Hebrews chapter 1

vs 8

I was going to ask "When you first read this in Psalm 45, did you think it was about the Son?" To be honest, in its context, I find it rather confusing, and I'm glad the author of Hebrews has given it some clarity.

Anyway, the point being that, this verse being about the Son, it promises him dominion - his is a position of authority, not servanthood. While the Son does serve the Father, he is not a servant.

vs 9

In the original psalm, you are likely to read this far more in context - it is the "Oh God" that throws out vs 8 (vs 6 in the psalm) contextually. But I guess it is the reading of them together - that God has the throne and that God sets you above your companions - that is one of the things that is putting this verse where it is - the Son is God, and therefore grants himself authority, if you will.

vs 10-12

Remember, we're looking primarily at the differences between the Son and the angels. I think the point of these verses is to highlight that God made earth and heaven, and yet both are going to curl up and end. Since the angels live in heaven and are indeed "heavenly beings", does this mean that they are indeed finite and not eternal? They may not die in that they have a fixed time of life, but they still get wrapped up when the time comes. At least, that's how I read it. It's not a simple thing, the use of this verse here.

vs 13

None, of course. But he did say it to his Son. Prophetically via David, of course. Except, of course, that Jesus himself asks how this could be of David - quite the conundrum. Thankfully, of course, we can just apply it to Christ and it clears it up for us. Still boggles the mind what David meant by it then.

vs 14

I suppose the answer is yes. I'm not sure what the source material for such a statement is, but now it's Heb 1:14! And the follow on thought is in the next chapter, although it's not as simple as you might think.

Hebrews chapter 1

vs 1

Straight away, we have a marker, in my opinion, as to who this was written. It was the Jews whose ancestors had God speak to them at many times and in various ways. While I am aware about the several passages in the NT that claim a spiritual heritage for Christians of Abraham, that language is slightly different to here. While I am sure that such a spiritual heritage allows modern day Christians to read this book with meaning, primarily surely it existed to correct some misapprehensions from Jewish and proselyte Christians.

vs 2

We are living in a new era, and it's not just because there's an African American president (go 'Bama). It's because this is the time period that God has chosen to reveal himself through his own Son. Straight out of the gate, that Son is given a statement of authority - he was involved in the creation of the universe. We will spend chapters seeing the authority of Christ built up.

vs 3

This is sounding fairly Colossians-y. More statements of powerful authority for Jesus - he is God, an exact representation, with not only the creative power but the sustaining power. He is responsible for the purification of sins - the enormity of this verse gets chapters later, because it means he has replaced an entire sacrificial system. Finally, he is at the right hand in majesty. Sorry, of the Majesty. All my translations capitalise Majesty, so I'm assuming it relates to a God title.

vs 4

It's not a question I would have even asked, but apparently some people needed this cleared up - as Son of God, he is above angels in the spiritual pecking order. It could be that people were getting confused by the psalm 8 reference. Perhaps there were questions about his divinity. The author here leaves no questions as to his opinion of Christ's divinity.

vs 5

Some Old Testament references there. One obviously from the psalms, but the other from Samuel. And both, interestingly, are regarding David. The strength of this Sonship link to the Davidic covenant is a big thing.

vs 6

You won't find this quote in your OT , as I am sure you are well aware. It's from the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls. But the author here seems to think that's it's worth basing his point on - that the angels are to worship the Christ, hence their lowliness before him.

vs 7

An interestingly different translation to that we are given in our Psalm 104:4. Of course, since wind and spirit are the same word in Hebrew (and Greek, I think) the change is contextual. Still, the verse in 104 seems to mean angels to me. The point is that God has made angels as servants for himself. They have a defined role to play. Sure, to us, they seem awesome - made of fire, flying around with flaming swords, cool stuff. But they are servants of God, and of Christ too. You worship the King, not his messenger, which again in Greek and Hebrew is the same word for angel.

Psalm 20

vs 1

You know, this might be one of my favourite psalms. I think it has that poetry to it that I can feel from the meaning, if you know what I mean. Perhaps it's just the large use of jussives, but It's a very cool psalm. Good length, too. It reminds me of that Irish Blessing, "May the road rise up to meet you..."

And that's what the first part is, really - a blessing on someone. It's all very simple, for this first verse. Jacob is mentioned I guess primarily it seems as an indicator of which God we're talking about (and you know what? That's a really good idea. Whenever I say just "God", what do people think I mean? I should say things like "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ" but that sounds so wordy and formal. But it at least specifies who I'm talking about), but it also calls to mind the faithfulness of God to Jacob, that you may be protected as he was, and that your requests may be answered as his were. You might think David is a better candidate for an analogy, but then he's writing the psalm.

vs 2

Now that is an interesting one. Does David mean physical help? If so, in what form? In the form of support to the poor? Bread and other food for wandering kings (David snacked down on holy bread)? Or is it spiritual support, like lifting your spirit? Is the sanctuary the temple, therefore, and Zion, Jerusalem, or is it a heavenly reference?

vs 3

The TNIV removed "Selah". I didn't notice a change in meaning of the psalm.

It's interesting when you think about what this verse is saying - you actually still have to make the offerings and sacrifices. The assumption is that they are acceptable, the prayer is that they are then accepted. "May all your prayers be heard" is an interesting blessing - because it means that you actually have to be praying in the first place.

vs 4

This is just out and out prosperity stuff. Of course, if your desire is for the Lord, and your plans are for his glory, why wouldn't this be true?

vs 5

Again, your victories have to actually be for the purpose of God's glory, otherwise you're not going to lift your banners to him.

The assumption, with banners, is that these are military victories. We have spiritual enemies - do we fight them effectively enough that we feel we have victories over them?

And again there's a repeat for granting requests - probably a poetic repetition.

vs 6

This is the second half of the psalm. So the first half is all jussive requests that God might pour out blessings on you. This is promises that we can be sure of.

So first of all, God does indeed give victory - at least to his anointed, which is David, who is writing. So he might be saying "Just as I can be a witness that God has given me victory, so may he give it to you."

This specifically says heavenly sanctuary, which makes me think vs2 is talking about God in heaven, and strength coming from him. David acknowledges that his victories came from the power of God. May ours do so too.

vs 7

Especially important for Israel, who was not meant to have chariots and horses (at least not too many) because of the fact that they may put too much faith in them. Their faith, like ours, should be in God and his power for our victory. That doesn't mean don't be prepared, it just means know where the power is.

vs 8

Chariots don't have knees, but I'm sort of assuming that he means those who trust in horses and chariots. People like the Egyptians, Philistines etc.

vs 9

This verse, at first, is a little bit of a strain for us. But if we think of Jesus as king, then perhaps it's a good help for us to remember that our desires and requests and plans that we have just asked might all be answered should really be for the victory of Christ over sin and death.

In faith, when we call out in that prayer, we should expect God to answer.

Ruth chapter 4

vs 12

Of course, by that you assume that the women mean, "May you have many offspring", rather than, "May you have a bunch of sordid problems that will make people read back on you and cringe".

vs 13

The (T)NIV has just dispensed with any form of the hebrew and gone for "made love". Sexy. Interestingly, I learned what "go in to her" actually means - and it doesn't mean go into her. It suggests going in to the inner room of the house with her (there's a different hebrew word for going into and coming out of). And that's how idiom is born.

vs 14

The he is most probably not referring to God, although it's darn difficult to tell. Is it referring to Boaz? The answer is no. It is referring to the son who is born, as is most probable from the reference in vs 15.

The loss of the word redeemer is a bit of a shame really. Actually, a lot of a shame. The NIV did best with kinsman-redeemer.

vs 15

"Given him birth"? What crack pipe was the NIV translator smoking that day? And it's been carried over into the T as well. You don't keep translations that sound weird in English, especially for something as simple as "given birth to him" (NASB).

Anyway, this is an important verse, because it is this son who inherits in the name of Elimelech. So essentially, Ruth's son becomes Naomi's son for the purpose of redeeming the name and inheriting the land.

vs 16

The word "nurse" is not wrong, but it leaves us with the possible connotation of wet-nurse, which is improbable, as Naomi herself has said that she is beyond childbearing age. "Guardian" would be a good word to use, but possibly would be confusing what with kinsman redeemers now being guardians.

vs 17

Notice that it was the women who named him Obed (from the root for servant). This was rare indeed. But it shows just how much this story had made an impact on the whole area.

And of course then we know that there's this whole genealogical thing at the end. Instead of looking at that...

vs 18-22

Well, I will just point out that in the Hebrew some of the names are spelt differently depending on what side of the genealogy they're on. Salmon becomes Salma, for example. The NIV has a note for that, but I guess they didn't want to go confusing people, because it's harder to see the link in English - like David and Dave.

Hooray! Now, I just have to wait until 21 November, and no more Hebrew ever again!

Ruth chapter 4

vs 1

"My friend" is literally "a certain someone". The suggestion is that their name has been lost to time. This is one of the many ironies of Ruth. The only translation that comes remotely close is KJV. For shame.

I don't know if you had to be an important person to sit at the gates, or whether that's where everyone sat, including important people. But Boaz is there.

vs 2

So now he has witnesses.

vs 3

Such fiddly hebrew for such a simple sentence! Anyway, this whole thing that Boaz says is in very formal language. You might say legal language.

vs 4

While the (T)NIV tries to explain it a bit more, it just leaves this being an even longer verse! What a long verse! The little translation note here is interesting - some people seek to defend that as showing Boaz turning to the audience and speaking - but none of my 4 translations seek that interpretation in their body text.

What's interesting here is that Boaz is offering up first the idea that the land is for sale. This is half true - if Naomi alone had returned, then yes, the land would be for sale and the redeemer guy would have been able to add it to his land holdings - a rare opportunity, to which he readily agrees.

vs 5

But here's the kicker - you get the land, you also get Ruth, and the responsibility to father an heir for the land.

All of a sudden, the deal looks less palatable. But why?

vs 6

The (T)NIV is actually quite weak here. It gets the idea across, sure. But what does "endanger my estate" mean? Also, it completely drops the idea of this redeemer passing on his right to redemption over to Boaz. That's a whole clause that's missing. Perhaps it's not needed for the sake of the flow.

Anyway, why is this so much less attractive? A few ideas have been put forward. Remember, it has to be in the context of his own inheritance future being put in trouble by the appearance of Ruth and the hope for an heir. It could be that he considers his seed of limited potency, and as such he wants to make sure any kids he does have are for his own line, not that of Elimelech. It could be that he was assuming that a son to that line may vie for inheritance of his own family's land. It could be that he had a wife who would hate him for marrying a moabite.

Whatever the reason, he sees this opportunity changing quickly into an obligation, and so he hands over his right to redeem to Boaz. There is a strong sense of irony here - he does not redeem the land (which would now be a more selfless act for the sake of his relative's name and future) because he fears losing his own name. But what happened? We don't even know his name now! His name has been lost, while Boaz and Ruth live on. Ha ha.

vs 7

While this might find its history in the idea of the family of the unsandalled story that we read in Deuteronomy, it doesn't seem to hold the same shame that it does in Deut.

This is one verse where, if I have to pick between the more literal correctness of the KJV, and the more easygoing translation of the (T)NIV, I go with the NIV. It highlights my problem with the KJV. Sure, it's more correct to the Hebrew, but the wording is mangled and hard to understand. The (T)NIV gives you as good an understanding of the situation as you could hope for I think.

vs 8

The transaction done. The shoe's on the other foot now, eh?

How could I let that one go by.

vs 9

Remember the sons? I didn't for a moment, and translating their names was a pain until I remembered they were names.

vs 10

Again, KJV more literally correct, but confusing. TNIV very clear if a little free in its rendering. The NIV has quite a different slant here, talking about town records. I don't know what crackpot that came from.

vs 11

A point here - ALL the translations steer clear of the literal meaning in this verse, and use the term "famous" to gloss over the original idiom. Which I think is good, because the idiom is confusing. But even the KJVers couldn't hack it here.

So not only do the elders and witnesses witness the transaction, but they praise Boaz for his redeeming, and bless him with ideas of fame and social standing. Who said nice guys finish last? He gets the girl, and fame, and all that stuff. It's a movie script, to be sure.

Sermon: 1 Corinthians 10

I figured ,"What the hey. I've written a whole sermon on this (and then some) so why not put at least the finished product up on the web? I've also put some editorial comment on chapter 3 of Ruth to indicate a few things I've seen in translation.

If you want to use part or all of this sermon, all I ask is that you say it's not yours. You don't have to mention me by name - that guy is sufficient. Just don't steal it. That's not cool.

If you feel like using some or all of it, I'd be interested to know how - leave a comment if you like.

Summary:

• Examples of Weakness against temptation(our need to deal with temptation) (10:1-14)
• Examples of Warning against idolatry (our devotion to be singly to God, not divided) (10:15-22)
• Examples of seeking Welfare of others (our actions being for the benefit of others) (10:23-33)

ACTUAL WORDS

History unifies people, not just through a shared experience, but also through its example. It can inspire us with examples of success, courage and determination. Historical examples are so much more inspiring than made up stories, because knowing that someone actually achieved them gives us hope. This is what drives a lot of olympic medalists to strive to break world records – because those 'unbeatable' records have been broken in the past. But history can also warn us with examples of tragedy, failure and defeat. White Star Line Vice President PAS Franklin, when news was heard that his company's flagship was in trouble, announced, “We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe the boat is unsinkable.” By the time Franklin spoke those words Titanic was at the bottom of the ocean. How many people, on hearing the story of Titanic, are prepared to make such wild claims as “My boat is unsinkable”? Again, real examples are far more powerful than made up stories.

In chapter 10 of 1 Corinthians, Paul is bringing to a close a fairly large section of the book dealing with Christian freedom, and where the boundaries are for Christians in the freedom given us by our newfound relationship with God. In chapter 8, Paul was talking specifically about that freedom being limited by love – our actions, in freedom, should not be unloving by confusing people with questionable practices that prick their weak consciences. In chapter 9, Paul established that our freedom is limited by the need for the gospel to be spread, and to ensure that in our freedom we do not put up obstacles that could get in the way of people's hearing the gospel. Graham has very helpfully explained to us these things over the last two weeks.

This week, we will see that our freedom in Christ needs to be limited because of the weakness we have towards temptation. This is a rich chapter – Paul gives six powerful Old Testament examples to illustrate his various points, and each one would be a Sunday in itself. So we will have to content ourselves with their excellent reading, and instead focus on the points Paul makes here in chapter 10. I have summarised them into three points which, if you have an NIV, you will find almost correspond to the three sections your chapter is broken up into. The first is Examples of Weakness against temptation - that is, our need to deal with temptation, from v1 to v14. Secondly are the examples of Warning against idolatry – and our need to be devoted singly to God from v15 to v22. Finally, there are the Examples of seeking Welfare of others – about our actions being for the benefit of others to the glory of God, in v23-33.

The first five of Paul's Old Testament examples are in our first section – examples of weakness. The important verses here are v6 and v11, which highlight what these examples are for. Verse 6 says “Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they [that is, the Israelites] did.” Verse 11 says, “These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.” As we have heard in our reading, all of these examples highlight failures of the Israelites that were duly punished. A good summary is verse 5, “God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.” And for those familiar with the account of Israel's journey through the wilderness, you will be well aware that God showed his displeasure by scattering their bodies in all sorts of various ways. They were killed by the sword, they were killed by fire out of the sky, swallowed up by the earth, killed by plague, killed by destroying angel. The list goes on.

All of these examples deal with something specific. The first one shows that, although the Israelites walked through the sea, and were accompanied by a pillar of cloud signifying God's presence with them, and although they ate the manna in the desert, and drank water that sprung miraculously from rocks, they were not faithful to God. They were weak in their faith, and many Israelites died never seeing the promised land.

The truth is, it didn't matter that the Israelites miraculously crossed through the sea. It didn't matter that they ate the manna and drank the rock-water. The unfaithful ones all died before entering the promised land. And we know full well, and the Corinthians were being warned, that whether you're baptised, whether you attend church every Sunday, whether you partake in the communion feast, that won't make a bit of difference as to whether you get to heaven or not. The spiritual food and the spiritual drink both come from Christ alone – faith in him is the only way.

The second example deals with idolatry, reminding us of the golden calf created by Aaron to please the Israelites, even as they sat under the mountain covered in the fire of God. The Corinthians were falling into idolatry too, so it is no accident that Paul chooses this example. You will recall that this led to Moses calling together the faithful to strap swords to their sides and go through the camp killing those who had defiled God through such idolatry. Many Israelites died.

The third example deals with the sexual immorality that so often led out of idolatry in ancient times. The moabite women tempted Israel's men to weakness with feasting worship – worshipping their idols with eating and drinking – and then followed up with sexual worship – worshipping their idols by the use of temple prostitution. God sent a plague amongst the Israelites, and many Israelites died. This was happening in Corinth – many Christians were attending the feasting worship of idols because it was a public community event, and then getting carried away in the sexual worship as well.

The fourth example of weakness highlights the attitude of Israel by testing God because of his provision of only manna and of water only when required. They grumbled, “There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!” And so God sent poisonous snakes amongst them, and many Israelites died. We know that Jesus himself likened his mission to that of the Bronze Snake Moses lifted to save Israel – John 3:14, “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”

The fifth example is that of the grumbling Israelites who had just witnessed the death of a group who were rebelling against the God-ordained leadership of Moses and Aaron. It is no accident that Paul, in the previous chapter, has been reminding the Corinthians of his apostleship, and that they should not rebel against the God-ordained leaders of their church, like himself. The Israelites grumbled about how it was Moses and Aaron's fault that these 250 rebel leaders had died, and whether they would be next. Thanks to their grumbling, some of them were. A swift plague, brought down by the destroying angel of God, came upon them. Many Israelites died.

We are to take heed of the warnings offered by this chapter. We should not set our hearts on evil, as the Israelites did. We should take the warning that Paul is making to the Corinthians – that our spiritual freedom in Christ has to be tempered, because we are weak, and can fall into temptation.

It is weakness that brought Israel to its temptation to idol worship, to sexual immorality, to questioning God's plan and God's leaders. And we are not any better! That is why, after giving us these examples, Paul gives us also the key verses of this book, perhaps even of the whole Bible, on how to deal with temptation. First, he says “So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!” You might think it sounds odd, to say “If you think you are standing firm, then be sure you don't fall”. Shouldn't it say, if you're standing firm, then you're all right? It's the people standing weakly that need to be careful, right? Wrong! When we accept that we are weak, we are cautious, on the look out for escape routes, eager for help of others. It is when we think we are strong that we are at our most vulnerable, at our weakest!

Paul says at v13, “No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to us all.” If we can be honest with ourselves that we have all been overtaken by temptation, that it is common to us all, then we can be united together as a church to help one another when this happens to one of us. Praise be to God that he gives us each other to help us through tough times of temptation!

But wait, there's more! Paul also tells us that “God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.”

How many sins have you never committed, like say murder, or theft, or illicit drug use? Have you thought that makes you strong against the temptation to do those things? That is weakness! More likely that, by God's grace, he has not let you be tempted beyond what you could bear. But what about those things you are tempted by? God promises that he will provide you with the only proven method that works against temptation. And it's not standing up firm – it's running away! Again, that doesn't sound right, does it? To endure temptation, we have to run away? We just don't get it! We are weak! Temptation will tempt us! And we will fall! God says, “If you want to endure temptation, then I will give you the only way to endure it that works – run!” You all know the story of Joseph – another historical example we can learn from – when Potiphar's wife was coming onto him, what did he do? Did he put on a stiff upper lip and engage her in a moral discussion about the dangers and ungodliness of adultery, while she fluttered her eyelashes at him and inched her fingers up his arm? No fear – he was out of there so fast his robe was left spinning!

We have to help each other out with this. Our 1 Corinthians series is about unity, and these examples are here for us to follow together as a church. So let's do that! Let's learn from the examples of the past together. Let's be honest that we're all tempted, and help each other to endure it, by praying for each other, by being open and honest, by being approachable, being there to help each other out of sticky situations. It means that those of us who are tempted need to get over our pride and admit it to someone, and it means those of us who have such temptation admitted to us need to be understanding, non-judgmental, loving and helpful.

When you feel temptation, take that escape route that God offers you. I can tell you, it won't always be pretty. What happened to Joseph? He ended up in gaol! There are going to be consequences of fleeing temptation. It might mean rudely fleeing and causing a scene. It might mean simply not going to certain places on your own, like Kings Cross. It might mean making yourself accountable to someone else for your financial spending. It might mean not taking positions of authority or influence because power goes to your head. Whatever it is, whatever temptations you face, God says he will give you a doorway to escape. It might not be easy, and it might not be comfortable, but it will be there. Whether you go through it or not will be up to you. Then it's down to whether you want to do what's right by God, or what's comfortable for you.

Paul finishes this section with a summary phrase of particular relevance to the Corinthians - “Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry.” He puts it all together for them – you've got a problem with idolatry. Look at the examples of ancient Israel. Don't make the same mistakes they did – flee from your temptation.

And that brings us to the second section: examples of warning against idolatry. The problem with idolatry is that it splits our devotion away from being singly focused on God, and gives it to something else: to demons - who are the puppet-masters of all other gods worshipped in the world – or to ourselves, which is the far more common idolatry in the western world. Paul has two examples of the need for us to be warned away from idolatry. These examples are plugged directly into the context of the Corinthians, who were getting tempted to go and get involved in the feasting worship of other gods. His first example is as directly current to the Corinthians as it is to us – it is that of the communion feast. The communion feast, for Christians, is our symbol of participation and union with Christ. He says, in v17 “Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.” The communion is a wonderful picture of our union together, as a church body, with Christ.

His second example calls on the sacrifices made by Israel. He points out that when the Israelites brought an offering to the altar, they usually shared in eating it with the priests. This feasting worship, of both the Old and New Testament, symbolises our participation, our union, our relationship with God! And if the Christian feasting worship symbolises our union with God, what does feasting worship before idols represent? Union with the devils that they represent! Paul is adamant to the Christians at Corinth – v21, “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons.”

Now, I assume that you all don't go to mosque on Fridays and partake in Eid and Ramadan feasts. I take it you don't head off to the buddhist temple and celebrate the Feast of Lanterns and Feast of the Dead. You don't check your calendar for the countless feasts going on with all the various Hindu gods. So this problem the Corinthians were having, and the examples that Paul is giving, have no relevance to us then, right?

Wrong. Idolatry is not limited simply to feasting worship. Idolatry is anything that splits your devotion away from being singly focused on God, and gives it to something else, anything else! Not just demons. Money, pleasure, security, knowledge, beauty, family, comfort. The thing is, none of those things are wrong any more than eating or drinking are wrong! Paul says at v19, “Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything?” It's not that eating meat or even drinking wine is a sin. It's not even that having a little or big statue of something is a sin Owning this figurine of King Kong on the Empire State Building is not idolatry. A crucifix at the front of a church is a statue more likely to become an idol. Something becomes an idol when you worship it – that is, when you are focusing your devotion to it. When you will do things for its sake. In that sense, all the Corinthians were doing was giving feast worship – a symbolic ritual of union – to idols. Paul's angry enough with that, saying “Are we trying to arouse the Lord's jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” Imagine God's jealousy when we actually devote major parts of our lives to our own comfort or financial security! Imagine how angry God is when we turn our backs on him for the sake of devoting ourselves to pleasure!

We must not dispel idolatry as if it were a sin of the past, that doesn't bother us anymore. Be on your lookout – when you make decisions or take actions, just ask yourself, “Why am I doing this? Am I doing it for God?” Even when you don't do something, think “Am I not doing this for God?” A fair few things will come down to attitude. Every meal you eat can be a thanksgiving offering to God for his provision, or it can be a self-serving meal for pleasure.

We get to our final section, now: examples of seeking the welfare of others – making sure our actions are for the benefit of others. Here Paul comes back to his original example from chapter 8 – the eating of meat sacrificed to idols. Just as he was able to make a strong, final statement about Christians attending pagan worship feasts (Don't do it!), so he can make a strong, final statement about whether you can eat meat that was sacrificed at such a feast, but was then sold afterwards. And that statement is,vs25 “Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience.” Why? Because, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it. ” Anthony Thistleton makes a great comment on this verse, saying, “Even meat that passed through a pagan temple still belongs to God (like everything else in creation), and it is God who reigns sovereign over creation, not these so-called idol gods.” If you go to a police auction, and you see a 2008 new model Dodge Viper (which would normally retail at $88,000) for sale for $4,000, then it doesn't matter that the last owner was a drug dealer who used that car to smuggle drugs across the country! The car is the Lord's! When you buy it, use it to drive old ladies to their doctor's appointments in the LINC program – they'll never be late!

And if a non-Christian friend invites you around to eat (or to take a spin in his new Dodge Viper), go, and don't worry where the food's come from (or where he got the Dodge Viper). It's not a problem.

“But”, says Paul in v28, “if someone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," (or “This is the car of a convicted drug dealer”) then do not eat it (or drive it), both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person's conscience, not yours.”

Paul has already spoken to the Corinthians about limiting their Christian freedom for the sake of those who are weaker in their faith and understanding. And Graham has already spoken to us about this two weeks ago. And Paul has already spoken about limiting our freedom in Christ so as to not put any obstacles in the way of non-Christians hearing the gospel. And Graham has spoken about that last week.

So I don't want to go over the same territory. Instead, I want to look at this issue from the flip side for a moment. The focus here, and in other parts of the Bible that deal with such matters of conscience, generally tends to be on the actions of the strong in faith. The strong in faith are told to limit their freedom for the sake of those who are weak in faith, or whose faith is non-existent – non-believers. But let's spare a thought for weak in faith themselves. What are they to do? What is their responsibility? I want to suggest three things. Firstly, the weak must recognise their weakness. This is so important for the postmodern church to understand. Postmodernism sells a relativist message – that I can have one opinion, you can have another opinion, and neither of us are wrong, both are right for ourselves. That is not the Christian message! Christianity is absolute. Paul does not call the two sides in this argument side A and side B, or even more politically correct side A and side 1 so that neither side is second. He calls them side strong and side weak. Chapter 8 says, “their conscience is weak”. In Romans 14, Paul says, “Accept those whose faith is weak”. If you are weak in conscience or in faith, then you need to recognise that. You might never notice it yourself. If that's the case, then make sure that you are approachable – because it might be that no one else has ever told you because they were afraid of insulting you. Church leaders have enough things on their plate without confronting people about their weakness in faith too.

So step one, analyse yourself, recognise if you are weak. You might be strong in some areas of faith and conscience, and weak in others. Know where you stand. Step two is to not be judgemental. Paul says in v29 of 1 Cor 10, “For why is my freedom being judged by another's conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?” In Romans 14 v3, Paul says, “The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted that person.” v10, “Why do you judge your brother or sister?” v13 “Therefore, let us stop passing judgement on one another.” These issues of conscience can be devestating to the unity of a church, whether it's eating meat sacrificed to idols, or driving ex drug dealer cars, or something else. Don't be judgemental of someone else because of your weak conscience, your weak faith.

Step one, analyse yourself, recogise your weakness. Step two, don't judge other people because of your weak conscience or weak faith. Step three, finally, is become strong! Weakness in faith is not a virtue! Yes, the strong may be told to withdraw from certain activities for the sake of the weak. But that is as a concession, not as a punishment. Do you know why it's the strong who are told to hold back on their activities? Because they are strong! They are more able to handle it! Weakness of faith is not enviable, it is pitiful. I have been in churches where people have waved around chapters like Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 as flags of power, saying “You can't do that! You can't do this! You certainly cannot do any of those! Because I don't like it, and you might stumble me!” These verses do not make the weak in faith President – they make them vulnerable children who we must protect. I agree with Paul – the strong shouldn't confuse or destroy the weak by their eating and drinking or other actions. But they also shouldn't tiptoe around protecting the weakness of the weak. You know what happens if you overprotect children from germs? Their own immune system becomes weak, because it's never had to fight. Links have been made to asthma and allergies in children whose parents are overly protective and try to place their kids in sterile environments. The church doesn't exist to create weak Christians who can't handle anything going on in the outside world. We are here to disciple and raise strong Christians who understand their freedom in Christ and can be effective in reaching out to the world around them, not cowering in fear about a piece of chicken.

At the end of the day, that is to be our driving motive. Paul says in vs31, “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.” John Calvin, in commenting on this verse, said, “There is nothing in our whole life, be it ever so small, that it ought not to be directed to the glory of God.”

Let's Pray,

Our Lord, we thank you for the freedom that we have in Christ Jesus. Help us to be strong in our faith, and effective in our witness to the non-Christian world. Help us to learn from the examples of our spiritual past. Help us not to fall into modern idolatry, but help us to be focused singly you. Help us not to fall to temptation, but to stand firm by running away. Unite us as a church, Father, in Christ, that we might help each other to serve you better. AMEN

Ruth chapter 3

vs 10

So Boaz must be a fair way older than Ruth. I don't know what that sort of age would be for their culture, but it could be quite marked, considering a typical age difference at first marriage could be 10 years. We'll never know, because God didn't see fit to put copies of their driver's licences in the Bible.

I don't know about you, but calling the woman I'm about to marry "daughter" just seems creepy. Obviously it is some term of endearment, but still. I guess when someone says, "Hey baby, let's groove" if you take it literally it is also quite disturbing.

[edit] The word for kindness, hesed, is a very important word in Ruth. It is all about covenant faithfulness - and so Boaz is not necessarily talking about Ruth's kindness to him, but to Naomi.

vs 11

My town? Is he perhaps an elder? It has been suggested from the suggestion of his wealth and importance in chapter 2. Or is he just speaking in an adoptive sense, could be.

In the indeterminable time that Ruth and Naomi have been in Bethlehem, Ruth has shown herself to the general populace to be a woman of noble character. That is good for Ruth, because it means respect, but it also is good for Boaz, because it means people won't frown on him marrying her.

vs 12

It's the... thing! I don't know what you call it in movie terms, but it's the classic part of the movie where some dramatic tension enters and leaves you guessing about the ending! Perhaps if we thought about God being slow to answer prayers as him giving us dramatic tension, we would feel better about it.

No, probably not.

vs 13

Boaz wants to take all the right steps. No point promising to marry the gel when some other guy could come along and take her from him. But also, following the proper protocol is good, because God set it down. Boaz thinks that if the closer redeemer wants to redeem, then that is a good thing. [edit] So when we say "do the right thing", that doesn't mean some bumping uglies wasn't in offer - all it means is that Boaz wants to give the other guy first refusal.

So, here then is a question for you - why, if there was a closer kinsman, didn't Naomi send Ruth straight to him to ask him to redeem her and the land of Elimelech? And don't say that it wasn't the done thing, because Ruth just spent the night sleeping at the feet of Boaz. [edit] There is the suggestion that Naomi just didn't know, or perhaps that she saw Ruth's working in his fields as a sign from God.

vs 14

This is the verse that really suggests that what Ruth did (what Naomi told Ruth to do) was a little shameful. Why were women banned from the threshing floor? Who can say. Whatever the case may be, Boaz is quick to protect Naomi's nobleness of character and whoosh her off before anyone sees her.

vs 15

Whoever went back to town, (although from the (T)NIV note it sounds like the majority of texts say 'he', but the KJV which is supposedly based on the majority text, says 'she'?), Boaz is being even more generous to Ruth by giving her this grain. [edit] The Masoretic text says "he", but the qere says "she", and apparently pretty much every other non-Hebrew source says "she". It's a commonly held mistake, and so that's why even the KJV says "She". Why the TNIV would maintain the "he", then, is interesting.

At first, you might think of it as a bride price or something - but it's not, really, because for all he knows he won't even get to marry her. He is just repaying her, kindness for kindness. A measure of barley is an unknown quanitity - but you can carry 6 of them in a shawl.

vs 16

I imagine this was very much done in the way women nattering is done when there is some good news. [edit] The question is actually "Who are you, my daughter?" Someone in our class suggested that the question could be suggesting, "Who are you - are you now the husband of Boaz?" Interesting theory.

vs 17

He didn't actually say that according to the record we have! Is she lying? Oh no!

Or, perhaps Scripture doesn't provide us with a full script of what happens, just essential details, and as such some things get said that aren't recorded. And so now this is filled in - the purpose for Boaz' kindness is to also be kind to Naomi.

[edit] This is actually way more important than I first thought. The wording is almost word for word the same wording that was said way back in the beginning of the book, talking about Naomi coming back to Bethlehem empty. "Handed" is an english addition.

vs 18

What a tense ending! Naomi's advice is good advice - no point in Ruth getting all excited when nothing at all could happen from it. Better to wait and see the result, and then have your joy confirmed.

Besides, Boaz isn't going to let it stretch out for months - he's dealing with it in one day.

Ruth chapter 3

vs 1

After an indeterminate period of time. I am getting more and more convinced by this little seed of doubt that Andrew Sloane sowed about Naomi being in a godly state of mourning. Here she is wanting to make sure Naomi gets a "home" - that is, a husband really.

vs 2

This sounds like some sort of scheme is being hatched. [edit] It also should be noted that, although the hebrew is full of interrogatives, there are no questions marks here early in the TNIV. The NIV still has them. Does that matter? They were really rhetorical questions anyway.

vs 3

It is a scheme! Perfume and best clothes - those are seduction tools!

Now, whether winnowing barley was party night every night, or whether this was a specific night, who knows. I'm tempted to wonder if this isn't the last night of harvest or something, considering the last verse of chapter 2.

vs 4

I think sometimes we can picture Ruth as a young, virginal maiden who is being told to go and do this quite bizzare thing (I mean, uncover the feet?) and who perhaps doesn't realise the full extent of her situation. That's baloney. She was married for 10 years. She's not an old woman, but she's no spring chicken either. She's been around.

Also, she wants to get married. All women in this era did. Anyone who argues with me on this is being fenickity, and on your own head be it.

vs 5-6

Thank God for whoever wrote Ruth, and that it wasn't Moses. They didn't feel the need to repeat themselves.

vs 7

Very weird custom.

Now, you really have to ask why the men decide that sleeping at the threshing floor is such a better place than going home. Is it just a typical drunken thing where you just sleep where you find yourself? Were they all young men and so didn't have wives to go home to anyway? Is it because travelling at night can be quite dangerous when light is a burning piece of wood?

[edit] The accepted thing is apparently that he was guarding the grain harvest. And it doesn't say that all the men were with him. I read that into there. Interesting.

The second one is interesting, because if that is so, then it would mean that Boaz - although possibly an older man - may not be married. Perhaps he is widowed or something else happened to him.

What would be more interesting would be if he were married, but Naomi is trying to set Ruth up with him anyway. It's certainly not out of the question.

vs 8

Now that's worthy of an exclamation mark! [edit] and I translated one there too!

Note that Ruth didn't startle him or wake him. She just curled up at his feet like an obedient puppy.

vs 9

Don't think of the "Who are you?" as Boaz wondering what woman this is today. Think of it more as no natural light can't recognise woman.

Ruth's invitation is - as far as I read it - an invitation to marriage. How many marriage proposals are there in the Bible? I would say this is the only one - and it's done by a woman. So there you go. [edit] Andrew Sloane believes something saucier is going on here, and that our inability to accept that is our inability to accept the culture at the time. He makes a very convincing argument.

What is Boaz' reaction? Find out tomorrow!

Ruth chapter 2

vs 13

The expectation of this verse is that someone speaks kindly to his servants - or at least, more kindly to a servant than to a beggar. It's good to know that the pecking order still goes strong in our society.

The important thing, though, is that not only did Ruth see it as kindness, but it seems to be reasonably measurable against the tone of the day as kind action.

vs 14

Unfortunately, I don't know what sort of social status bread and wine vinegar and roasted grain gives you. I'm assuming it's pretty standard fare, but the fact is the meal is for the servants (harvesters in this case), not for beggars. So this is a very kind thing to do.

Apparently this is the midday meal. That would seem implicit from the context (assuming the dinner meal was served at home), because she goes on to glean until evening.

vs 15

This is going beyond the kindness expected by the Law. You really do have to start asking questions about Boaz' intent around now. It's one thing to follow the tenets of the Law and to show kindness to a stranger. But now he is showing her extra kindness and favour. Is it because he found out that she was Naomi's daughter in law? Well, he found that out from his overseer.

So does he have the hots for her? If he does, he shows it at least in a nice and favourable way. But also in a totally not approaching her way. Perhaps the answer to this question is lost in the mists of time and cultural difference.

vs 16

Just further kindness.

vs 17

Just take a look at how much that is. 13 kilos. That's a lot. I've always read that as "Ruth worked hard to support her mother in law, and look at the fruits of her labour." And I still think that stands - she went out and worked the fields as a gleaner all day.

But now there's another part to that story - through Boaz's kindness, Ruth would have been able to glean more than was normally possible - thanks to the dropped sheaves and such. So between the two of our heroes, there is a reason she had so much.

Now, how long would 13 kilos of barley last them for? I have no idea.

vs 18

Were they going to sell the barley, or eat it? Don't know. You can make barley flour I'm sure.

Ruth carried 13 kilos of worked barley all the way home. She's quite a woman. Do they make them like that anymore? I guess so, just not in the first world.

vs 19

This question could have arisen due to the fact that Ruth brought home that extra food from the mealtime. This extra food would have been a clear mark to Naomi that something out of the ordinary was happening, and that a man had 'taken notice of her'.

Note that, for all her "bitterness towards God" (or piestic lamenting) she is still happy to ask that God pour out praises on such a man.

vs 20

Wait, when did he start showing kindness? Unless Naomi is talking about the Lord's kindness, which would seem out of character. And doesn't really flow with the idea either.

Perhaps this was a comment made after Naomi heard the whole story - and the kindness upon kindness caused this comment.

Now, if you want an interesting topic, look at how the bibles translate the term: "closest relatives" (NASB), " "next kinsman" (KJV), "kinsman redeemers" (NIV) and now the TNIV comes up with "family guardians".

The hebrew is actually quite simple, for once. I'm no expert, but it says something like... erm, qarov... aha! "Near to us the man from redeemer us he." Now if that's not a wooden translation, I don't know what is! So really, make up whatever term you like - the word is redeemer.

One thing I will say about the TNIV is that it has a note explaining what it means, and also giving a link to Lev 25:25-55. So it wins my vote, even though I prefer the term "kinsman redeemer".

vs 21

Awww, what a sweetheart! Although I guess if the translators had translated an exclamation mark there, Ruth would have sounded too much like a teenage girl. OMG OMG he wants me to harvest in his fields!

vs 22

Well, if we had any misgivings about the chances of being harmed in another person's field, then this clinches it. Judges time was a dangerous time. As if any time isn't a dangerous time for single women with no-one to back them up.

vs 23

Again, a nice wrapup for the chapter. I must say, miscellaneous monk who did the chapters and verses for Ruth - well done! I haven't had any grumblings so far, and indeed I've thought they were quite logical! Smart man.

Ruth chapter 2

vs 1

Boaz is either a man of wealth or a man of standing. I guess we all know that one can quite easily make the other, so there it is.

vs 2
This was supposed to be the normal process in the lands of Israel - it was a method of support for the widow and other unfortunate members of society. The word 'glean' is used in the older translations.

I haven't translated this far yet... wondering if I should wait till we've finished... but I've started now. I am interested to know what the term "in whose eyes I find favour" is like.

vs 3

"As it turned out" is a code word for saying "And so God made it happen" - it's one of the themes of Ruth that God works through happenstance. I think this makes it clear that Ruth didn't go looking to glean in the fields of someone who might "favour" to marry her or anything like that - it was more a case of finding someone who would allow her to just glean in their fields.

vs 4

Either this was a typical greeting between wealthy land owner and workers, or Boaz is well liked by his workers. It seems that the picture painted of him is a kind and thoughtful man who looks after others, so I've always liked the idea of the second one. After all, if it were simply a cultural thing, then it would be less likely to be written in - people who live in a culture tend to leave out things that they think are normal in writing - ceremonial washings and the like - unless they are trying to explain them to non-locals.

vs 5

Now, it depends on how you read it - either he saw a tasty bit of crumpet in the field and was asking about it, or he just had a care for his workers which is shown by him not recognising one of them.

Of course, Ruth, as a moabite woman, would probably show out like a sore thumb too.

vs 6

Now, Boaz would have heard all about that anyway, no doubt, but since Naomi was a relative (at least of the same clan) then he probably would have taken a special interest in the knowledge.

vs 7

Who knows how long that had been. Regardless, the idea is to paint a picture of a conscientious worker who is working hard not just for herself, but to support her widowed mother-in-law who is a relative of Boaz.

vs 8

Now, what are Boaz's intentions? Is it merely that he knows Ruth will be looked after if she stays in his field? Is he being nice to her because she is family (or a sort)? Or again, is he not wanting to lose his chance with the fine moabite tail? The more I think about it, the less likely the third one is going to be recorded for posterity.

vs 9

The fact that, in another field, Ruth may have been molested by male farm workers is just further testimony against the Israelites during the time of the judges, I suppose. Or perhaps he is being less sinister in his suggestion, and merely suggesting that normally such beggars were ejected from fields if they stayed too long.

vs 10

Ruth knows her position. I guess what she doesn't know is that Boaz is related.

vs 11

News travels fast.

vs 12

That is a very nice picture. Ruth has lost something akin to what Naomi has lost - a husband and therefore a livelihood, with no children to support her. That neither her nor Orpah had kids is just further testimony to God's leading (and perhaps punishment on Elimelech for taking his family out of Israel). The idea that God offers refuge to the widow, even the widow from a foreign land, is a very comforting notion. The idea that he also rewards the faithful is strong.

Ruth chapter 1

12

An idea which is of course patently unlikely.

There's no spite here - Ruth calls these women her daughters. They are obviously still young enough to marry (Naomi is suggesting that at least) but the tradition that if your husband dies, you marry one of his brothers does not apply here - as both died and Naomi is too old to have more. And even if by some miraculous chance she did have more...

vs 13

...would they wait? She would not expect it of them. They would have better luck going back to their own people and finding husbands there. For your interest, the word "to wait" used here is used only here in the whole Bible. The thought is that it's a fairly specific word - as in to lock yourself away and wait for your husband.

The rest of this verse is not easily translated. The question is whether God has stretched out his hand and punished Naomi (for the disobedience of her family in leaving the promised land and going and taking foreign wives), or whether Naomi sees her continuing life as continuing torment by God.

vs 14

The idea is that there is a contrast in their actions - Orpah's kiss is one of leaving, whereas Ruth's hug is (literally) one of cleaving. The word is the same for cleaving and clinging. I wonder how many liberal scholars have suggested some sort of lesbian affair based on that tenuous word?

vs 15

Interestingly, the word for gods (elohim) is in a plural form regardless of whether you are talking about one god or multiple gods. So you actually can't tell if Naomi is talking about Orpah returning to her own household gods or some polytheist worship, or to worship of a single god. Apparently, the Moabites did have one god called Chemosh.

vs 16

Same word for God here, see. What an important verse. Here Ruth is showing that she is not coming with Naomi merely because she has nowhere else to go - she is adopting the God and people of her dead husband and now mother-in-law.

vs 17

This verse is another one of the difficult to translate ones - but mostly for the newbie. The TNIV does nothing to protect the original meaning, supplanting "May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely" for the oath form that is taken here. A wooden translation would hold something like "Thus may the LORD do, and thus may he add". I think the implication is, the clause being surrounded by death on either side, that Ruth will die - and yet worse - if she breaks this oath to Naomi, her people and her God.

Interestingly, here Ruth uses the name Yahweh for God. Make of that what you will.

Finally, the TNIV is the only one of the translations I use (I believe the NRSV does this too) to translate this verse as "even if death separates you and me" rather than "except when death separates you and me". It's not easily translated, but I would tend to go with the translation of the NIV or others on this one regarding meaning. Separated by nothing except death is surely preferable, meaningful and pragmatic too. Something for everybody.

vs 18

It's literally "Naomi stopped talking to her", but I am told this did not have the childish meaning to it.

vs 19

Now this is interesting. Women are not mentioned at all in this verse, but the only translation failing to mention women is the KJV. Now, again, this is a translation issue - the pronomial thing (ie the bit that means "they") is feminine. So it is reasonable to translate it that the women said it. However, the word for town used (eir ? I made the transliteration up - ayin hireq yod resh) is feminine, so it could just as easily mean the inhabitants of the city generally.

But the rule in Hebrew is generally, if you're describing a group of people and at least one of them is male, you describe it with male pronomials. It isn't really a sticking point with me - if you get the idea that even though they've been gone for ten years or more, the people still recognise Naomi, that'll do.

vs 20

Again, the tenses here a problematic. It could be "has dealt bitterly with me", or it could be "is treating me bitterly". The question of whether it is continuous or not is at stake, and it is actually kinda more important than your regular "Eh, who cares?" translation issue, because it could have bearing on the kind of bitterness and whinging that Naomi (Mara) is doing.

Some say (and no doubt you've heard this in church before) that Mara gets all bitter because she thinks God hates her and now she has put herself in a position against God. However, we also have to understand that wailing and lamentation, even questioning that actions of God, is normal piestic practice in Middle Eastern society. Witness the psalms - and we never call David a God-hater.

Whether it's one or the other will always be debated I think - after all, the narrator stays fairly silent on this, although God does end up blessing Mara (yes, I just ruined the ending).

Another interesting little tidbit here is that the word for Almighty, shaddai, is pretty much a total mystery with regards to its roots. No doubt many a scholar has postulated, but there's not much to base it on. Apparently.

vs 21

Don't miss the irony here. This book is chock full of it. Naomi's family left the promised land because of a famine. Hell, they left a town called "House of Bread" because of a famine and went to a foreign land. They all died, and now she returns because the food has returned to the promised land. But for Naomi, even though she was starving, she left Bethlehem "full" and now returns "empty".

The word afflicted here is problematic. The actual word can mean both "afflicted/humbled", or it can hold a very specific legal meaning which is "to testify against". Interestingly, from what I have been told, following simple scribal rules for translation would mean that the more complex one should hold over the simple, so the testify against should hold - but the (T)NIV doesn't translate it that way. But don't worry - the KJV and NASB translations do.

One interesting thing I will point out is that the word "evil" doesn't pop up here at all in the translations, but it is there in the text. Basically, the word evil (ra'a) means "evil" whenever a person does something evil, but whenever God does something evil (like in this verse) it always means misfortune or calamity. I say "mean" - I mean "is translated".

vs 22

A fairly good end to the opening act of the story, really. We know the main characters (bar one - love interest to enter stage right). We know their situation. All we need is a song and the first bit of the opera is done.

Cop out (otherwise known as Ruth chapter 1)

Yes, I am doing Ruth because I am currently translating Ruth in Hebrew. You wanna fight about it? Romans went for aaaages!

This will be funny, actually. Now that I've studied a little Hebrew, I can almost begin to give opinions as to what I think of the translations and have it mean something.

Almost.

vs 1

You will notice that only the KJV says "When the judges judged". The thing about the word for "judges" is that it can just as easily mean "leaders". The verb form takes the same root as the noun, and so you end up with judges judging, but it could really be just as well interpreted as any of the other translations' words. Judges is traditional because of the book of judges.

It is actually quite interesting how close to the original the translation is. At least, in simple clauses like this one.

The land, by the way, is Israel. Basically, if "the land" isn't specified in the OT, it's Israel.

vs 2

Almost all of these names are well transliterated. The only one that is weird, oddly, is Naomi - which is really No-omi.

vs 3

Why is this important? Because a wife without a husband is a tragic thing. But hey, at least she has two sons to look after her.

vs 4

Again, the names are pretty good - but it's Root really (of course, that's just according to what I've learned). And calling your daughter Root in this day and age - well, need I say more.

vs 5

Oops, there goes her sons too. Moab's a dangerous place. Naomi is now well and truly very poor. Men bring in the bacon, remember (odd turn of phrase when used about Jews, really), so without them women are pretty much poverty stricken.

vs 6

Home being Bethlehem.

vs 7

Her daughters-in-law (a bloody difficult word, by the way) go with her, and that's a little odd. I mean, the rules were that if Naomi had any more sons, they would get to marry them. But Naomi is old, and she's not likely to get married again. Not only that, but they were leaving to go live in a land that wasn't all that fond of Moabites, because they were foreigners.

vs 8

Important sidenote: you will see that Naomi tells them to go to their mother's house, not their father's house - that is a very female point-of-view for those days. This (and other things in Ruth) has led some scholars to suggest that Ruth was written by a woman.

Notice also that Naomi believes full well that it is possible for the LORD to be able to bless and look after these two women - neither of whom are Jews, and neither of whom would be living in Israel. That is a very strong faith for a time when people didn't really seem to understand God that well.

vs 9

TNIV seems to have a misprint - "Good-by". Apparently she must have been a pretty good mum-in-law, because they don't want to leave her! Perhaps they also realise that there is little waiting for them back in Moab.

vs 10

So, instead, they will go back to be with her people. Now, it could be that they thought that she had some sort of relatives that they could marry.

vs 11

Naomi deals with the first thing first - she's not going to have any more kids, so she can't produce husbands for them. This just shows you how much a woman was valueless without her husband.

Romans chapter 16

vs 19

Assuming the stories of their obedience are correct, it is indeed worthy of praise. I'm assuming it is obedience to the teachings of Christ.

The next step for them, in Paul's mind, is now wisdom. Not worldly wisdom - he wants them to focus on wisdom regarding good things. There's certainly no point polishing up on your knowledge of evil things - he wants them to remain innocent of those. Unknowing. Let them know what is evil because they know good so well.

vs 20

See, if God is going to crush Satan under your feet, then you don't really need to be that au fait with his movements or tactics. You don't need to study his evil.

The irony that the God "of peace" will go around crushing is not lost on me.

vs 21

Sosipater, you are the man. Interesting that Paul sends the greetings of the Jews first, and specifically too.

vs 22

Tertius was an amenuensis - it's not that Paul couldn't write, but for some reason he didn't. Either he dictated, or he gave Tertius the general idea and told him to write it out (which seems less likely with a book the size of Romans), or perhaps Paul was going blind and was having difficulty writing himself.

vs 23(24)

Ahh, the TNIV is sneaking verse numbers around again!

Where would Christian theology be without Romans 16:24? We would surely all become heathens without it!

Anyway, vs 23 tells us about some very important people. Gaius is the guy who owns the house that Paul stays in while he is, well, wherever he is. I haven't quite worked that out yet. I'm sure some smart scholar as put it all together. Unfortunately, some equally smart scholars have no doubt put their own things together and So Paul was in a dozen places.

Erastus gets his job description thrown in. Why? Don't know. But it sounds like a pretty important person to have in the church. It's like saying "We have the CEO of IBM in our church" I guess. And then there's Quartus. He's just there.

vs 25

Paul does call it "my gospel" here, but I don't think he's laying claim to it as such. I think it's more that he has laid it out so fully in this letter, that he wants to assure them that his gospel, laid out in this letter, is in accordance to God.

vs 26

Interesting that even though God has planned it so that the gentiles can hear the message of salvation and come to faith, he didn't write them a separate book. He made it clear to gentiles through the religious writings of the Jews. This seems to me to cancel out those ideas that some Indian Christians have that the Vedas are their OT - because this verse makes it pretty clear that God uses the OT to reach gentiles.

vs 27

Amen.

Romans chapter 16

vs 10

I'm sure these things would make much more sense if we knew who you guys were. But good on you!

vs 11

If they are not in the Lord, then don't greet them? Seems a bit exclusivist, Paul. I wonder how many doctrines have been based on that pen slip.

vs 12

Yes, that is three women who work so hard in the Lord in Rome that Paul wants them to be listed here for specific greeting.

vs 13

He also goes back in time (well, forward from AD50s) to teach Bill and Ted how to play guitar and save the world.

Seriously, the bit about his mum being a mum to Paul too is very sweet, and very familiar to anyone who's travelled and stayed with other Christians.

vs 14

So now, pretty much greet anyone who goes to church there.

vs 15

Perhaps these are Bible study small groups? Now there's an eisegetical reading if ever I've seen one!

vs 16

This is one of the five verses in the NT that commands this practice. And yet we don't do it! Why, oh literalistists (not a typo), why?

Perhaps because we convert the practice into something culturally acceptable? No, impossible! Kiss, and do it now!

vs 17

Like people who make fun of literalistists.

I think he's thinking here of those people who would teach things like judaising. I think there is a vast, vast wealth of such people in the church today. Which is scary.

vs 18

Of course, when I read that description it makes me wonder if it's not me - may it never be! I think what I want to point out here is that people who follow their own appetites are not always as easy to spot as someone who goes around having sex with everything between drug induced hazes. Some people actually want hard and fast rules and will therefore make them for their own comfort even when they are not biblical.

Non-biblical rules are actually ok, you know. Things like "no muddy feet on the carpet". But it's when you try and give them some sort of biblical strength that you are now a false teacher. Ok, so perhaps walking on someone's carpet with muddy feet is inconsiderate, and Christians should be considerate in love of other people. I'm sure there's a bible verse for such a concept. But attempting to moralise bare or muddy feet as some sort of legalist rule is totally stupid.

Romans chapter 16

This is one long final greeting!

vs 1

Ahh, the TNIV - breaking rules all over the shop! It's the only translation I read that translates the word diakonos as deacon in this instance. How irresponsible!

vs 2

Phoebe is apparently travelling around and may come to Rome. Exactly what I would expect of some sort of servant. Just as long as they help her as much as if she were a deacon, I guess.

vs 3

Oh dear, another faux pas! Why did you put this woman before her husband, Paul? Bad form!

Priscilla and Aquilla, the rhyming pair, are mentioned pretty often. Apparently they are either currently at Rome, or will cycle through at some stage.

vs 4

They must do a lot of work. That's a pretty cool thing to have written of you. I wonder if the risking life for Paul was riding through a ring of fire or something else equally exciting?

vs 5

Priscilla and Aquilla have churches in every house they have. Not surprising we hear as much as we do.

Epenetus must have migrated to Rome. It's so interesting reading about the very first convert from Asia. Imagine how many "first converts from" there have been.

vs 6

Is this one of the famous Marys? Who knows. But she works hard regardless. Yes, that's another woman. You could almost be forgiven for thinking that the Roman church was somewhat cosmopolitan.

vs 7

Is Apostle here being used in the sense of "one who followed Christ when he was still walking around?" It seems to fit the bill. Paul does his shout out to his Jewish compadres. I guess it makes sense that a lot of the people Paul would have met over his travels would end up at least for some time in Rome. Big cities do that.

vs 8

Ampilatus was blessed with a name that sounds like the removal of limbs.

vs 9

You could be forgiven for thinking that Paul had met pretty much everyone in the Roman church one by one given the length of his greetings. Still, he is only greeting those whom he has a special word for it seems - as dear friends or co-workers etc.

Romans chapter 15

vs 23

If you are familiar with Paul's letters, you can sense the winding down as the topic changes to himself and his movements. While I wouldn't go so far as to say Paul's closing remarks of his letters are chock full of stuff to learn and reflect on, they are noneltheless valuable.

So here, Paul is talking about a winding down in his work. The idea that there is for Paul no more work in a region seems a bit wrong, so I am assuming he is referring to the work of building where there has been no other foundation placed. Frontiers always diminish.

vs 24

But hey, if it means that the Romans get a visit from Paul, and Paul gets the support of the Roman church, then there's nothing wrong with that. Paul had his eyes set on Spain - that's a bit of a new frontier for him, being the other side of Europe.

vs 25

I think he's talking about the gifts for the church there, which had found itself in a poverty type situation, possibly from disaster, possibly from bad management.

vs 26

Hmmm, can you hear the silent pull on the purse strings? It could be that Paul is simply stating fact and explaining that he needs to go to Jerusalem because these churches gave money, and someone has to take it.

If that is the case, then I might point out that the church, in wanting to send a bit of relief aid, didn't just send it with any old messenger - they sent it with an Apostle, Paul. Quite encouraging, I think.

vs 27

I think this is a truth that cannot be denied. The question is, are there places in the world that are more spiritually blessed than the western world (probably) and are we prepared to do a trade? Probably not. Oh, we're happy to send aid to help poor people (well, if you look at the actual numbers of the finance, not that happy), but we don't want to import in that crazy spirituality from backwards poor countries.

vs 28

Travel plans, first century AD style.

vs 29

Who knows what that's meant to mean.

vs 30

This isn't the only place that Paul sees prayer as a joining in on the struggle for something. Those of you who are resistance fighters or rebels at heart should be attracted to prayer, because it's the way you can be there on the front lines with those struggling for Christ, even if you're unable to get there and contribute physically. I must admit, I have always found praying for those people who are on the coalface of some sort of struggle a lot easier.

vs 31

Ok, the first prayer point makes sense. The Jews are not Paul's best friends. But the second one is kind of odd. You would hope that the Jerusalem church would be happy to receive some money.

vs 32

The idea seems to be that if they aren't, Paul may not make it to Rome.

vs 33

No, wait, there's another chapter to go. False alarm.

Romans chapter 15

vs 12

Either Paul is targuming this verse, or he's remembering it slightly off wordwise, or he's quoting the LXX. The verse itself speaks for itself really. And that about wraps up the idea that the promises to the patriarchs culminate in the salvation of the gentiles.

vs 13

That's a nice little doxological wrapup there. These are all much better things than arguing over vegetarians.

vs 14

That's a pretty good compliment, especially when Paul's never actually been to the church before. Compare that with the Corinthians, who are still sucking milk - and Paul taught there for two years!

vs 15-16

So even though Paul didn't start this church, and even though they seem to be going along well and even he has confidence that they can instruct each other, he still writes to them, because that's his job! This part of the letter, I guess, is to make it so that they don't think he's patronising them, but rather showing his love for them an that he wants to do his best. Romans is a preventative measure, then.

vs 17

He serves Christ, so as a servant, the glory goes to his master, and that in turn glorifies him. Who wants to work for an inglorious master?

vs 18

Why speak about anything else? After all, results shows that God is with him and that Christ is working to his will.

vs 19

It is interesting to see what miraculous signs and wonders had to do with Paul's ministry success. I mean, it gets mentioned over and over - in Acts, here, Corinthians. Interestingly, though, miraculous signs doesn't appear in the list of gifts that Paul gives the Romans.

That's a lot of area he covered, too. That's a miracle.

vs 20

This pioneering spirit is the meat and drink of many missionaries, who trailblaze into dark jungles and barren lands to find people and tell them the gospel for the first time. People get excited about that stuff. Unfortunately, it's more difficult to get people excited about reaching nominal Christians who are all talk and no faith, or to work in discipling people who are now Christians. But Paul didn't differentiate - to him, all that was part of his work - he maintained what he grew.

vs 21

What an interesting verse to drive you on to reach the unreached! That is the kind of verse that I would read "Oh, yeah, God will do that. Yay God!" instead of reading it like Paul did, "Hey, I can be a part of God doing that work. Awesome!" Yes, Paul regularly said awesome.

vs 22

Unfortunately, Paul is not omnipresent, so he had to skip somewhere. Rome may have been a great ministry spot in one way, but for Paul it could have also meant early arrest and death. Not only that, but churches kept popping up under his feet, what was he to do?

Romans chapter 15

vs 1

Don't think that I don't agree with this sentiment. The fact is that doing something for your own pleasure to the detriment of another is wrong. It's not Christ-like, even if doing the thing in and of itself is fine.

However, It is not the only responsibility of the Christian.

vs 2

In this verse, for example - pleasing your neighbours might sound like a really good thing to do, but you should be pleasing them for their growth, to build them up. You don't go and engage in their orgy just because that will please them. But when you do something that is for someone's benefit, that will please them and build them up. Teaching weaker Christians to be stronger in their faith will be pleasing and help their growth.

vs 3

I was going to say that I would have picked a NT reference for that quote - but then, I guess Paul didn't have it handy (although he does quote Luke in Timothy).

The idea of this quote is that Christ did not come to do things that selfish. After all, Christ did please himself, because in pleasing God he himself was pleased. To retaliate to insults may have just been a selfish and useless exercise, so Christ did not take part in it. In fact, Christ went so far as to wear the insults that were made to his disciples, because of course they were being insulted because of Christ.

vs 4

Hope is one of the main messages of the Bible. But it is a hope that comes through endurance. If we can't endure, our hope is fruitless.

vs 5

Thankfully, we don't have to go it alone. It is God who empowers our endurance, just like everything else.

vs 6

The purpose, as always, is the glory of God. This can only come through unity. That is why Paul is writing these words in this chapter and the last. Through the unity of the church we will find our hope, and we will glorify God appropriately.

vs 7

What I said above. This is just now the imperative version.

vs 8

This verse tends to suggest to me that some of the major divisions in the church at Rome were along the Jew/gentile divide. Christ became a servant to the Jews (lit circumcision), because God had promised to the patriarchs.

vs 9

But before you get all cocky (haha, pun), It is for the sake of the promise, not the patriarchs, that Christ became a servant. And that promise was that the gentiles might glorify God. You will remember the promise to Abraham that all nations would be blessed through him. Start there if you like.

vs 10 & 11

Lots of verses. They're not all exactly what we have in the OT, but they're pretty good.

Romans chapter 14

You know, for all the wonderfulness of FireFox, binding a command to ctrl+u was not a good idea, guys.

vs 13

Judgment bad. Loving and assisting brothers and sisters good. I will point out that helping a brother or sister to become stronger in the faith is in fact loving.

vs 14

This is the thing - Paul is convinced, and Paul is an Apostle. So why not listen to him? Because if he hasn't been able to persuade you about it, then he just hasn't been able to! So if you need more persuading, then keep doing what you're doing for the time being, but continue to allow yourself instruction by the Apostle.

If you read this any other way, you honestly are totally setting up the church for a major, major problem. Why? Because Paul has chosen as his example something which is clearly set out in Scripture! All food is clean. It's biblical. If you then say 'but I am not convinced about it, so I'm going to do it my way and not take biblical instruction on it', then what's to say that someone can't say 'well, I know the bible says that sleeping with prostitutes is wrong, but I'm not entirely convinced about it in my own conscience, so I'm going to keep doing it until I have received instruction'?

vs 15

Causing distress by your actions to another person is wrong. I will co-opt a principle from 1 Corinthians here, though, as Paul points out there that you can happily eat, just not in front of your brother or sister who has the problem.

vs 16

I think this verse can be far more widely applied than it is usually. Ok, so don't eat it in front of them, or whatever. That's one method. Correcting your brother or sister who is weaker in the faith (I really can't stress that enough) is another method of ensuring that what you do will not be spoken about as evil.

vs 17

Grammatical question - is it a matter of peace and righteousness on their own, but joy in the Holy Spirit, or all three in the Holy Spirit? I'm going for the latter, as it sounds more spiritual.

vs 18

Normally, Paul doesn't care two cents about human approval. But in this case he shows that it is important. Doing things out of love for people is generally approved of. I wonder, though, if you tell someone "I'm not eating meat because I don't want to stumble you as a weaker brother" if that is the loving equivalent of heaping burning coals on their head - which, I might point out, is also seen as a loving thing to do.

vs 19

So instead of focussing on these things, let's forget about them unless they raise themself as an issue, and focus on those things which create good things. That we can all agree on. Like... you know... Christ.

vs 20

It is also wrong for that person to judge the person who eats. But Paul is giving a command to those who are strong in faith, becuase the weak in faith? Well, they're weak. We don't expect them to obey commands.

vs 21

Remember, we aren't just talking about something that will upset someone, or make them tetchy of whinge. Paul says don't do things that will make them "fall". His language has been strong - don't "destroy" your brother/sister. Don't make them stumble. Don't make them fall. The word "fall" here is apparently literally the word 'proskopto', which means stumble. It's used earlier in chapter 9. The word used earlier is pretty much the same - 'Proskomma'. So with that in mind, all the different translations use different words for pretty much the same word here, just to mix things up a bit I guess.

vs 22

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this is Paul's command to not eat in front of the other person. I don't think he's going so far as to say "don't share your belief about it with the other person". As Paul says in the next verse...

vs 23

...actions are done in faith. So just as the person who can't eat should not eat, and that by faith, those that can eat should eat, again by faith, but should keep that faithful action between them and God. If we keep a practice of faith to ourselves, that's fine. But were we to keep discussions of faith from our weaker siblings, then we are surely condemned.

Oh, and remember - if you're thinking with disagreeing with me on this point, then you're actually not allowed to tell me. Keep it between you and God. :P

Break in posting

I am finding that with hebrew requiring far more time that it once did for translating, and with a sermon coming up too, my morning reading time is becoming more valuable to me as a time to do these things.

Still a good use of time, I think.