it's not meant to be all-inclusive - it's meant to paint a picture.
vs 2
The first two lines are pretty much repeats of the same idea in different language. If you were wanting to split hair between righteous action and a righteous walk, then I guess you could make some pretence (the walk is your everyday life at all times, and the actions are specific things you do) but I think that's reading too much into it.
Speaking truth is one thing, but speaking it from the heart - what does that mean? I think it means to speak from your convictions, rather than just from facts. You can say "The sky is blue" and yeah, it is. That's the truth. But it's not something your heart gets cut about. But when you, say, speak out against injustice, you either do it from your heart, or you're just presenting cold facts. It's an interesting distinction to make.
vs 3
Again we see the tongue and speech featuring large in the path of the righteous. They don't slander people. Slander is malicious falsehood. Again, it's not just telling a lie ("The sky is green"), it's telling a lie with the purpose of it being hurtful ("The sky is green because of poisonous gases that will only abait if you stick a fork in your eye").
The reference to the neighbour, of course, is a reference to the deuteronomic Law that we should love our neighbour as ourself.
Are the hebrew words for slur and slander technical terms? Or are they synonyms? I don't know. My understanding of 'slur' is to make unfavourable or damaging (not unecessarily untrue) remarks. Either David is seeking to make two points, or once again he is repeating himself like he did in vs 2. I think, given the poetic nature of a psalm, that is more likely. Let's just assume saying nasty things about people for the purpose of hurting them is bad.
vs 4
See, we can't talk like this in the New Testament (or perhaps just in modern times?). We like to separate a person from their actions, so that we can "love the sinner but hate the sin". David's wording doesn't really allow for that. You don't despise vile actions, but those who do them. You don't honour fear of the Lord, but those who fear. Righteousness, to a degree at least, must seek justice for those who are anti-God, and honour for those who are, well, righteous. Because justice is right, righteousness can't be righteousness without it.
What a strong statement about the righteous - they keep their oaths even when it hurts. That their integrity is more important to them than their comfort.
vs 5
Lending money without interest is not here a commandment - it is a mark of one who is compassionate. The poor need money. Giving it to them is not what is being suggested here. Instead, you lend it to them, so they can pay it back, but you don't make any money out of it. In fact, if you take inflation into account, you lose money on it. But the point really is that they are looked after in their time of need, but you don't hold it over them.
Anyone who would accept bribes is already in our bad books, but David goes the next step and denounces those who would take bribes to perpetuate injustice against innocent people.
David's final verse wraps up the whole psalm excellently - those who follow this path, who paint for themselves a life that looks like his picture, will never be shaken. They will be steady. Stable. Staltwart. Who doesn't want that?
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Psalm 14
vs 1
What an odd way to start a song. It would be so interesting to know more about the musical culture that spawns songs like this.
Obviously David has someone in particular in mind. No doubt someone from outside the community of Israel. The statement about there being none who does good we know from Romans 3. But while we would read that universally (and Paul meant it so), did David mean it universally? Or just universally outside of Israel?
vs 2
We know that any time the Lord has done something like this, he has found Lot, or Abraham, or Noah, or Moses, or Elijah. Not perfect men by any means, but people who stood out to God as men of faith.
vs 3
Again, from Romans we recognise this verse. But is David being universalist? It's hard to say.
vs 4
Obviously they aren't actually eating David's people, but they probably are killing them. The questioning nature of the beginning sentence indicates that they are making stark errors in their actions - attempting to destroy God's people, and refusing to call on God - shows how ignorant they are.
vs 5
I find this totally confusing. Why are they overwhelmed with dread? If they don't think God is there, why are the dreading his vengance? Unless they can actually sense his presence with the righteous.
Of course, the next question is - if there are none who understand, and none who seek God, who are the righteous?
vs 6
This verse serves to show whose side each is on. So with regards to the poor, the evildoers frustrate their plans, but God's attitude to the poor is to protect them and look after them.
vs 7
Again David talks about salvation (I mean again as from the last psalm). And again it is talking about a deliverance from his enemies first and foremost. I'm not sure what David means by restoring God's people. Perhaps this was written during the times of constant battles, before Israel's borders were secure.
What an odd way to start a song. It would be so interesting to know more about the musical culture that spawns songs like this.
Obviously David has someone in particular in mind. No doubt someone from outside the community of Israel. The statement about there being none who does good we know from Romans 3. But while we would read that universally (and Paul meant it so), did David mean it universally? Or just universally outside of Israel?
vs 2
We know that any time the Lord has done something like this, he has found Lot, or Abraham, or Noah, or Moses, or Elijah. Not perfect men by any means, but people who stood out to God as men of faith.
vs 3
Again, from Romans we recognise this verse. But is David being universalist? It's hard to say.
vs 4
Obviously they aren't actually eating David's people, but they probably are killing them. The questioning nature of the beginning sentence indicates that they are making stark errors in their actions - attempting to destroy God's people, and refusing to call on God - shows how ignorant they are.
vs 5
I find this totally confusing. Why are they overwhelmed with dread? If they don't think God is there, why are the dreading his vengance? Unless they can actually sense his presence with the righteous.
Of course, the next question is - if there are none who understand, and none who seek God, who are the righteous?
vs 6
This verse serves to show whose side each is on. So with regards to the poor, the evildoers frustrate their plans, but God's attitude to the poor is to protect them and look after them.
vs 7
Again David talks about salvation (I mean again as from the last psalm). And again it is talking about a deliverance from his enemies first and foremost. I'm not sure what David means by restoring God's people. Perhaps this was written during the times of constant battles, before Israel's borders were secure.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Psalm 13
vs 1
What a painful situation it must be for David to be asking this question. David feels God has hidden his face, that is, turned away from him. As if God has turned his back on David. Their relationship has been spoiled. It feels like it could last forever.
What has caused this feeling? Why has God turned away? Does God actually ever turn his face away? We tend to think of God as one who never turns away, never creates a gap between us, and never seeks to not know us. We think that if there's ever a reason for separation between us and God, that it is our fault. Now that may be true, if we're looking for someone to blame. But I think a study of the Bible will show you that God hides his face, God draws away, God turns away from the wicked.
At first I thought this might be a post-Bathsheeba psalm, but there is nothing to suggest that. It talks more about enemies than anything else. So has David been wicked? Is is it just that his life is in the crapper, and he's wondering how much longer he has to live in fear and failure?
vs 2
This is the picture of David without God's blessing. He wrestles with bad thoughts, he is sorrowful. And his enemy has victory. Overall a terrible situation internally and externally.
vs 3
"Give light to my eyes" I assume is a poetic way of saying "make me be able to see". David wants to see the answer of God, he wants God to pay attention to him again. Because if he doesn't, then as far as David is concerned, he'll be dead. And of course this is not a resolution of which David is fond.
vs 4
Not only that, but then the enemies of David will think they have won. Now, normally we might say "well who cares" but David is of the opinion that his enemies are also God's enemies, and surely God doesn't want them rejoicing and thinking that they are winning?
vs 5
What exactly does salvation mean here? I don't think there is quite a doctrine of salvation in the eternal, eschatalogical sense that we Christians would consider it. I think David is just expecting the salvation of God from his circumstances and enemies. And he expects this because he knows God's love - even if God's face is turned away for the moment and things are going wrong.
vs 6
David looks at the past, and sees how favourable God has been to him. For that, he sings praises to God, even if he is to die at the hands of his enemies. But that past goodness of God is also a foundation of David's faith in future goodness and salvation. That's a useful lesson to us, I think.
What a painful situation it must be for David to be asking this question. David feels God has hidden his face, that is, turned away from him. As if God has turned his back on David. Their relationship has been spoiled. It feels like it could last forever.
What has caused this feeling? Why has God turned away? Does God actually ever turn his face away? We tend to think of God as one who never turns away, never creates a gap between us, and never seeks to not know us. We think that if there's ever a reason for separation between us and God, that it is our fault. Now that may be true, if we're looking for someone to blame. But I think a study of the Bible will show you that God hides his face, God draws away, God turns away from the wicked.
At first I thought this might be a post-Bathsheeba psalm, but there is nothing to suggest that. It talks more about enemies than anything else. So has David been wicked? Is is it just that his life is in the crapper, and he's wondering how much longer he has to live in fear and failure?
vs 2
This is the picture of David without God's blessing. He wrestles with bad thoughts, he is sorrowful. And his enemy has victory. Overall a terrible situation internally and externally.
vs 3
"Give light to my eyes" I assume is a poetic way of saying "make me be able to see". David wants to see the answer of God, he wants God to pay attention to him again. Because if he doesn't, then as far as David is concerned, he'll be dead. And of course this is not a resolution of which David is fond.
vs 4
Not only that, but then the enemies of David will think they have won. Now, normally we might say "well who cares" but David is of the opinion that his enemies are also God's enemies, and surely God doesn't want them rejoicing and thinking that they are winning?
vs 5
What exactly does salvation mean here? I don't think there is quite a doctrine of salvation in the eternal, eschatalogical sense that we Christians would consider it. I think David is just expecting the salvation of God from his circumstances and enemies. And he expects this because he knows God's love - even if God's face is turned away for the moment and things are going wrong.
vs 6
David looks at the past, and sees how favourable God has been to him. For that, he sings praises to God, even if he is to die at the hands of his enemies. But that past goodness of God is also a foundation of David's faith in future goodness and salvation. That's a useful lesson to us, I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)