The make-up of the apostles having been Peter's concern, we would have expected an extrapolation from that, in this chapter. But no: Luke looks at the beginning group of all of Christianity, gathered together then, in one place. But it's now the "not many days from now" of 1:5, and it happens to be in the morning (1:15). In something reminiscent of the difference between the loaves and fish, versus the feeding of the thousands, something similar is about to happen in Acts. Did the disciples anticipate the change in the magnitude of the scope? Did they think that they alone were going to be recipients of the Holy Spirit, or that the time coming would be a similar time to the last few years, spreading out as a small group, teaching two by two, with power?
Jesus had said they would receive power (1:8); He had said "you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now" (1:5). But He didn't say it was going to be only them. To spread twelve "to the remotest part of the earth" would be to have a very isolated group, if it were going to be twelve.
But at Pentecost, the world of "Jews and proselytes" (2:10) was represented. The remotest known part of the earth was within earshot of them. God had arranged it for the world to hear the witnesses to His Son, but how were they actually going to hear? Were they polled beforehand, to see if they had extra time for another meeting? What the disciples might have found daunting, God, having concern for the uttermost parts the world, ministered to the world's representatives, as only God could have done.
These gathered could not have known the various languages, at least a dozen, in a dozen years, but in the space of one day, representatives of the world who speak these languages, heard Christ's witnesses speaking them, saying things about "the mighty deeds of God" (2:11).
Here, before there were church councils, disputes about the gospel, imposters within the church, things eventually that all would come about -- God started the witnesses to Christ on the right track, speaking of the mighty deeds of God in the hearing of representatives of the world. And Peter preached how it was prophesied in "what was spoken through the prophet" (2:16). They were prophesying. And it was prophesied, that they would.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Friday, January 09, 2015
Gal 1:1-17
Paul could very well introduce a category of explanation that we very often ignore, in the first verse of this letter: "not through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father." Christ, and God, doing things -- on their own. Not just placeholding explanations for what humans do.
This certainly is a difference between God and idols. Idols are described as bringing victories to armies, or the cause of prosperity of a city -- "great is Artemis of the Ephesians" -- but it is an ascription. Christianity, and Paul here, assert that God does things: He's not just the invisible explanation for what human beings credit him with.
"Jesus Christ and God the Father" did something, with the result that Paul is something ... an apostle. What Jesus Christ and God the Father did, was send Paul, and the result is both that he is an apostle, but also ... that he got sent! If that is already done, certainly the Galatians can take 1:3 as more than well-wishing.
It all comes from this category of explanation! A God who can do things, can actually send "grace to you and peace from God." Our "best wishes" may not come into existence, but with Paul calling them down from God upon the Galatians it is one and the same, the wishing of it, and the pronouncement of it to be the case.
It comes from the same kind of thinking that prompts Paul in another letter to tell the Philippians, "He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus" (Ph 1:6). There we notice its certainty because it is stated so, in the indicative, but here, as a blessing Paul calls down ... do we have the temerity to say it is only a casual well-wishing on the level of "good luck" or "stay well!"? I hope not.
To punctuate the connection between God having done things and God as doing things in the future, as we read, we hear that "the Lord Jesus Christ" did something -- gave Himself for our sins, in order to do something else for us -- rescue us from this present evil age."
OK, Christ gave Himself for our sins. What was the purpose of that? Is He done now, and the ensuing outcome just completely our doing? No, the next thing was "so that He might rescue us from this present evil age" -- whether we conceive of this as Christ doing so by one and the same act, or whether the rescue from "this present evil age" is subsequent -- it is still Christ doing it, not something that is ours to complete. And Paul sees and assigns glory to God for ever, for this.
We have to go on to 1:6ff in order to understand better why Paul began this way, about God being the One who sent him, and his being sent through Jesus Christ. He will explain that part of his argument, but what is the problem? The problem is the quick desertion going on, by the Galatians, of God!
In all the arguments about the nature of salvation we've heard, it is good to realize that so many of them define the severity of the consequences of deserting God, but do not say what deserting God is! Isn't Galatians, to the extent that it explains what the Galatian churches were doing, an answer to that question? It must be, since Paul says they "are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ" (1:6). At the least, what the Galatians were doing is truly deserting God, however more other kinds of desertion of Him there are. Therefore it should very much grab our attention.
To desert for "a different gospel" is to desert God. Paul has already reminded them of something we know he considers "of first importance" in the gospel, that Christ died for our sins (1 Cor 15:1ff). He mentions it here as "Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for our sins," and we might be correct to guess that the sentence might have a hint at Paul's corrective, that he couldn't wait to apply to their reading: "so that He might rescue us from this present evil age." This "so that" part -- could Paul be emphasizing it so early in his letter, so urgently, because it is such an important part of the cure to the desertion? I think so. This phrase suggests that the desertion to the different gospel was to the idea that Christ gave Himself for our sins, so that _something else_ would go on and rescue us from this present evil age, and Paul is saying that's a different gospel. The true gospel, which they were "so quickly deserting" (1:6), would be that "Christ gave Himself for our sins, so that _He_ might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father (1:4)."
So far this must just be a guess, because Paul does not come out here and say what the distortion (1:7) is. But we can see if the guess has support by reading the rest of the letter. It fits the idea of deserting God, because they are deserting God's will for the purpose of Christ giving Himself.
The Galatians are being disturbed by some who "want to distort the gospel of Christ" (1:7). That's another whole category than the making of a mistake. To want to distort the gospel of Christ is not the same at all as making a mistake.
This certainly is a difference between God and idols. Idols are described as bringing victories to armies, or the cause of prosperity of a city -- "great is Artemis of the Ephesians" -- but it is an ascription. Christianity, and Paul here, assert that God does things: He's not just the invisible explanation for what human beings credit him with.
"Jesus Christ and God the Father" did something, with the result that Paul is something ... an apostle. What Jesus Christ and God the Father did, was send Paul, and the result is both that he is an apostle, but also ... that he got sent! If that is already done, certainly the Galatians can take 1:3 as more than well-wishing.
It all comes from this category of explanation! A God who can do things, can actually send "grace to you and peace from God." Our "best wishes" may not come into existence, but with Paul calling them down from God upon the Galatians it is one and the same, the wishing of it, and the pronouncement of it to be the case.
It comes from the same kind of thinking that prompts Paul in another letter to tell the Philippians, "He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus" (Ph 1:6). There we notice its certainty because it is stated so, in the indicative, but here, as a blessing Paul calls down ... do we have the temerity to say it is only a casual well-wishing on the level of "good luck" or "stay well!"? I hope not.
To punctuate the connection between God having done things and God as doing things in the future, as we read, we hear that "the Lord Jesus Christ" did something -- gave Himself for our sins, in order to do something else for us -- rescue us from this present evil age."
OK, Christ gave Himself for our sins. What was the purpose of that? Is He done now, and the ensuing outcome just completely our doing? No, the next thing was "so that He might rescue us from this present evil age" -- whether we conceive of this as Christ doing so by one and the same act, or whether the rescue from "this present evil age" is subsequent -- it is still Christ doing it, not something that is ours to complete. And Paul sees and assigns glory to God for ever, for this.
We have to go on to 1:6ff in order to understand better why Paul began this way, about God being the One who sent him, and his being sent through Jesus Christ. He will explain that part of his argument, but what is the problem? The problem is the quick desertion going on, by the Galatians, of God!
In all the arguments about the nature of salvation we've heard, it is good to realize that so many of them define the severity of the consequences of deserting God, but do not say what deserting God is! Isn't Galatians, to the extent that it explains what the Galatian churches were doing, an answer to that question? It must be, since Paul says they "are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ" (1:6). At the least, what the Galatians were doing is truly deserting God, however more other kinds of desertion of Him there are. Therefore it should very much grab our attention.
To desert for "a different gospel" is to desert God. Paul has already reminded them of something we know he considers "of first importance" in the gospel, that Christ died for our sins (1 Cor 15:1ff). He mentions it here as "Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for our sins," and we might be correct to guess that the sentence might have a hint at Paul's corrective, that he couldn't wait to apply to their reading: "so that He might rescue us from this present evil age." This "so that" part -- could Paul be emphasizing it so early in his letter, so urgently, because it is such an important part of the cure to the desertion? I think so. This phrase suggests that the desertion to the different gospel was to the idea that Christ gave Himself for our sins, so that _something else_ would go on and rescue us from this present evil age, and Paul is saying that's a different gospel. The true gospel, which they were "so quickly deserting" (1:6), would be that "Christ gave Himself for our sins, so that _He_ might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father (1:4)."
So far this must just be a guess, because Paul does not come out here and say what the distortion (1:7) is. But we can see if the guess has support by reading the rest of the letter. It fits the idea of deserting God, because they are deserting God's will for the purpose of Christ giving Himself.
The Galatians are being disturbed by some who "want to distort the gospel of Christ" (1:7). That's another whole category than the making of a mistake. To want to distort the gospel of Christ is not the same at all as making a mistake.
Thursday, January 08, 2015
Mt 1:1-2:6
For a book to start like this -- the geneology, I'm referring to -- is the bane of the interested child in many, many homes. I still have the Bible which was in my home when I was learning to read, and still remember the times where I just couldn't get past the geneologies. If nothing else, we should draw from this that I did not have much stamina so long ago; so as to better put up with blogs that are not complete sets, I hereby request. I'm leaning on, not blaming, the geneologies here.
But what a geneology for the initiated! The geneology of the Messiah! And you can't get more official than an inspired document! Neither is the geneology boring whatsoever. The grand switch away from Joseph in 1:16, from the lists of those who fathered, to that phrase "the husband of Mary," is there in the Greek too, with that female pronoun for "by whom" Jesus was born.
But it is a geneology of the humbling of the reader too, the reader of Israel who knows about the Tamar story (1:3; Gen 38), the Ruth story, the Jesse story, the Bathsheba story, the Jeconiah story, the deportation story. All these ancestors, but not a list of heroes, not like the king lists children used to memorize in England, in order to say something proud about each one. True son of David and Abraham, yes. But not a crescendo, of the kind we're used to, at least, of human glory to human glory. And even if it was, the human fathering stops at Joseph.
So much then is the humiliation in the reader, then, a fitting preparatory humbling, to prefigure what ensues: the King of the people is born in a place where the current king of the people was going to be troubled to hear it, along with the people (2:3). The current king was made king by an outside nation, Rome. Aptly, Jesus will be honored by representatives of an outside nation, the oddest kind -- the among-Daniel wisemen kind, the kind that the then-king wanted to murder, but Daniel saved them -- Jesus will be honored from that same area as Daniel saved their perhaps-ancestors and guild, from that area that Matthew had mentioned in the geneology just previous, Babylon! Jesus, with a name meaning God saves, will save people, but from their sins (1:21)! And these astrologers, uncharacteristically actually were correctly guided by a star ... from God, at least part of the way, in the story so far. The nation was not just unprepared under Herod, but Herod himself was prepared against, we will see ... he was anti-prepared, after he became knowledgeable about the possibility of the Messiah born (2:5). Nevertheless, Christ was honored as God's born king by those God chose to honor Him with.
But what a geneology for the initiated! The geneology of the Messiah! And you can't get more official than an inspired document! Neither is the geneology boring whatsoever. The grand switch away from Joseph in 1:16, from the lists of those who fathered, to that phrase "the husband of Mary," is there in the Greek too, with that female pronoun for "by whom" Jesus was born.
But it is a geneology of the humbling of the reader too, the reader of Israel who knows about the Tamar story (1:3; Gen 38), the Ruth story, the Jesse story, the Bathsheba story, the Jeconiah story, the deportation story. All these ancestors, but not a list of heroes, not like the king lists children used to memorize in England, in order to say something proud about each one. True son of David and Abraham, yes. But not a crescendo, of the kind we're used to, at least, of human glory to human glory. And even if it was, the human fathering stops at Joseph.
So much then is the humiliation in the reader, then, a fitting preparatory humbling, to prefigure what ensues: the King of the people is born in a place where the current king of the people was going to be troubled to hear it, along with the people (2:3). The current king was made king by an outside nation, Rome. Aptly, Jesus will be honored by representatives of an outside nation, the oddest kind -- the among-Daniel wisemen kind, the kind that the then-king wanted to murder, but Daniel saved them -- Jesus will be honored from that same area as Daniel saved their perhaps-ancestors and guild, from that area that Matthew had mentioned in the geneology just previous, Babylon! Jesus, with a name meaning God saves, will save people, but from their sins (1:21)! And these astrologers, uncharacteristically actually were correctly guided by a star ... from God, at least part of the way, in the story so far. The nation was not just unprepared under Herod, but Herod himself was prepared against, we will see ... he was anti-prepared, after he became knowledgeable about the possibility of the Messiah born (2:5). Nevertheless, Christ was honored as God's born king by those God chose to honor Him with.
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
1 Tim 1:1-17
The idealist in us wants to have it that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, dealt with the biggest and most significant issues and problems, like a CEO, among the churches. We read here that Paul was not so, and dealt with details and the messies. But first, look at the interesting salutation of this letter.
"According to the command of God our Savior" sticks out as somewhat unique; of all Paul's letters, only Titus has something similar. If there is any difference between a phrase like that, and something from the other salutations like "by the will of God," it adds sequence to the job. Paul, regarding his apostleship, was apostle, by being "called" (Rm, 1Cor); by "the will of God" (2 Cor, Eph, Col, 2Tim); "through Jesus Christ and God the Father" (Gal); Titus expands (1:3), saying "entrusted."
But "according to" allows for a sequence of things, not just a one-time event. The gospels describe a narrative, a sequence of events, not just one. The sequence is "according to" their respective writers. Possibly one of the greatest "according to" sequences is in Romans 8:4, that we walk not "according to" the flesh, but according to the Spirit. Neither God's gifts, nor God's jobs, are given by someone who runs off.
Here in this supposedly doctrinally paucous letter, we have, in a phrase, an answer to everyone who has started a job could well ask: does God give us jobs and then it's all on us? No, the job is a sequence of events, not just an event. Paul, in the other words that he used about his apostleship, didn't give out that aspect that comes out here.
No paucity in this chapter! Not only is he dealing with people who have really veered off (1:4) into "strange doctrines," but he deals with them while giving us interesting plus-insights to one of his biggest themes in other letters. He had said, way back, in Romans 7, that we died to the Law. Here, he goes bazookas and says "the Law is good ... but ... law is not made for a righteous person" (1:8)! In the same way that the Christian is, by definition, someone who has Spirit of Christ (Rm 8:9), the Christian is, by definition, someone whom the Law is not "made for." Christians -- don't mistake this, we use rules all the time, but ... -- we weren't made for rules.
For some reason, this makes Paul think of the example of himself, toward our understanding of God's patience. Our natural tendency is to draw for ourselves a god who is unconcerned about the small sins, but gets really madder and madder, the "bigger" the sins. Paul excels himself in 1:9-10 by writing down the "big" sins. Lots of people truncate 1:10 that way, only thinking of some of the big sins there, and don't realize that the Law, and Paul here, goes down from all those sins to "whatever else is contrary to sound teaching." James and the Lord all make a similar point (Jm 2:10; Mt 5:22). One of the great things about a country is to see it set down small things in law. Unbelievers constantly and repeatedly misunderstand Christianity here, disputing with what it says the Law covers, thinking that a particular thing is covered, and if it weren't, they would have their righteousness restored. But God's Law reflects His perfection, and covers all that is contrary to sound teaching, even the small stuff.
Paul makes a statement about "the administration of God which is by faith" (1:4). Did you know that? That the _administration of God_ is by faith? Wow! This so-called pseudo-Pauline letter is sure good at completing what Paul was saying about Law in Romans 4: "the Law brings about wrath" (4:15). We glory that it does so, and glory even more (2 Cor 3:9-11) that the administration of God is by faith.
"According to the command of God our Savior" sticks out as somewhat unique; of all Paul's letters, only Titus has something similar. If there is any difference between a phrase like that, and something from the other salutations like "by the will of God," it adds sequence to the job. Paul, regarding his apostleship, was apostle, by being "called" (Rm, 1Cor); by "the will of God" (2 Cor, Eph, Col, 2Tim); "through Jesus Christ and God the Father" (Gal); Titus expands (1:3), saying "entrusted."
But "according to" allows for a sequence of things, not just a one-time event. The gospels describe a narrative, a sequence of events, not just one. The sequence is "according to" their respective writers. Possibly one of the greatest "according to" sequences is in Romans 8:4, that we walk not "according to" the flesh, but according to the Spirit. Neither God's gifts, nor God's jobs, are given by someone who runs off.
Here in this supposedly doctrinally paucous letter, we have, in a phrase, an answer to everyone who has started a job could well ask: does God give us jobs and then it's all on us? No, the job is a sequence of events, not just an event. Paul, in the other words that he used about his apostleship, didn't give out that aspect that comes out here.
No paucity in this chapter! Not only is he dealing with people who have really veered off (1:4) into "strange doctrines," but he deals with them while giving us interesting plus-insights to one of his biggest themes in other letters. He had said, way back, in Romans 7, that we died to the Law. Here, he goes bazookas and says "the Law is good ... but ... law is not made for a righteous person" (1:8)! In the same way that the Christian is, by definition, someone who has Spirit of Christ (Rm 8:9), the Christian is, by definition, someone whom the Law is not "made for." Christians -- don't mistake this, we use rules all the time, but ... -- we weren't made for rules.
For some reason, this makes Paul think of the example of himself, toward our understanding of God's patience. Our natural tendency is to draw for ourselves a god who is unconcerned about the small sins, but gets really madder and madder, the "bigger" the sins. Paul excels himself in 1:9-10 by writing down the "big" sins. Lots of people truncate 1:10 that way, only thinking of some of the big sins there, and don't realize that the Law, and Paul here, goes down from all those sins to "whatever else is contrary to sound teaching." James and the Lord all make a similar point (Jm 2:10; Mt 5:22). One of the great things about a country is to see it set down small things in law. Unbelievers constantly and repeatedly misunderstand Christianity here, disputing with what it says the Law covers, thinking that a particular thing is covered, and if it weren't, they would have their righteousness restored. But God's Law reflects His perfection, and covers all that is contrary to sound teaching, even the small stuff.
Paul makes a statement about "the administration of God which is by faith" (1:4). Did you know that? That the _administration of God_ is by faith? Wow! This so-called pseudo-Pauline letter is sure good at completing what Paul was saying about Law in Romans 4: "the Law brings about wrath" (4:15). We glory that it does so, and glory even more (2 Cor 3:9-11) that the administration of God is by faith.
Tuesday, January 06, 2015
Lk 1:1-38
This rich beginning to the gospel of Luke begins with a fine historian's introduction (1:1-4) and goes right into the fact that the Lord's birth had tremendous preceding events leading up to it. Luke is the most expansive of the family events before the birth of Christ into a human family. Since John the Baptist's mother Elizabeth, and Jesus's mother Mary were relatives (1:36), Luke shows how the angel (and thus the Lord) uses family relationships for encouragement (1:36-37).
The same angel Gabriel, who tells Mary about Elizabeth's pregnancy, omits Zechariah's unbelief (1:20). Fear had gripped Zechariah (1:12), but the angel began with both Mary and Zechariah by saying "Do not be afraid" (1:13, 30). There is an implicit comparison in the two responses, due to their similarity of subject and even the questions of the two (1:18, 34), but does Luke resolve the question about why one did not believe the angel's words (1:20), and one did, at least later? This is according to Elizabeth, who says so later in 1:45. What Mary actually told the angel was "may it be done to me according to your word" (1:38).
There is possibly a lesson about faith here.
Is the response of Mary, "may it be done to me," the antithesis of what Zechariah said, "how will I know this for certain? For I am an old man and my wife is advance in years?" Thinking about his age and his wife's age made Zechariah ask "how will I know this?" So he was making a syllogism: because of my age, and my wife's age, I do not know this for certain. Know what? What the angel had announced would happen, from 1:13-17. He "knew" that he was an old man; he "knew" that his wife is advanced in days. He heard, but did not believe (1:20), more things, the things in 1:13-17. Mary, on the other hand, heard things of greater significance, undeniably things that could only apply to the Messiah (1:33). And she heard things about her part in it (1:31). Did she "know" that she was a virgin? Of course. She brought the problem up, thinking that the angel was talking about her conception as very imminent (1:31). And the angel explains why indeed it is.
There may be a difference in the "how will I know this?" (1:18) of Zechariah and the "how will this be?" (1:34) of Mary. If as Zechariah's we want inward certainty, how much data does it take to give it to us, and who is it that gets to say that there is enough data for certainty? But if as Mary's we want merely to understand how a promise will get around an obstacle, that is not a request for certainty, nor is it disbelief.
The same angel Gabriel, who tells Mary about Elizabeth's pregnancy, omits Zechariah's unbelief (1:20). Fear had gripped Zechariah (1:12), but the angel began with both Mary and Zechariah by saying "Do not be afraid" (1:13, 30). There is an implicit comparison in the two responses, due to their similarity of subject and even the questions of the two (1:18, 34), but does Luke resolve the question about why one did not believe the angel's words (1:20), and one did, at least later? This is according to Elizabeth, who says so later in 1:45. What Mary actually told the angel was "may it be done to me according to your word" (1:38).
There is possibly a lesson about faith here.
Is the response of Mary, "may it be done to me," the antithesis of what Zechariah said, "how will I know this for certain? For I am an old man and my wife is advance in years?" Thinking about his age and his wife's age made Zechariah ask "how will I know this?" So he was making a syllogism: because of my age, and my wife's age, I do not know this for certain. Know what? What the angel had announced would happen, from 1:13-17. He "knew" that he was an old man; he "knew" that his wife is advanced in days. He heard, but did not believe (1:20), more things, the things in 1:13-17. Mary, on the other hand, heard things of greater significance, undeniably things that could only apply to the Messiah (1:33). And she heard things about her part in it (1:31). Did she "know" that she was a virgin? Of course. She brought the problem up, thinking that the angel was talking about her conception as very imminent (1:31). And the angel explains why indeed it is.
There may be a difference in the "how will I know this?" (1:18) of Zechariah and the "how will this be?" (1:34) of Mary. If as Zechariah's we want inward certainty, how much data does it take to give it to us, and who is it that gets to say that there is enough data for certainty? But if as Mary's we want merely to understand how a promise will get around an obstacle, that is not a request for certainty, nor is it disbelief.
Monday, January 05, 2015
Rm 1:1-27
We'll be trying always to look with "new eyes" at the passages, and this is equally important everywhere, since most sincere theological errors come from presuppositions brought to the text.
Here, in the most famous epistle in the Bible, the presupposition is so easy to adopt -- that it's not an epistle! How does that pan out? Paul, writing a letter, using the customary "from:" and "concerning" and "to" of the headings then, puts ... for "concerning" ... "His Son"!!!! Paul, writing a letter, and the subject is God's Son. That's pretty non-letter-like, and pretty bold if you ask me. Come on, Paul! You expect us to believe that "God's Son" is the reason for your letter, not something about us, about you, about our stuff, about your stuff? Yup!
And he proves it, doesn't he, going right into details!? Before the "ink" was dry on the first word "Paul," with only one intervening word in Greek (doulos), names the one whom the letter is "concerning." Before he says "concerning" (1:3) he's already mentioned who his letter is concerning!
But not to toy with the Romans, he gives them plenty of information about himself: he was sent by the One whom this letter is concerning, and he is a bond-slave of Him. His particular task, a specialized one, is "the gospel of God," the good news from God, "which He promised beforehand." It's one thing for something to be good news. It's another thing entirely that it was known about beforehand, and the hardest to add to a piece of good news is the last fact: God promised the good news long ago. Not too much good news gets promised beforehand, and that, by God, and written down.
Here, in the most famous epistle in the Bible, the presupposition is so easy to adopt -- that it's not an epistle! How does that pan out? Paul, writing a letter, using the customary "from:" and "concerning" and "to" of the headings then, puts ... for "concerning" ... "His Son"!!!! Paul, writing a letter, and the subject is God's Son. That's pretty non-letter-like, and pretty bold if you ask me. Come on, Paul! You expect us to believe that "God's Son" is the reason for your letter, not something about us, about you, about our stuff, about your stuff? Yup!
And he proves it, doesn't he, going right into details!? Before the "ink" was dry on the first word "Paul," with only one intervening word in Greek (doulos), names the one whom the letter is "concerning." Before he says "concerning" (1:3) he's already mentioned who his letter is concerning!
But not to toy with the Romans, he gives them plenty of information about himself: he was sent by the One whom this letter is concerning, and he is a bond-slave of Him. His particular task, a specialized one, is "the gospel of God," the good news from God, "which He promised beforehand." It's one thing for something to be good news. It's another thing entirely that it was known about beforehand, and the hardest to add to a piece of good news is the last fact: God promised the good news long ago. Not too much good news gets promised beforehand, and that, by God, and written down.
Sunday, January 04, 2015
1 Peter 1:1-21
Before we go ahead and say that Peter is so much like Paul -- talking about predestination (1:1), God causing us to be born again (1:3), things reserved in heaven for us (1:4), etc -- let's also point out that Peter is very quick in this letter to mix in application along with it. There are more than a few people who would be afraid to always be mixing in application so quickly, if they are weaned on Romans! So this is good for some, including me!
What a surprise, to see in its bluntness and succinctness, the goal for being "chosen ... by the sanctifying work of the Spirit" here in the second verse: the goal is "unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1:2, lit.) Peter, who once told the Lord "go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man," comes back here to say something about sanctification that we forget: the very choice of us by God is by His sanctifying work. Here we have also the basic meaning of sanctification showing itself, that it is to set something aside for special-case use.
What is this special-case use of being chosen? Peter tells us three things about the choice: that it is a choice by the Holy Spirit's sanctifying work; that it is "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father"; and that it is "unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." Notice the activity of God the Father, the Holy Spirit, and Christ. And Christ's work, as the targeted goal for the rest.
That's worth unpacking a little bit. Normally we think that our Christian life starts with a relationship to Christ, and that He ushers us into the presence of the Father, and that God the Holy Spirit is with us in our day-to-day goals. But here, our far past is the province of God the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the future explicitly deals with Christ. We can't put such boxes and categories about who does what when, and Peter serves to remind us of that.
Is it true, then, that theological disputes about faith and works, whether good works are inevitable, for example, can be settled by 1:2? If Peter has an ordo salutis here, a sequence, then what he says that we are chosen "unto," these two things, "obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ," don't give themselves over to the demand for immediate good works as inevitable. In fact, in all the discussions in Scripture, including of Paul's "apart from works" and James's discussion of Abraham's justification "by works," the works do not appear immediately, however inevitable they may indeed eventually be. See Jn 14:12! So Peter is dovetailing with their inevitability here, but not with the demand for seeing them immediately or constantly present, by saying that we are chosen "unto obedience." And being sprinkled with the blood of Jesus Christ is just as much what we are chosen "unto," as obedience. To be thus sprinkled is not just an initiation thing.
What a surprise, to see in its bluntness and succinctness, the goal for being "chosen ... by the sanctifying work of the Spirit" here in the second verse: the goal is "unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1:2, lit.) Peter, who once told the Lord "go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man," comes back here to say something about sanctification that we forget: the very choice of us by God is by His sanctifying work. Here we have also the basic meaning of sanctification showing itself, that it is to set something aside for special-case use.
What is this special-case use of being chosen? Peter tells us three things about the choice: that it is a choice by the Holy Spirit's sanctifying work; that it is "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father"; and that it is "unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." Notice the activity of God the Father, the Holy Spirit, and Christ. And Christ's work, as the targeted goal for the rest.
That's worth unpacking a little bit. Normally we think that our Christian life starts with a relationship to Christ, and that He ushers us into the presence of the Father, and that God the Holy Spirit is with us in our day-to-day goals. But here, our far past is the province of God the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the future explicitly deals with Christ. We can't put such boxes and categories about who does what when, and Peter serves to remind us of that.
Is it true, then, that theological disputes about faith and works, whether good works are inevitable, for example, can be settled by 1:2? If Peter has an ordo salutis here, a sequence, then what he says that we are chosen "unto," these two things, "obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ," don't give themselves over to the demand for immediate good works as inevitable. In fact, in all the discussions in Scripture, including of Paul's "apart from works" and James's discussion of Abraham's justification "by works," the works do not appear immediately, however inevitable they may indeed eventually be. See Jn 14:12! So Peter is dovetailing with their inevitability here, but not with the demand for seeing them immediately or constantly present, by saying that we are chosen "unto obedience." And being sprinkled with the blood of Jesus Christ is just as much what we are chosen "unto," as obedience. To be thus sprinkled is not just an initiation thing.
Saturday, January 03, 2015
John 1:1-23
If you know how bewildering it can be to listen to someone else's details without being given a context to understand them, then the gospel of John is for you. At least here "in the beginning."
By the end of our passage, in Jn 1:23, we're exactly at the same place with the details as Mark brings us to start his gospel, with the particulars of John the Baptist. But how we got there is amazing. And practicality? You can learn enough about yourself as a Christian from one sentence here (1:8) to guard you through the course of this world.
In verses 1ff. John writes what some call "densely"; that is, everything is very precisely stated, and there is a reason for every detail. For example, the Word "was" in 1:1. In English we say "was there," for example, "I was there at my son's birth," when we want to express the / time when / place where / I already was. Here, before the world's time and place had yet come about, the Word "was."
Then comes the dovetailing of what John is saying with Genesis 1:1, about there being only God at the beginning, and God being the one creating. The Word was God. So, there was still only God at the beginning. The Word was with God. So, the Word, being with God, and God. What else? Not an impersonal word, but a "He" (1:2), was not only at the beginning, but at the beginning all things were made through Him. Since then as well: all individual things have been made through Him; things have a "made-ness" to them. All of them (1:3). One mark of being "made" is that the materials are of similar nature across the board. Atoms, for example. DNA, in the case of life.
Speaking of life, John goes on. The very next assertions about "Him" are that in Him was life. The Word is not an inanimate "it."
But nothing prepares us for the addition John makes next. The life in the Word is, has all along been, "the light of men" ... the light of even Adam and Eve. The light of men. That life was there to be that, as we would expand in English. Whenever "men" -- mankind -- have been in relatively little light, it was not because there wasn't any, shining in the darkness.
How do we know that John isn't talking directly about physical light? Because the light is the light of the life "in Him" (1:4), and because of that interesting phrase, "shines in the darkness." Physical light is not the life that always was in the Word, but this light is that life, in Him who was there before physical light, that shines in the darkness whether physical light does so there or not.
Having looked into John's first time-marker, "the beginning," we can also notice his hint of a second one, that this life was, at a point in time, not comprehended by "the darkness." John is giving us the start of a story about the Light, and a theme in the ensuing story. But John got this from the Light Himself, which we can see from the profound conclusions the Light makes about Himself in Jn 12:35-36.
But back to why does nothing prepare us for the reference in 1:4b, "light of men"? Because nothing to that point in the text forced us to think of men as being in the picture. People often say that God need not have created the world. Even more so, the life that was in the Word: what necessity there for that life to be the light of men? "What is man that You take thought of him?" Psalm 8:4 asks. The stars and moon made the Psalmist ask that question. How much less did what is in man compel the life that was in the Word at the beginning to be the light of men, including you or me. The Word was not compelled by anything in men, to be their light.
But John is not yet finished talking about the significance to all men of the Light. Even though he begins to talk about particulars in 1:6, he refers the coming of John the Baptist back to the Light that he was just talking about (1:7-8). Did we expect John to say that the witness was going to testify about the "life" in 1:7? That's not how the Baptist came. Even though "the life was the Light of men," John the Baptist did not come saying it doesn't matter what came, as long as it has life ... NO! Light, the Light, matters. Comprehension matters. The life in the Word was the light of men, not a way to skip the light of men. Light and life are not opposed. Light is not skippable, on the way to life. So John came to "testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him." There is an ordering relationship here, which John echoes even at the end of the Gospel. In this chapter, the ordering is Word, Light, testimony about the light, to believing. In John 20 is the same thing: "these [words] have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name" (20:31). Believing is means to life.
Next comes a part that saddens even a small child who hears it. In 1:09, everything is as it should be, but the situation in the world that the Light came into and continued in was a lack of knowledge of Him: "the world did not know Him." Furthermore, "His own did not receive Him," referring to "His own" in the broadest terms, not necessarily in terms of just a nation or race. One of the points of the prologue is the universality of what "His own" is, in the universe: everything that has been made! And ... as a general description, His own did not receive Him, but that was not without exceptions: "as many as received Him" -- as many individuals as did -- the Word gave the right to become children of God! Tying the previous together, John explains: "to those who believe in His name." (1:12).
John gets ahead of himself to describe this exception to the rule that "His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God ...." He further says, "who were born" -- BOMBSHELL! The Word did NOT JUST give the right to become children of God to those who received Him ... they were BORN! Those who received Him were born of God! (1:13).
Next, he summarizes what he's been saying, 1:14. The rest of what is commonly called the "Prologue," 1:14-18, recapulates and supplies more particulars, and even lets John tie himself into the story ("we saw His glory ..." (1:14)).
"We all received" (1:16) refers to something specific, as does "grace for grace." What was part of the glory, a fullness of grace and truth that the author saw in 1:14, is described as something specific, shared, here. Something "of His fullness," i.e. some part of it, we all received. Not only that! (the "and" here is forceful ....) It wasn't something skimpy. "Grace for grace" means repetition of it over time, solely because of the previous.
And no, Paul didn't write 1:17 and insert it in. It's Johannine language, which we recognize by the "came to be" literal. Grace and truth came to be through Jesus Christ. Another one of those forceful, emphatic "and" words. Grace AND truth came to be through Jesus Christ. Came to be right here among us, existing. Incarnate. How blessed to be those to whom this event, this Incarnation, has explained ... God! And, finally, we are ready to hear what John the Baptist had been saying, as the other evangelists do as well: all four gospel writers agree that Isaiah 40:3 refers to John the Baptist.
By the end of our passage, in Jn 1:23, we're exactly at the same place with the details as Mark brings us to start his gospel, with the particulars of John the Baptist. But how we got there is amazing. And practicality? You can learn enough about yourself as a Christian from one sentence here (1:8) to guard you through the course of this world.
In verses 1ff. John writes what some call "densely"; that is, everything is very precisely stated, and there is a reason for every detail. For example, the Word "was" in 1:1. In English we say "was there," for example, "I was there at my son's birth," when we want to express the / time when / place where / I already was. Here, before the world's time and place had yet come about, the Word "was."
Then comes the dovetailing of what John is saying with Genesis 1:1, about there being only God at the beginning, and God being the one creating. The Word was God. So, there was still only God at the beginning. The Word was with God. So, the Word, being with God, and God. What else? Not an impersonal word, but a "He" (1:2), was not only at the beginning, but at the beginning all things were made through Him. Since then as well: all individual things have been made through Him; things have a "made-ness" to them. All of them (1:3). One mark of being "made" is that the materials are of similar nature across the board. Atoms, for example. DNA, in the case of life.
Speaking of life, John goes on. The very next assertions about "Him" are that in Him was life. The Word is not an inanimate "it."
But nothing prepares us for the addition John makes next. The life in the Word is, has all along been, "the light of men" ... the light of even Adam and Eve. The light of men. That life was there to be that, as we would expand in English. Whenever "men" -- mankind -- have been in relatively little light, it was not because there wasn't any, shining in the darkness.
How do we know that John isn't talking directly about physical light? Because the light is the light of the life "in Him" (1:4), and because of that interesting phrase, "shines in the darkness." Physical light is not the life that always was in the Word, but this light is that life, in Him who was there before physical light, that shines in the darkness whether physical light does so there or not.
Having looked into John's first time-marker, "the beginning," we can also notice his hint of a second one, that this life was, at a point in time, not comprehended by "the darkness." John is giving us the start of a story about the Light, and a theme in the ensuing story. But John got this from the Light Himself, which we can see from the profound conclusions the Light makes about Himself in Jn 12:35-36.
But back to why does nothing prepare us for the reference in 1:4b, "light of men"? Because nothing to that point in the text forced us to think of men as being in the picture. People often say that God need not have created the world. Even more so, the life that was in the Word: what necessity there for that life to be the light of men? "What is man that You take thought of him?" Psalm 8:4 asks. The stars and moon made the Psalmist ask that question. How much less did what is in man compel the life that was in the Word at the beginning to be the light of men, including you or me. The Word was not compelled by anything in men, to be their light.
But John is not yet finished talking about the significance to all men of the Light. Even though he begins to talk about particulars in 1:6, he refers the coming of John the Baptist back to the Light that he was just talking about (1:7-8). Did we expect John to say that the witness was going to testify about the "life" in 1:7? That's not how the Baptist came. Even though "the life was the Light of men," John the Baptist did not come saying it doesn't matter what came, as long as it has life ... NO! Light, the Light, matters. Comprehension matters. The life in the Word was the light of men, not a way to skip the light of men. Light and life are not opposed. Light is not skippable, on the way to life. So John came to "testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him." There is an ordering relationship here, which John echoes even at the end of the Gospel. In this chapter, the ordering is Word, Light, testimony about the light, to believing. In John 20 is the same thing: "these [words] have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name" (20:31). Believing is means to life.
Next comes a part that saddens even a small child who hears it. In 1:09, everything is as it should be, but the situation in the world that the Light came into and continued in was a lack of knowledge of Him: "the world did not know Him." Furthermore, "His own did not receive Him," referring to "His own" in the broadest terms, not necessarily in terms of just a nation or race. One of the points of the prologue is the universality of what "His own" is, in the universe: everything that has been made! And ... as a general description, His own did not receive Him, but that was not without exceptions: "as many as received Him" -- as many individuals as did -- the Word gave the right to become children of God! Tying the previous together, John explains: "to those who believe in His name." (1:12).
John gets ahead of himself to describe this exception to the rule that "His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God ...." He further says, "who were born" -- BOMBSHELL! The Word did NOT JUST give the right to become children of God to those who received Him ... they were BORN! Those who received Him were born of God! (1:13).
Next, he summarizes what he's been saying, 1:14. The rest of what is commonly called the "Prologue," 1:14-18, recapulates and supplies more particulars, and even lets John tie himself into the story ("we saw His glory ..." (1:14)).
"We all received" (1:16) refers to something specific, as does "grace for grace." What was part of the glory, a fullness of grace and truth that the author saw in 1:14, is described as something specific, shared, here. Something "of His fullness," i.e. some part of it, we all received. Not only that! (the "and" here is forceful ....) It wasn't something skimpy. "Grace for grace" means repetition of it over time, solely because of the previous.
And no, Paul didn't write 1:17 and insert it in. It's Johannine language, which we recognize by the "came to be" literal. Grace and truth came to be through Jesus Christ. Another one of those forceful, emphatic "and" words. Grace AND truth came to be through Jesus Christ. Came to be right here among us, existing. Incarnate. How blessed to be those to whom this event, this Incarnation, has explained ... God! And, finally, we are ready to hear what John the Baptist had been saying, as the other evangelists do as well: all four gospel writers agree that Isaiah 40:3 refers to John the Baptist.
Thursday, January 01, 2015
Mk 1:1-13
To read Mark with some attempts at reading him afresh is good. He will be done with his story before you know it, and there are many things a cursory reading might miss. For example, his quotation gets critical attention, for essentially not having our footnote style. If "Isaiah the prophet" is a scroll, containing all the prophets, then Malachi will be on that scroll. Or perhaps he wanted to highlight verse 3 by direct mention of the source, and the other, Malachi quote, being from a "Minor Prophet," uncited for reasons of space.
But more important things than that are in this passage. Let's not read church history into this baptism of John's, or even something current into the word "baptism," for that matter. When the readers read "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" they were not compelled, as we tend to, think of ceremonies that forgive people. The phrase is completely capable of being heard as "a complete immersion in a change of heart, looking to forgiveness of sins." One hint of this is that the text says that John was "preaching" something, which emphasizes the content. The common presupposition that the baptized were doing an act to get a result: that's reading into it. Especially when the Lord comes and is baptized! We should realize that the Lord didn't come to a ceremony to get forgiveness of sins; but well might He attend and participate among those immersed in repentance, having a change of heart, regarding the forgiveness of sins. No need to look for tit-for-tat magical ceremonies here.
Why then the confession of sin? If you're dealing with forgiveness of sins, it will be no avail to not agree that they are there. Admitting one's sins publicly is so foreign to the "modern world" that we don't even have a day in America for dealing with our sins, speaking socially. We have days of sad remembrance, of wars fought, and other sad days for famous people's deaths, but isn't the closest thing in America something around Christmas time, "you better watch out ..." because of "Santa," or some kind of New Year's resolution tradition? At least resolutions imply changes from the previous. Nothing like the days of sackcloth and ashes in Nineveh, or the confessing of sins by those there in our text.
John however (John the Baptist) is making points from the details of the circumstance: now there's water, but the mightier One who is coming will "baptize you with the Holy Spirit." One of the reasons this remark is so hugely impactful is precisely because the contrast he is making between what water can do and what God will be doing. It is not "modalism" to identify "the Holy Spirit" as God. Someone is coming who will be utilizing, employing someone ... God! (whom John characteristically named in the standard deferential Jewish way, by the way, not "directly," but with more impact!). This mightier One will employ the Holy God in his ministry, just as the Baptist used water! He will very-much-so immerse you with Him. Fire emphasizes the holiness being present. Water is quite weak, compared to fire.
Mark characteristically ends this section with a note of urgency and drama. The Lord didn't come to hang with, and relax with. The most serious of serious work was being done.
But more important things than that are in this passage. Let's not read church history into this baptism of John's, or even something current into the word "baptism," for that matter. When the readers read "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" they were not compelled, as we tend to, think of ceremonies that forgive people. The phrase is completely capable of being heard as "a complete immersion in a change of heart, looking to forgiveness of sins." One hint of this is that the text says that John was "preaching" something, which emphasizes the content. The common presupposition that the baptized were doing an act to get a result: that's reading into it. Especially when the Lord comes and is baptized! We should realize that the Lord didn't come to a ceremony to get forgiveness of sins; but well might He attend and participate among those immersed in repentance, having a change of heart, regarding the forgiveness of sins. No need to look for tit-for-tat magical ceremonies here.
Why then the confession of sin? If you're dealing with forgiveness of sins, it will be no avail to not agree that they are there. Admitting one's sins publicly is so foreign to the "modern world" that we don't even have a day in America for dealing with our sins, speaking socially. We have days of sad remembrance, of wars fought, and other sad days for famous people's deaths, but isn't the closest thing in America something around Christmas time, "you better watch out ..." because of "Santa," or some kind of New Year's resolution tradition? At least resolutions imply changes from the previous. Nothing like the days of sackcloth and ashes in Nineveh, or the confessing of sins by those there in our text.
John however (John the Baptist) is making points from the details of the circumstance: now there's water, but the mightier One who is coming will "baptize you with the Holy Spirit." One of the reasons this remark is so hugely impactful is precisely because the contrast he is making between what water can do and what God will be doing. It is not "modalism" to identify "the Holy Spirit" as God. Someone is coming who will be utilizing, employing someone ... God! (whom John characteristically named in the standard deferential Jewish way, by the way, not "directly," but with more impact!). This mightier One will employ the Holy God in his ministry, just as the Baptist used water! He will very-much-so immerse you with Him. Fire emphasizes the holiness being present. Water is quite weak, compared to fire.
Mark characteristically ends this section with a note of urgency and drama. The Lord didn't come to hang with, and relax with. The most serious of serious work was being done.
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Acts 1
Since we might have difficulty because of different questions than the apostles have in Acts 1, we need to imagine what it was like to have been given orders by the resurrected Son of God, as Luke starts here by describing (Acts 1:2). As we read.
They wouldn't be asking about the relationship of the Lord's divine and human nature, or what was the best form of church government. What they did ask and learn was very much of-the-moment: they received "many convincing proofs" that the Lord was alive, for one thing. Also, they received orders to wait for "what the Father had promised" -- this, an amazing confirmation of what He had said the day He ate the fish with them (Lk 24:49).
As we continue to read in Acts 1, the whole series of events comes upon us so fast! "Forty days" is not a long time to be around "the first and the last, and the Living One," as He will explain later to John and us (Rev 1:18), that He "was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore" with these "many convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3).
It would not be unfair to wonder why He was to go after He said those things in Acts 1:8. And thus we are not far off from needing what the angels said to the apostles at the very time they could have been distressed: "why do you stand looking into the sky," they ask (1:11). But their exhortation wasn't something like "get to work!" but, as per the way things are done under the aegis of the new era, a promise was given them: the Lord "will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go" (1:11). A good question we can ask is "why was that told to them? What would that have added to their step, knowing what we do, two thousand years later?" Or is it, really, a good question? Lots of those "knowing what we do" assumptions should be revisited!
The disciples could not have but understood this as encouraging to them, that the Lord would come in just the same way as they watched Him go. To the theological mind, this might need "rephrasing," but don't dare do so. Keep the verse, lose the philosophy that prevents the significance of the verse from hitting you!
The rest of chapter 1 takes the form of a procedural issue that would seem to be a secondary matter to us, compared to other issues, but there it is. Another corrective of our common practice of reading what happened, but putting its significance as low for us.
One way to see why it was so significant to Peter, to replace the place of Judas among the apostles, is to remember what Jesus had been doing. He "presented Himself alive" ... "to them." Jesus was not presenting Himself to everyone, "not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead" (Acts 10:41). That's the background of the importance of the selection of Matthias (Acts 1:22ff). We want arm-chair discussions of why Judas, and Peter wants to make sure he synchronizes the actions of the apostles with the fact that the witnesses were "chosen beforehand by God."
They wouldn't be asking about the relationship of the Lord's divine and human nature, or what was the best form of church government. What they did ask and learn was very much of-the-moment: they received "many convincing proofs" that the Lord was alive, for one thing. Also, they received orders to wait for "what the Father had promised" -- this, an amazing confirmation of what He had said the day He ate the fish with them (Lk 24:49).
As we continue to read in Acts 1, the whole series of events comes upon us so fast! "Forty days" is not a long time to be around "the first and the last, and the Living One," as He will explain later to John and us (Rev 1:18), that He "was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore" with these "many convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3).
It would not be unfair to wonder why He was to go after He said those things in Acts 1:8. And thus we are not far off from needing what the angels said to the apostles at the very time they could have been distressed: "why do you stand looking into the sky," they ask (1:11). But their exhortation wasn't something like "get to work!" but, as per the way things are done under the aegis of the new era, a promise was given them: the Lord "will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go" (1:11). A good question we can ask is "why was that told to them? What would that have added to their step, knowing what we do, two thousand years later?" Or is it, really, a good question? Lots of those "knowing what we do" assumptions should be revisited!
The disciples could not have but understood this as encouraging to them, that the Lord would come in just the same way as they watched Him go. To the theological mind, this might need "rephrasing," but don't dare do so. Keep the verse, lose the philosophy that prevents the significance of the verse from hitting you!
The rest of chapter 1 takes the form of a procedural issue that would seem to be a secondary matter to us, compared to other issues, but there it is. Another corrective of our common practice of reading what happened, but putting its significance as low for us.
One way to see why it was so significant to Peter, to replace the place of Judas among the apostles, is to remember what Jesus had been doing. He "presented Himself alive" ... "to them." Jesus was not presenting Himself to everyone, "not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead" (Acts 10:41). That's the background of the importance of the selection of Matthias (Acts 1:22ff). We want arm-chair discussions of why Judas, and Peter wants to make sure he synchronizes the actions of the apostles with the fact that the witnesses were "chosen beforehand by God."
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Acts 18
Acts 18 has a very action-oriented pace and pragmatic aspect to it. In one case, people want an extended teaching time with Paul, but even he himself postpones the opportunity with them (18:21). In another case, he curtails his teaching to a group that "resisted and blasphemed" (18:6).
A good question, with all his traveling, is just how Paul was "strengthening all the disciples" during such a whirlwind trip "through the Galatian region and Phyrigia." (18:23). The outsider in Corinth heard little but "words and names and your own law (18:15)," which theological discussions sound like to an outsider, often nowadays as well.
Paul worked. He worked alongside "a Jew named Aquila" in the same trade (tent-makers, 18:3). All very pragmatic. But what did Paul do "in his spare time," as we say nowadays? "He was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks." (18:4).
In our day, "reasoning" and "trying to pursuade" is almost ridiculed. A current popular movie unconsciously testifies to the attempt to segregate a time of choice and deliberation to a very narrow time of life and a narrow set of choice points. One of the points of this movie (Divergent) is the fallacy of restricting the time and scope of human choice and deliberation.
"Trying to persuade Jews and Greeks" goes also against many theological systems which say in effect, that the attempt to pursuade is of very little use. That idea should be scuttled, since Paul did that kind of things for "a year and six months" (18:11), and did not leave due either to conflict (18:12) or to being forced to (18:18).
A detail we might overlook is that in "trying to persuade Jews and Greeks (18:4)," Paul very likely doubled his persuasion efforts, because of the separation normally likely to be the case, between groups of Jews and groups of Greeks in their social and religious gatherings.
A detail we might overlook is that in "trying to persuade Jews and Greeks (18:4)," Paul very likely doubled his persuasion efforts, because of the separation normally likely to be the case, between groups of Jews and groups of Greeks in their social and religious gatherings.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Lk 3 Studies, Pt 2
Continuing the discussion of Lk 3.
Lk 3:8
Q1. Can the presupposition that he was preaching to fake repenters in this verse be sustained?
No. That would be mistaking strong language for accusatory language in this verse. It starts with the big "therefore" to the answer to his previous question. "Therefore" ... in fleeing from the wrath to come, by coming out to be baptized by him, their obligation now (cf. 3:10-14) is to bear fruits. It is not the obligation of those who have not repented, to bear fruits in keeping with repentance, but those who have.
Q2. Is it irrelevant to true religion to have Abraham as father?
No. Paul doesn't think so in Rm 4:13-17a. Neither Jesus Himself, in Jn 8:39. John the Baptist's argument is more complicated than that. What is to be avoided, while bearing fruits in keeping with repentance? Saying to oneselves, "we have Abraham for our father." In the Greek, it's more of a categorical, using the accusative: "a father we have, namely, that Abraham." John the Baptist is telling them not to make that argument about themselves, which is a "standing pat"-type argument. Not that it's false. But they are not to use it in lieu of bearing fruits in keeping with repentance. They are to go with the repentance, over that fact.
Why? Because "from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham." This is often taken as, therefore it is of no consquence, to be Abraham's descendant. But God's ability to do this from stones ... that is not the ability to do something that's unimportant. To have repented, however, is a compelling fact, greater than to be Abraham's descendant, a fact to be taken as compelling action, no matter even that they are Abraham's descendants.
So to bear fruit worthy of repentance is far to be preferred to -- even -- being the great Abraham's descendants, because, though God is able to raise up children to Abraham from stones, in repenting and bearing fruit in keeping with it, they distinguish themselves from passivity. It's an activist argument. Act! Don't stand pat!
It also closes the argument started in 3:7. God has brought you to repentance. That's a great thing. What does God do? Since God can even make stones into grown up children of Abraham, let this repentance be for you a source of action such that God can even do with stones, turning them from their passivity. God can not only create children of Abraham from stones, but raise them up. God brought you to repentance. Go on in keeping with that! in keeping with how God can even do with stones!
Lk 3:8
Q1. Can the presupposition that he was preaching to fake repenters in this verse be sustained?
No. That would be mistaking strong language for accusatory language in this verse. It starts with the big "therefore" to the answer to his previous question. "Therefore" ... in fleeing from the wrath to come, by coming out to be baptized by him, their obligation now (cf. 3:10-14) is to bear fruits. It is not the obligation of those who have not repented, to bear fruits in keeping with repentance, but those who have.
Q2. Is it irrelevant to true religion to have Abraham as father?
No. Paul doesn't think so in Rm 4:13-17a. Neither Jesus Himself, in Jn 8:39. John the Baptist's argument is more complicated than that. What is to be avoided, while bearing fruits in keeping with repentance? Saying to oneselves, "we have Abraham for our father." In the Greek, it's more of a categorical, using the accusative: "a father we have, namely, that Abraham." John the Baptist is telling them not to make that argument about themselves, which is a "standing pat"-type argument. Not that it's false. But they are not to use it in lieu of bearing fruits in keeping with repentance. They are to go with the repentance, over that fact.
Why? Because "from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham." This is often taken as, therefore it is of no consquence, to be Abraham's descendant. But God's ability to do this from stones ... that is not the ability to do something that's unimportant. To have repented, however, is a compelling fact, greater than to be Abraham's descendant, a fact to be taken as compelling action, no matter even that they are Abraham's descendants.
So to bear fruit worthy of repentance is far to be preferred to -- even -- being the great Abraham's descendants, because, though God is able to raise up children to Abraham from stones, in repenting and bearing fruit in keeping with it, they distinguish themselves from passivity. It's an activist argument. Act! Don't stand pat!
It also closes the argument started in 3:7. God has brought you to repentance. That's a great thing. What does God do? Since God can even make stones into grown up children of Abraham, let this repentance be for you a source of action such that God can even do with stones, turning them from their passivity. God can not only create children of Abraham from stones, but raise them up. God brought you to repentance. Go on in keeping with that! in keeping with how God can even do with stones!
Sunday, June 08, 2014
Luke 3 studies Pt. 1
Something of a detour into the gospels will sometimes be shown, my having started a year-long study of them back on April 27.
Today, in looking at Lk 3:7-9, there are many questions for a person interested in the gospels and what they say on salvation to possibly consider; at least I think so.
Lk 3:7
Q1. Are the crowds addressed by John the Baptist as "you brood of vipers" all Pharisees?
The crowds addressed by John the Baptist here are not specifically Pharisees! These crowds were, therefore, broods of vipers, and not necessarily because they were Pharisees! What we know about this collection is that there were many instances of them: many instances of these crowds, since John "came into" many places: he "came into all the district around the Jordan." That refers to many instances of preaching. Secondly, they "were going out to be baptized by him." That refers to the same instances of the crowds, ones that were in all the district around. Not just one. The attribute "brood of vipers," therefore, cannot be restricted to the Pharisees.
Q2. What is the implied answer to John the Baptist's question in this verse?
That God Himself has warned them! John the Baptist uses this as the premise of what he says to them that follows. If God Himself warned them to flee from the wrath to come, then what John the Baptist says next makes sense. Since they fled, they must do what is in keeping with that flight. Otherwise, if they were not fleeing from the wrath to come, or if it was not God impelling them to, then there was no repentance to be in keeping with.
This answer gains support also from the way the topic starts: "You brood of vipers!" They are as he says they are. Do vipers know to avoid God's wrath to come? No. But they are a brood of vipers, so who but God could possibly have caused this unexpected event to have be happening at this present moment? If broods of vipers are fleeing from the wrath to come, by going out to be baptized by John the Baptist, they must have been warned to do so by God. And since they are coming out to a baptism of repentance, their repentance is something from which John also argues the ethical implications of: "therefore bear fruits ...." (cf. 3:7, RV/ASV mg, "worthy of your repentance" ... your repentance: John is arguing from its existence in them.)
Today, in looking at Lk 3:7-9, there are many questions for a person interested in the gospels and what they say on salvation to possibly consider; at least I think so.
Lk 3:7
Q1. Are the crowds addressed by John the Baptist as "you brood of vipers" all Pharisees?
The crowds addressed by John the Baptist here are not specifically Pharisees! These crowds were, therefore, broods of vipers, and not necessarily because they were Pharisees! What we know about this collection is that there were many instances of them: many instances of these crowds, since John "came into" many places: he "came into all the district around the Jordan." That refers to many instances of preaching. Secondly, they "were going out to be baptized by him." That refers to the same instances of the crowds, ones that were in all the district around. Not just one. The attribute "brood of vipers," therefore, cannot be restricted to the Pharisees.
Q2. What is the implied answer to John the Baptist's question in this verse?
That God Himself has warned them! John the Baptist uses this as the premise of what he says to them that follows. If God Himself warned them to flee from the wrath to come, then what John the Baptist says next makes sense. Since they fled, they must do what is in keeping with that flight. Otherwise, if they were not fleeing from the wrath to come, or if it was not God impelling them to, then there was no repentance to be in keeping with.
This answer gains support also from the way the topic starts: "You brood of vipers!" They are as he says they are. Do vipers know to avoid God's wrath to come? No. But they are a brood of vipers, so who but God could possibly have caused this unexpected event to have be happening at this present moment? If broods of vipers are fleeing from the wrath to come, by going out to be baptized by John the Baptist, they must have been warned to do so by God. And since they are coming out to a baptism of repentance, their repentance is something from which John also argues the ethical implications of: "therefore bear fruits ...." (cf. 3:7, RV/ASV mg, "worthy of your repentance" ... your repentance: John is arguing from its existence in them.)
Tuesday, April 08, 2014
Something had already happened in Philippi before 2:12
Philippians 2:12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for [His] good pleasure.
If God hadn't worked in the Philippians before (2:13 says He is at work in them), Paul could be telling them to work out many things, but how could he be telling them to work out their salvation? "Your salvation," that is, "your own salvation" (RV et al), is την εαυτων σωτηριαν. Let's recognize the plurals, including "your (pl) salvation." "Ye have always obeyed," says the AV/RV/ASV/YLT, which keeps the "ye" form, reflecting the plural address. So they were being told by Paul to work out their salvation. All those other translations, plus the RSV/ESV, from our times, shows the emphatically placed εαυτων adjective as present, by translating "your own salvation." Poetically sounding English, reflecting even more the Greek would say "the you-folks'-own salvation," the salvation that is you-folks' own!
What does this rule out? Acquisition! If their salvation is their own, it is not something they are to acquire. This simple Greek word εαυτων here has a Protestantism built right into it, we could say! ... at least, a Protestantism as it had started, which Trent remonstrated against back in 1546, against which the natural man rails, saying, how dare God presume to give me that great sine qua non, which I cannot say I must do some one good thing to obtain (Mt 19:16), or even possibly many things, to inherit (Mk 10:17; Lk 18:18) and establish (Rm 10:3)? How dare Paul tell them that something, salvation no less, is already their own.
If God hadn't worked in the Philippians before (2:13 says He is at work in them), Paul could be telling them to work out many things, but how could he be telling them to work out their salvation? "Your salvation," that is, "your own salvation" (RV et al), is την εαυτων σωτηριαν. Let's recognize the plurals, including "your (pl) salvation." "Ye have always obeyed," says the AV/RV/ASV/YLT, which keeps the "ye" form, reflecting the plural address. So they were being told by Paul to work out their salvation. All those other translations, plus the RSV/ESV, from our times, shows the emphatically placed εαυτων adjective as present, by translating "your own salvation." Poetically sounding English, reflecting even more the Greek would say "the you-folks'-own salvation," the salvation that is you-folks' own!
What does this rule out? Acquisition! If their salvation is their own, it is not something they are to acquire. This simple Greek word εαυτων here has a Protestantism built right into it, we could say! ... at least, a Protestantism as it had started, which Trent remonstrated against back in 1546, against which the natural man rails, saying, how dare God presume to give me that great sine qua non, which I cannot say I must do some one good thing to obtain (Mt 19:16), or even possibly many things, to inherit (Mk 10:17; Lk 18:18) and establish (Rm 10:3)? How dare Paul tell them that something, salvation no less, is already their own.
Tuesday, April 01, 2014
Forest and trees in Philippians 2:12ff.
What if Philippians 2:12-13 weren't there? What would be lost?
Likely nothing, if the meaning is being shoved into the verses from some other presupposition. The presupposition would likely show up, as an affliction upon other verses that are called upon to bear it.
If Philippians 2:12-13 were not there, where would there be as sweet an example-from-success, that would help us understand the Christian life as these two verses do, which build upon the success of "just as you have always obeyed..."?
We're not as familiar with success-driven tasks, as problem-driven ones. Think of the beginning of Romans, the universal indictment from Rm 1:18 through 3:20. Or 1 Corinthians, "now concerning the things about which you wrote," Paul says in 7:1, namely questions and problems.
Therefore wouldn't it be wrong to put a problem-fixing presupposition onto these two verses here? "Just as you have always obeyed ..." is not even the greatest positive example in the passage! Certainly it is this: "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and work for His good pleasure." This positive is not a "conditional promise." What condition is Paul making for it?
So, if Paul were writing a "study Bible" version of his letter, what would the section heading be here? Isn't "it is God who is at work in you" a section-heading-level statement?
For the logician, we can merely ask what the possible implications are, of "it is God who is at work in you." One of them, Paul says, is "work out your salvation with fear and trembling." Fear and trembling, as a positive? Yes! He is not discussing any kind of "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" besides the kind that is an inference from "it is God who is at work in you," and in light of their past obedience already.
Likely nothing, if the meaning is being shoved into the verses from some other presupposition. The presupposition would likely show up, as an affliction upon other verses that are called upon to bear it.
If Philippians 2:12-13 were not there, where would there be as sweet an example-from-success, that would help us understand the Christian life as these two verses do, which build upon the success of "just as you have always obeyed..."?
We're not as familiar with success-driven tasks, as problem-driven ones. Think of the beginning of Romans, the universal indictment from Rm 1:18 through 3:20. Or 1 Corinthians, "now concerning the things about which you wrote," Paul says in 7:1, namely questions and problems.
Therefore wouldn't it be wrong to put a problem-fixing presupposition onto these two verses here? "Just as you have always obeyed ..." is not even the greatest positive example in the passage! Certainly it is this: "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and work for His good pleasure." This positive is not a "conditional promise." What condition is Paul making for it?
So, if Paul were writing a "study Bible" version of his letter, what would the section heading be here? Isn't "it is God who is at work in you" a section-heading-level statement?
For the logician, we can merely ask what the possible implications are, of "it is God who is at work in you." One of them, Paul says, is "work out your salvation with fear and trembling." Fear and trembling, as a positive? Yes! He is not discussing any kind of "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" besides the kind that is an inference from "it is God who is at work in you," and in light of their past obedience already.
Saturday, March 29, 2014
working out your salvation in Philippians 2:12
Paul's "just as you have always obeyed ..." in Philippians 2:12 hopefully helps us understand what "work out your salvation" means in that same verse. However, there is so much more that Paul has said to the Philippians in this letter up to this point, that helps as well. In trying to understand what Paul means by the beginning of 2:12, "So then, my beloved, ..." we have to go back before 2:12. What is 2:12 the conclusion from?
His first exhortation to them is Philippians 1:27, "conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ": conduct worthy of the gospel of Christ is a unique phrase here, although conduct worthy of God and worthy of our calling is also in Paul's vocabulary. Because of the familiarity of the words "gospel" and "Christ" to us, we forget to listen to them like a First Century Philippian would. Conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the good news of Messiah. Hmm. Do we often think of conduct as something that is to line up with the recent good news we've been given (cf. 1:6,8,10,11)?
Their suffering is also very noteworthy to Paul, and He will mention the suffering of Christ in 2:8, although not by the word suffering, but by the word "obedient" (2:8). Similarly, the working out of their salvation is compared specifically with their past obedience, as its initial measure. Other than perhaps the military, we're not as familiar in our culture with devoted obedience as Paul's culture was. They obeyed while Paul was with them. But does it say to Paul? The immediate context is the obedience of Christ to the Father (2:8), and even the assertion that God highly exalted Christ because of His obedience to the Father. Only then does Paul say "just as you have always obeyed."
The working out of their salvation is an obedience just like they obeyed while Paul was with them, and the "much more" he exhorts them to, is in working out their salvation in the present ("now ... in my absence,"), and for the reason he states in 2:13.
What is the obedience that they always had? Obedience is a response word. If what a person does is only the things that a person initiates himself or herself, what is there of obedience in that? Paul deliberately refers them back to their time with him, and thus to what he has said about it in the letter so far. He refers them to a finite interval of time, in which they always obeyed, i.e., they responded to imperatives they were under by complying with them.
Christ humbled Himself in "becoming obedient" (2:8). This does not mean a transition from disobedience, to obedience, but refers to actions of Christ that complied with the will of God, "to the point of death, even death on a cross."
Therefore by directly discussing the working out of our salvation in the context of our obedience, Paul wants us to think of it together with instances of our past obedience, as motivation and standard (or if you prefer the order, as standard, and motivation). He compares this obedience to what they already successfully had done, and to the obedience of Christ to the point of death. Therefore our salvation places us under obligation to obey, in working it out, and this working out comes with accomplished examples of obedience, for them to consider, their own, and Christ's. There is no working out of our salvation that cannot draw from them.
His first exhortation to them is Philippians 1:27, "conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ": conduct worthy of the gospel of Christ is a unique phrase here, although conduct worthy of God and worthy of our calling is also in Paul's vocabulary. Because of the familiarity of the words "gospel" and "Christ" to us, we forget to listen to them like a First Century Philippian would. Conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the good news of Messiah. Hmm. Do we often think of conduct as something that is to line up with the recent good news we've been given (cf. 1:6,8,10,11)?
Their suffering is also very noteworthy to Paul, and He will mention the suffering of Christ in 2:8, although not by the word suffering, but by the word "obedient" (2:8). Similarly, the working out of their salvation is compared specifically with their past obedience, as its initial measure. Other than perhaps the military, we're not as familiar in our culture with devoted obedience as Paul's culture was. They obeyed while Paul was with them. But does it say to Paul? The immediate context is the obedience of Christ to the Father (2:8), and even the assertion that God highly exalted Christ because of His obedience to the Father. Only then does Paul say "just as you have always obeyed."
The working out of their salvation is an obedience just like they obeyed while Paul was with them, and the "much more" he exhorts them to, is in working out their salvation in the present ("now ... in my absence,"), and for the reason he states in 2:13.
What is the obedience that they always had? Obedience is a response word. If what a person does is only the things that a person initiates himself or herself, what is there of obedience in that? Paul deliberately refers them back to their time with him, and thus to what he has said about it in the letter so far. He refers them to a finite interval of time, in which they always obeyed, i.e., they responded to imperatives they were under by complying with them.
Christ humbled Himself in "becoming obedient" (2:8). This does not mean a transition from disobedience, to obedience, but refers to actions of Christ that complied with the will of God, "to the point of death, even death on a cross."
Therefore by directly discussing the working out of our salvation in the context of our obedience, Paul wants us to think of it together with instances of our past obedience, as motivation and standard (or if you prefer the order, as standard, and motivation). He compares this obedience to what they already successfully had done, and to the obedience of Christ to the point of death. Therefore our salvation places us under obligation to obey, in working it out, and this working out comes with accomplished examples of obedience, for them to consider, their own, and Christ's. There is no working out of our salvation that cannot draw from them.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Arguing from the past in Philippians 2:12
Continuing with Paul's important exhortation to the Philippians in 2:12-13, "so then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." We looked some at the "following-support" to Paul's exhortation "work out your salvation ...", which is the text of 2:13. But before the exhortation are the words from the beginning of the verse as above, which people often skip. This is the tail-end of what brings Paul to the exhortation. Why does he bring up their past obedience? Playing on their heart-strings? Emoting? No, although he loves them dearly, and loved them when they had met, and they always did what he said while he was with them. These two chapters to this point are filled with some of the most amazing expressions of warmth of heart, plus theology intertwined, ever written. Does "so then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but no much more in my absence" add nothing to the meaning of his exhortation? Of course it adds. What does it add? 1. Paul wants them to consider their past time with him and all they participated in while he was with them. 2. Why was he not with them now? He was in prison. He's writing a letter to those who he loves like crazy, from prison, saying over and over how great it was for them to have participated with him in this and that together. How great was that? 3. While he's in prison, he wants something to be "much more." Paul's love makes him want to turn their shared, obedient participation with him in the past, into a quantity argument about the future. He wants them to accept this quantity argument from him, that goes from their past obedient participation with him, toward a "much more" version in the future.
4. Why does Paul have the temerity to ask this, besides due to his love for them wanting the best? What makes him want a "much more"? Because although he's absent from them, he can remind them of God not being absent from them. A greater than Paul, who is among them as he can't be, gives him the temerity to exhort like this.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Philippians 2:12-13 introduction
A friend asked me to not be so negative, and put some things up that he could criticize(!) So here goes, some thoughts on Philippians 2:12-13, an important text in the Christian life, as if from a student, to another. Lord bless our exploration.
What is the relationship between God being "at work in you," which Paul tells the Philippians is true of them, and what Paul exhorts them to do, "work out your salvation with fear and trembling"?
The simple answer is that the first is a reason for the second. "For it is God who is at work in you." That's the immediate reason that Paul gives them for what he asks and exhorts and commands them to do. God is at work in them. That's the reason they should work out their salvation.
So before we ask questions of the form "why doesn't it mean what I think, namely, xyz," we should look at the passage on its own. The exhortation, "work out your salvation ..." is supported on both sides: before, and after. 2:13 is the "after"; 2:12a, is the "before" (if not the whole letter in some respects).
So we have prior-support, then the exhortation, then following-support. The following-support is very interesting, because of the fact that it supplies the premise (2:13) for an inference. How is 2:13 a reason for working out our salvation?
Has the fact that others are working with us ever given us a reason to work at something? How about if it is God, working in us? Should God working in us not give a sufficient reason to work something out? Especially if the very thing God is working on is the means that we humans get things done by using: our wills, and our deliberate actions. But how then is it our very salvation, that we are to work out?! More soon.
What is the relationship between God being "at work in you," which Paul tells the Philippians is true of them, and what Paul exhorts them to do, "work out your salvation with fear and trembling"?
The simple answer is that the first is a reason for the second. "For it is God who is at work in you." That's the immediate reason that Paul gives them for what he asks and exhorts and commands them to do. God is at work in them. That's the reason they should work out their salvation.
So before we ask questions of the form "why doesn't it mean what I think, namely, xyz," we should look at the passage on its own. The exhortation, "work out your salvation ..." is supported on both sides: before, and after. 2:13 is the "after"; 2:12a, is the "before" (if not the whole letter in some respects).
So we have prior-support, then the exhortation, then following-support. The following-support is very interesting, because of the fact that it supplies the premise (2:13) for an inference. How is 2:13 a reason for working out our salvation?
Has the fact that others are working with us ever given us a reason to work at something? How about if it is God, working in us? Should God working in us not give a sufficient reason to work something out? Especially if the very thing God is working on is the means that we humans get things done by using: our wills, and our deliberate actions. But how then is it our very salvation, that we are to work out?! More soon.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Timeframes for each chapter of Romans when reading Moo
It's been awhile since we read in Moo together, and since we're almost through with his "Introduction" (!), I thought I'd put the timeframes for reading each chapter of Romans together with the Moo 1996 commentary in one year, going at Moo's pace, reading his commentary including his essays embedded in it, at a steady pace throughout the one year.
After taking 14 days on his introduction,
chapter 1 -- 35 days
chapter 2 -- 20 days
chapter 3 -- 30 days
chapter 4 -- 14 days (!)
chapter 5 -- 23 days
chapter 6 -- 23 days
chapter 7 -- 22 days
chapter 8 -- 31 days
chapter 9 -- 33 days
chapter 10 -- 15 days
chapter 11 -- 28 days (!)
chapter 12 -- 19 days
chapter 13 -- 14 days
chapter 14 -- 14 days
chapter 15 -- 19 days
chapter 16 -- 11 days
After taking 14 days on his introduction,
chapter 1 -- 35 days
chapter 2 -- 20 days
chapter 3 -- 30 days
chapter 4 -- 14 days (!)
chapter 5 -- 23 days
chapter 6 -- 23 days
chapter 7 -- 22 days
chapter 8 -- 31 days
chapter 9 -- 33 days
chapter 10 -- 15 days
chapter 11 -- 28 days (!)
chapter 12 -- 19 days
chapter 13 -- 14 days
chapter 14 -- 14 days
chapter 15 -- 19 days
chapter 16 -- 11 days
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Romans 1:28-2:11 timeframe
Romans 1:28-32 is for May 16-19 (-p. 116 in the Moo commentary on Romans).
Romans 2:1-11 is for May 19-27 (-p. 145 in the Moo commentary on Romans)
Romans 2:1-11 is for May 19-27 (-p. 145 in the Moo commentary on Romans)
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Romans 1:26-27 timeframe
Romans 1:26-27 is for May 15-16 (- p. 116 in the Moo commentary on Romans).
Monday, May 13, 2013
Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 12 of 14)
(pp. 29-31)
The alternatives that the author discusses on what the theme of Romans is will all sound very similar, to the point that we wonder what fussing there must be among scholars. Is the difference, then, like something that one observer sees in a painting as the main interest of the painter, versus what another observer sees?
First, we should test the idea of the author, that the gospel is the theme of Romans, for comprehensibility. Does he use a defined term?
The previous page has an explanation, which will serve for now, we must suppose: "how God has acted in Christ to bring the individual sinner into a new relationship with himself (chaps 1-4), to provide for that individual's eternal life (chaps. 5-8), and to transform that individual's life on earth now (12:1-15:13)" (p. 28).
Another thing, before the reader must go on in the next few pages armed with definitions of "miniscule" and "uncial," and when the author says UBS, don't look at the bottom for a footnote about it (!). "4" is not a footnote number on these pages! The author, in interacting with scholars who "vote" differently on the theme, says why their vote wasn't his....
Not "justification by faith," because, although true, it doesn't cover everything. But very interestingly, "it expresses, in the sphere of anthropology, a crucial element in Paul's understanding of God's work in Christ." (p. 29). The gospel makes sense as being about God's work, news about which, there now is! Justification by faith "expresses ... its entirely gracious character" (p. 29).
This phrase, "in the sphere of anthropology," surely does justice far better than the sloganeering to the effect that "it's not about me." Yes, the gospel is about God's work, and justification by faith is "a crucial element." Not an "anachronism." (p. 28). Best of all, "it expresses the resolute resistance of Paul, and the NT authors, to the constant human tendency to make what people do decisive for salvation." (p. 29). Amen. Luther's back.
The alternatives that the author discusses on what the theme of Romans is will all sound very similar, to the point that we wonder what fussing there must be among scholars. Is the difference, then, like something that one observer sees in a painting as the main interest of the painter, versus what another observer sees?
First, we should test the idea of the author, that the gospel is the theme of Romans, for comprehensibility. Does he use a defined term?
The previous page has an explanation, which will serve for now, we must suppose: "how God has acted in Christ to bring the individual sinner into a new relationship with himself (chaps 1-4), to provide for that individual's eternal life (chaps. 5-8), and to transform that individual's life on earth now (12:1-15:13)" (p. 28).
Another thing, before the reader must go on in the next few pages armed with definitions of "miniscule" and "uncial," and when the author says UBS, don't look at the bottom for a footnote about it (!). "4" is not a footnote number on these pages! The author, in interacting with scholars who "vote" differently on the theme, says why their vote wasn't his....
Not "justification by faith," because, although true, it doesn't cover everything. But very interestingly, "it expresses, in the sphere of anthropology, a crucial element in Paul's understanding of God's work in Christ." (p. 29). The gospel makes sense as being about God's work, news about which, there now is! Justification by faith "expresses ... its entirely gracious character" (p. 29).
This phrase, "in the sphere of anthropology," surely does justice far better than the sloganeering to the effect that "it's not about me." Yes, the gospel is about God's work, and justification by faith is "a crucial element." Not an "anachronism." (p. 28). Best of all, "it expresses the resolute resistance of Paul, and the NT authors, to the constant human tendency to make what people do decisive for salvation." (p. 29). Amen. Luther's back.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Monday, May 06, 2013
Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 11 of 14)
(pp. 27-28)
There are so many sources of good quotes on these two pages of the commentary by Moo on Romans that I certainly must recommend them highly. This is especially true if you are involved in the discussion of the various interpretations of the letter that are circulating, to the effect that Paul's main concern is a very human, horizontal concern, how Jews and Gentiles should relate, rather than the vertical concern, how a human being can relate to God, whatever race or races.
"The bulk of Romans focuses on how God has acted in Christ ...." Amen. This is the "reality" part. As it refers to the Jews / Gentiles, this is referring to God's actions that addressed the different status of real people that are either part of, or not part of, the covenant God had made to the Jews. This is the "what," the "what God did" part.
Also, there is the "meaning of" part. When discussing what the law and gospel mean, that is where the relationship between the concepts, where the discussion of continuity and consistency and advancement and difference and dissimilarity come about. Can we understand the meaning of what God did, and understand its relationship to the meaning of what God already had done? That is the "meaning of what God did" part.
In this second area, the commentary (p. 28) does well to bring out 3:31 and 8:4. In the area of meaning, Christianity establishes the law, and in the area of reality, Christ fulfills the law.
There are so many sources of good quotes on these two pages of the commentary by Moo on Romans that I certainly must recommend them highly. This is especially true if you are involved in the discussion of the various interpretations of the letter that are circulating, to the effect that Paul's main concern is a very human, horizontal concern, how Jews and Gentiles should relate, rather than the vertical concern, how a human being can relate to God, whatever race or races.
"The bulk of Romans focuses on how God has acted in Christ ...." Amen. This is the "reality" part. As it refers to the Jews / Gentiles, this is referring to God's actions that addressed the different status of real people that are either part of, or not part of, the covenant God had made to the Jews. This is the "what," the "what God did" part.
Also, there is the "meaning of" part. When discussing what the law and gospel mean, that is where the relationship between the concepts, where the discussion of continuity and consistency and advancement and difference and dissimilarity come about. Can we understand the meaning of what God did, and understand its relationship to the meaning of what God already had done? That is the "meaning of what God did" part.
In this second area, the commentary (p. 28) does well to bring out 3:31 and 8:4. In the area of meaning, Christianity establishes the law, and in the area of reality, Christ fulfills the law.
Romans 1:18-23 timeframe
Romans 1:18-23 is for May 5 - 13 (- p. 110 in the Moo commentary on Romans).
Monday, April 29, 2013
Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 10 of 14)
(pp. 24-26)
It's wonderful to take Christ, as Moo does, as the "theological starting point" of Romans. His twofold reason is not only the content of Romans, including the beginning verses, but also the fact that the Roman Christians could start there too. This is actually more helpful than a jaded reader might initially think. What if a commentator had taken "Existence" as a starting point?
Similarly, it's helpful to take "salvation history" as a framework for what Paul says in Romans, what Moo does. In a little, after reminding us of the possible vagueness of words like the "center" of Paul's theology, and even the word "theme," as assumptive without reason of only one theme, he'll get to his candidate.
The many far-reaching theological statements on p. 26 sound like conclusions to be considered after reading the letter, and so, with Cranfield's proper warning we noticed earlier, I think they should be just "duly noted" for now.
It's wonderful to take Christ, as Moo does, as the "theological starting point" of Romans. His twofold reason is not only the content of Romans, including the beginning verses, but also the fact that the Roman Christians could start there too. This is actually more helpful than a jaded reader might initially think. What if a commentator had taken "Existence" as a starting point?
Similarly, it's helpful to take "salvation history" as a framework for what Paul says in Romans, what Moo does. In a little, after reminding us of the possible vagueness of words like the "center" of Paul's theology, and even the word "theme," as assumptive without reason of only one theme, he'll get to his candidate.
The many far-reaching theological statements on p. 26 sound like conclusions to be considered after reading the letter, and so, with Cranfield's proper warning we noticed earlier, I think they should be just "duly noted" for now.
Romans 1:16-17 timeframe
Romans 1:16-17 is for April 25 - May 5 (- p. 90 in the Moo commentary on Romans).
Monday, April 22, 2013
Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 9 of 14)
(pp. 22-23)
The Muratorian canon on Romans, in saying "[Paul] wrote at greater depth [than in Corinthians or Galatians], concerning the plan of the Scriptures, showing at the same time that their foundation is Christ," (p. 22), warms right up to the theme of Romans.
Only second best is Moo's summary of Romans themes: "the continuity of God's plan of salvation, the sin and need of human beings, God's provision for our sin problem in Christ, the means to a life of holiness, and security in the face of suffering and death." Second best, I think, because to be all up-to-speed on all these themes, without Christ Himself, would be the worst thing, like gaining the whole world, and forfeiting oneself. Conversely, having Christ Himself, all these things have or will be given to us, in God's time.
The Muratorian canon on Romans, in saying "[Paul] wrote at greater depth [than in Corinthians or Galatians], concerning the plan of the Scriptures, showing at the same time that their foundation is Christ," (p. 22), warms right up to the theme of Romans.
Only second best is Moo's summary of Romans themes: "the continuity of God's plan of salvation, the sin and need of human beings, God's provision for our sin problem in Christ, the means to a life of holiness, and security in the face of suffering and death." Second best, I think, because to be all up-to-speed on all these themes, without Christ Himself, would be the worst thing, like gaining the whole world, and forfeiting oneself. Conversely, having Christ Himself, all these things have or will be given to us, in God's time.
Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 8 of 14)
(pp. 19-21)
One of the benefits of these pages in which the author discusses theories of why Paul wrote Romans to the Romans, besides the fact that we get all these references to the authors who have said this and that, is the carefulness with which the author deals with others' positions.
He's "walking on eggshells" here, trying to appeal to readers of his commentary who as scholars are aware of the need to consider what others say. So here, professor Moo is gently showing us that positions that discount Paul's theological reasons (do they all seem to derive from the F.C. Baur writing?) are "going too far." The last sentence on p. 21 is the best: "The legitimate desire to pin down as precisely as possible the historical background and purpose of the letter should not obscure the degree to which Romans deals with theological issues raised by the nature of God's revelation itself" (pp. 21-22).
One of the benefits of these pages in which the author discusses theories of why Paul wrote Romans to the Romans, besides the fact that we get all these references to the authors who have said this and that, is the carefulness with which the author deals with others' positions.
He's "walking on eggshells" here, trying to appeal to readers of his commentary who as scholars are aware of the need to consider what others say. So here, professor Moo is gently showing us that positions that discount Paul's theological reasons (do they all seem to derive from the F.C. Baur writing?) are "going too far." The last sentence on p. 21 is the best: "The legitimate desire to pin down as precisely as possible the historical background and purpose of the letter should not obscure the degree to which Romans deals with theological issues raised by the nature of God's revelation itself" (pp. 21-22).
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Monday, April 15, 2013
Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 7 of 14)
(pp. 16-18)
One thing that is hidden by comparing the use of older names such as Melancthon's to newer names such as F.C. Baur's (not that new!), and to times such as "the last three decades" is the ad novum fallacy. There are many today who view Romans as Melancthon did, and and many then who viewed Romans as F.C. Baur and many in the last thirty years have.
But commentators have to keep abreast of research, and Moo doesn't, after all, directly advocate a view that restricts the meaning of Romans to a particular time.
However, doesn't it seem from Romans 1 that we already have the purpose of Paul in writing to the Romans? "I long to see you, in order that I might impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established, " etc. Is that not a sufficient reason to write to them? It may not be a polemic-theological thing, but it's certainly enough.
One thing that is hidden by comparing the use of older names such as Melancthon's to newer names such as F.C. Baur's (not that new!), and to times such as "the last three decades" is the ad novum fallacy. There are many today who view Romans as Melancthon did, and and many then who viewed Romans as F.C. Baur and many in the last thirty years have.
But commentators have to keep abreast of research, and Moo doesn't, after all, directly advocate a view that restricts the meaning of Romans to a particular time.
However, doesn't it seem from Romans 1 that we already have the purpose of Paul in writing to the Romans? "I long to see you, in order that I might impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established, " etc. Is that not a sufficient reason to write to them? It may not be a polemic-theological thing, but it's certainly enough.
Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 6 of 14)
(pp. 14-15)
Cranfield in the first few pages of his introduction to his commentary on Romans cautions against making conclusions for the reader, before the reader has gone through the book with him. The caution is well-taken, and here we should read our author with a grain of salt, remembering that he has gone through his research, and is ever-so-tempted by thrill of discovery perhaps, to blurt things out. "The relationship between Jew and Gentile, law and gospel" indeed!
What else, besides adding to this list, or taking away from it, and substituting other things to it, can a comment on the nature of the book do? Well, it depends on what the book is about. Is Romans about ... concepts? The relationship between Jew and Gentile, and the relationship between law and gospel are, both ... concepts!
To the extent that we think we're going to be dealing with concepts alone, we forget our personal God.
Cranfield in the first few pages of his introduction to his commentary on Romans cautions against making conclusions for the reader, before the reader has gone through the book with him. The caution is well-taken, and here we should read our author with a grain of salt, remembering that he has gone through his research, and is ever-so-tempted by thrill of discovery perhaps, to blurt things out. "The relationship between Jew and Gentile, law and gospel" indeed!
What else, besides adding to this list, or taking away from it, and substituting other things to it, can a comment on the nature of the book do? Well, it depends on what the book is about. Is Romans about ... concepts? The relationship between Jew and Gentile, and the relationship between law and gospel are, both ... concepts!
To the extent that we think we're going to be dealing with concepts alone, we forget our personal God.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 5 of 14)
(pp. 11-13)
If adducing the audience depends only on the meaning of specific portions of the text of Romans that addresses the audience directly, a whole class of evidence based on content is ignored.
For example, some weight should be given, in Romans 1, besides vv.5-6 which are discussed, to "holy Scriptures" and "prophets" in 1:2, which are not discussed. The most natural understanding of these two references in 1:2 is that Paul is speaking to people who know both what these things are, and that they are sources of God's announcements beforehand. If he we speaking to the minority portion of his audience, would he have opened with these assertions, which are stated as if already accepted?
If adducing the audience depends only on the meaning of specific portions of the text of Romans that addresses the audience directly, a whole class of evidence based on content is ignored.
For example, some weight should be given, in Romans 1, besides vv.5-6 which are discussed, to "holy Scriptures" and "prophets" in 1:2, which are not discussed. The most natural understanding of these two references in 1:2 is that Paul is speaking to people who know both what these things are, and that they are sources of God's announcements beforehand. If he we speaking to the minority portion of his audience, would he have opened with these assertions, which are stated as if already accepted?
Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 4 of 14)
(pp. 9-10)
To read this section for the first time is like listening to discussion about an issue that must be important for some otherwise unknown reason to us readers. What is the importance behind just exactly the proportion of Gentile converts to Jewish converts in Rome? It's one of those issues that somebody, some people, are making much of, elsewhere, and the author is painstakingly keeping us out of that discussion, knowing that the audience includes some heavy investors in one or other of the possible conclusions.
This happens quite a bit, doesn't it? There is a natural variety in the language of address to subgroups, in a group letter. To call such things "paradox" and "mixed signals" is the classic mountain of Mishnah on the beanhill of Torah.
To read this section for the first time is like listening to discussion about an issue that must be important for some otherwise unknown reason to us readers. What is the importance behind just exactly the proportion of Gentile converts to Jewish converts in Rome? It's one of those issues that somebody, some people, are making much of, elsewhere, and the author is painstakingly keeping us out of that discussion, knowing that the audience includes some heavy investors in one or other of the possible conclusions.
This happens quite a bit, doesn't it? There is a natural variety in the language of address to subgroups, in a group letter. To call such things "paradox" and "mixed signals" is the classic mountain of Mishnah on the beanhill of Torah.
Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 3 of 14)
(pp. 6-8)
The prior difficulty in approaching a discussion of the manuscript differences in the form of Romans 14-16 should be stated explicitly, because the author doesn't mention it explicitly. The various textual evidence being looked at all has different estimates as to their dates!
Moreover, the evidence for a different form to the ending of Romans is discussed by combining the evidence of the Latin translations and the original Greek. It should be made explicit why Latin translations should enter into the discussion. Latin translations are proper evidence simply because the subject is the form, not the meaning of the words. A Latin translation is a witness to whether the chapters or passages are there in what it is translating from, nothing more, in this case.
The prior difficulty in approaching a discussion of the manuscript differences in the form of Romans 14-16 should be stated explicitly, because the author doesn't mention it explicitly. The various textual evidence being looked at all has different estimates as to their dates!
Moreover, the evidence for a different form to the ending of Romans is discussed by combining the evidence of the Latin translations and the original Greek. It should be made explicit why Latin translations should enter into the discussion. Latin translations are proper evidence simply because the subject is the form, not the meaning of the words. A Latin translation is a witness to whether the chapters or passages are there in what it is translating from, nothing more, in this case.
Wednesday, April 03, 2013
Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 2 of 14)
(pp. 4-5)
It is impossible not to notice how well this introductory material is divided between text and footnote. If we want to look up the exact sources for various primary data, whether Suetonius or Philo, we can see that the writer has found them and documented them for us. How important is the make up, percentage-wise, of those to whom Paul writes Romans, between Jews and Gentiles?
From the letter itself, with its detailed Scriptural argument and quotation, the recipients of the letter could hardly have been unaware of the authoritative Old Testament from which Paul quotes so much. The detailed timing arguments in chapter 4 of his letter, not to mention the classic one-of-a-kind marker of Jewish piety, their own Scriptures being their own best critic, makes Paul's remarks in Romans 2 and 9-11 earmarked for his fellow Jews.
It is impossible not to notice how well this introductory material is divided between text and footnote. If we want to look up the exact sources for various primary data, whether Suetonius or Philo, we can see that the writer has found them and documented them for us. How important is the make up, percentage-wise, of those to whom Paul writes Romans, between Jews and Gentiles?
From the letter itself, with its detailed Scriptural argument and quotation, the recipients of the letter could hardly have been unaware of the authoritative Old Testament from which Paul quotes so much. The detailed timing arguments in chapter 4 of his letter, not to mention the classic one-of-a-kind marker of Jewish piety, their own Scriptures being their own best critic, makes Paul's remarks in Romans 2 and 9-11 earmarked for his fellow Jews.
Monday, April 01, 2013
Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 1 of 14)
(pp. 1-3)
Let's discuss Romans, and Moo together (his 1996 commentary on Romans)
The introduction mentions what Romans has meant to Luther, and Draxe: gospel for Luther, saving doctrine for Draxe, and for Moo, first of all, something written out of specific context. Does our idea of Romans correspond more closely to any of these three than the other?
The third approach is the author's cautionary safeguard against taking Romans as "a systematic theology." What is this meant to exclude? We see that the author believes that Romans has "a message," and that it, the message, is "timeless." Is the caution against taking the assertions of Romans, directly, without forming them into a message? It is very common to take plain assertions of a Bible text as absolutes, instead of as out of a specific context. It is also very common to disallow the plain assertions of a Bible text, and take a formulated "message" as absolute. In doing that kind of thing, there's often a selectivity factor applied, where someone takes a set of verses X as their plain assertions, and another set of verses Y as needing to be understood in their context producing a "message" Z. Then, that "message" is then combined with X, usually to overrule it. A different person combines and selects differently.
Paul's situation leads the author to say that Paul is writing at a time when he is hoping to heal the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the early church. He bases this idea (p. 3) on Romans 15:31 (p. 2).
Let's discuss Romans, and Moo together (his 1996 commentary on Romans)
The introduction mentions what Romans has meant to Luther, and Draxe: gospel for Luther, saving doctrine for Draxe, and for Moo, first of all, something written out of specific context. Does our idea of Romans correspond more closely to any of these three than the other?
The third approach is the author's cautionary safeguard against taking Romans as "a systematic theology." What is this meant to exclude? We see that the author believes that Romans has "a message," and that it, the message, is "timeless." Is the caution against taking the assertions of Romans, directly, without forming them into a message? It is very common to take plain assertions of a Bible text as absolutes, instead of as out of a specific context. It is also very common to disallow the plain assertions of a Bible text, and take a formulated "message" as absolute. In doing that kind of thing, there's often a selectivity factor applied, where someone takes a set of verses X as their plain assertions, and another set of verses Y as needing to be understood in their context producing a "message" Z. Then, that "message" is then combined with X, usually to overrule it. A different person combines and selects differently.
Paul's situation leads the author to say that Paul is writing at a time when he is hoping to heal the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the early church. He bases this idea (p. 3) on Romans 15:31 (p. 2).
Monday, March 25, 2013
What is it like to read Romans at Doug Moo's rate?
If we're preparing to read Romans along with Doug Moo's commentary, at Doug Moo's rate of discussion spread over a year (about 18 pp. / week), then here are some broad dates of progress, and thus dates of discussion here! The percentages are the changes in Moo's rate compared to a constant reading rate. (If, on the other hand, you're regular-schedule-driven, after this is a sample 15 week semester schedule for reading).
Introduction - April 1 - 14
Romans 1 - April 15 - May 19 (34% more time)
Romans 2 - May 20 - June 8 (24% less time)
Romans 3 - June 9 - July 8 (50% more time)
Romans 4 - July 9 - July 22 (18% less time)
Romans 5 - July 23 - August 14 (21% more time)
Romans 6 - August 15 - Sept 7 (20% more time)
Romans 7 - Sept 8 - Sept 29 (31% less time)
Romans 8 - Sept 30 - Oct 30 (16% less time)
Romans 9 - Oct 31 - Dec 1 (88% more time)
Romans 10 - Dec 2 - Dec 16 (12% less time)
Romans 11 - Dec 17 - Jan 15 (3% more time)
Romans 12 - Jan 16 - Feb 1 (same time)
Romans 13 - Feb 2 - Feb 15 (27% more time)
Romans 14 - Feb 16 - Mar 1 (26% less time)
Romans 15 - Mar 2 - Mar 20 (30% less time)
Romans 16 - Mar 21 - Mar 31 (48% less time)
or, in a semester,
Week 1 - Introducton; Rm 1:1-15
Week 2 - Rm 1:16-32
Week 3 - Rm 2:1 - 29
Week 4 - Rm 3:1-31
Week 5 - Rm 4:1 - 5:11
Week 6 - Rm 5:12 - 6:7
Week 7 - Rm 6:8 - 7:12
Week 8 - Rm 7:13 - 8:17
Week 9 - Rm 8:17 - 9:5
Week 10 - Rm 9:6-33
Week 11 - Rm 10:1 - 11:10
Week 12 - Rm 11:11 - 12:2
Week 13 - Rm 12:3 - 13:10
Week 14 - Rm 13:11 - 15:6
Week 15: Rm 15:7 - 16:27
Introduction - April 1 - 14
Romans 1 - April 15 - May 19 (34% more time)
Romans 2 - May 20 - June 8 (24% less time)
Romans 3 - June 9 - July 8 (50% more time)
Romans 4 - July 9 - July 22 (18% less time)
Romans 5 - July 23 - August 14 (21% more time)
Romans 6 - August 15 - Sept 7 (20% more time)
Romans 7 - Sept 8 - Sept 29 (31% less time)
Romans 8 - Sept 30 - Oct 30 (16% less time)
Romans 9 - Oct 31 - Dec 1 (88% more time)
Romans 10 - Dec 2 - Dec 16 (12% less time)
Romans 11 - Dec 17 - Jan 15 (3% more time)
Romans 12 - Jan 16 - Feb 1 (same time)
Romans 13 - Feb 2 - Feb 15 (27% more time)
Romans 14 - Feb 16 - Mar 1 (26% less time)
Romans 15 - Mar 2 - Mar 20 (30% less time)
Romans 16 - Mar 21 - Mar 31 (48% less time)
or, in a semester,
Week 1 - Introducton; Rm 1:1-15
Week 2 - Rm 1:16-32
Week 3 - Rm 2:1 - 29
Week 4 - Rm 3:1-31
Week 5 - Rm 4:1 - 5:11
Week 6 - Rm 5:12 - 6:7
Week 7 - Rm 6:8 - 7:12
Week 8 - Rm 7:13 - 8:17
Week 9 - Rm 8:17 - 9:5
Week 10 - Rm 9:6-33
Week 11 - Rm 10:1 - 11:10
Week 12 - Rm 11:11 - 12:2
Week 13 - Rm 12:3 - 13:10
Week 14 - Rm 13:11 - 15:6
Week 15: Rm 15:7 - 16:27
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Saturday, September 22, 2012
New Year: 1 Cor 6-9 for Dec 2
The so-called distinction between doctrine and practice is not here in 1 Corinthians 6-9. One of the most neglected parts of eschatology (6:2) is used to rebuke a behavior issue, that of the use of the Roman courts among them.
In one of the ironies of context, the intensely famous use of 1 Cor 6:9-11 to distinguish between church members is proven by its context to be a misuse. Paul is listing people outside the church, in order to show them that they (6:3) are not to consider outsiders as arbiters of righteousness.
In one of the ironies of context, the intensely famous use of 1 Cor 6:9-11 to distinguish between church members is proven by its context to be a misuse. Paul is listing people outside the church, in order to show them that they (6:3) are not to consider outsiders as arbiters of righteousness.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
New Year: 1 Cor 1-5 for Dec 1
These chapters immediately show that Paul's thinking is not limited to the subjects of the treatise-like letter to the Romans. It's not just that Paul addresses very understandable practical problems, almost right off (1:10ff) in 1 Corinthians. The theology of Paul is significantly increased by 1 Corinthians. Reading in canonical order helps see that!
For example, the whole theme of nullifying (1:28), and its relationship to God's calling of the "things that are not...." Could we have guessed this from Romans? The closest parallel might be the idea that all the world is accountable to God, in Romans 3, or even better, the verse that formed the idea for the title of my blog, Romans 3:27. Boasting is excluded. Boasting is nullified. But nullification directed toward not an attitude but an "existent" thing (1:28) and its relationship to what the makeup of the called Christian body is? That's new.
Some things are wonderful elaborations of the thoughts that also occur in Romans. At the end of 1 Cor 3, there is a great elaboration of Romans 8's "will he not with Him freely give us all things?" in Paul's very memorable "all things are yours...."
For example, the whole theme of nullifying (1:28), and its relationship to God's calling of the "things that are not...." Could we have guessed this from Romans? The closest parallel might be the idea that all the world is accountable to God, in Romans 3, or even better, the verse that formed the idea for the title of my blog, Romans 3:27. Boasting is excluded. Boasting is nullified. But nullification directed toward not an attitude but an "existent" thing (1:28) and its relationship to what the makeup of the called Christian body is? That's new.
Some things are wonderful elaborations of the thoughts that also occur in Romans. At the end of 1 Cor 3, there is a great elaboration of Romans 8's "will he not with Him freely give us all things?" in Paul's very memorable "all things are yours...."
Friday, December 16, 2011
New Year: Rm 14-16 for Nov 30
Romans is very unusually broad in its ethical section compared to the many letters (e.g. to the Corinthians and Thessalonians) in which Paul addresses specific problems. Here (15:14) much less so.
This has seldom been taken into account, so that the overarching nature of his approach to the Christian life in chapters 12ff. has been minimized. The things that Paul emphasizes ethically in these chapters should be considered as foundational to the Christian life as his doctrine in chapters 1-11.
For example, just as the first imperative in the doctrinal section to the Romans was for them to consider themselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus (6:11), being alive to God is his first principle behind ethics in 12:1. 6:13 moves to 12:1, as though the whole middle of the letter was needed to support the subject!
Having related the "vertical" aspects of our Christian life (13:14) to the "horizontal" (13:10-13), Paul continues in chapter 14 with the horizontal, which amounts to the building up of one another (14:19). In yet another defiance of Hume's rule that we cannot derive "ought" from "is," Paul says "for even Christ did not please Himself ..." (15:3), and to "accept one another" (15:7), because Christ became a servant of Jew and Gentile (15:8-9). Having recently gone through Acts, we can see how clearly God answered Paul's prayers of 15:31, and his proleptic statement of 16:26. "To the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen."
This has seldom been taken into account, so that the overarching nature of his approach to the Christian life in chapters 12ff. has been minimized. The things that Paul emphasizes ethically in these chapters should be considered as foundational to the Christian life as his doctrine in chapters 1-11.
For example, just as the first imperative in the doctrinal section to the Romans was for them to consider themselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus (6:11), being alive to God is his first principle behind ethics in 12:1. 6:13 moves to 12:1, as though the whole middle of the letter was needed to support the subject!
Having related the "vertical" aspects of our Christian life (13:14) to the "horizontal" (13:10-13), Paul continues in chapter 14 with the horizontal, which amounts to the building up of one another (14:19). In yet another defiance of Hume's rule that we cannot derive "ought" from "is," Paul says "for even Christ did not please Himself ..." (15:3), and to "accept one another" (15:7), because Christ became a servant of Jew and Gentile (15:8-9). Having recently gone through Acts, we can see how clearly God answered Paul's prayers of 15:31, and his proleptic statement of 16:26. "To the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen."
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
New Year: Rm 10-13 for Nov 29
"Those who were chosen obtained it," Paul says about what Israel was seeking, but "the rest were hardened...." (11:7). In Romans 9 (cf. 9:18) God's prerogative to show mercy on whomever He wants to is defended. In chapters 10-11, however, and even in 9:30-33, Paul brings up what is there for human beings to deal with, near-at-hand, to speak about: he talks about how "the righteousness out of faith speaks as follows ..." (10:6). What follows is not only THAT God has provided His righteousness for "everyone who believes" (10:3-4), but how "'the Word is near you ...'" (10:8).
There is a danger that we might miss the forest for the trees in what Paul is saying in Romans 10. The quotations and illustrations of 10:6-8 are not to be illustrations of the means of salvation, i.e., confessing this one fact, believing this one fact, but they are illustrations and quotations about Christ, for showing that Christ's resurrection and exalted position go together with our salvation and righteousness, and are in fact as present as what the mouth already says and the heart already believes, which came from the word of faith that Paul preaches (10:8).
In 10;6, the attitude that there are only a few accomplished souls, maybe somewhere, who can do the job of going to heaven to bring Christ down to our level so He would benefit us ... Paul says "DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART" that kind of thing! Paul says, do not say in our hearts, that the distance between ourselves and Christ must be covered by us going up to Him. in 10:7 it's the opposite: Paul says, do not say in our hearts, Christ's death puts the distance to Him downward, i.e., that we must "bring Christ up." The twin thoughts are ridiculed, as well as the thought of living by "the righteousness which is out of law" (10:5).
There is culpability when the good news has been preached, and "they did not all heed the good news" (10:16). After establishing that culpability, and God's mercy in spite of it which comes in the future, Paul goes on to the practical implications of God's mercy in chapter 12. Thus chapter 12 is not so much a response to the whole letter so far, althought it is that, as well, but mainly a response to the mercy that has just been proven as late as 11:32.
Romans 11;32 goes on to 12:1, but Paul gives God glory first. And then, Christian ethics: what to do in a general way, general guidelines for the Christians in Rome, in light of who they are. We can ask many ethicists, "how do you go from an 'is' (i.e., the truths of Romans 1-11) to an 'ought' (i.e., "you must do x,y,z")," and many ethicists say you can't go, directly. For example, Paul says "by the mercies of God', present your bodies ...." in 12:1. Is the mercy of God something that implies obligations on our part? Many ethicists say that's impossible, that obligations can only be derived from other obligations, as elaborations or implications of already-accepted obligations.
In point of fact, Paul does not say that "present your bodies ..." is an implication of God's mercies. He urges the Romans, as brethren, and by God's mercies. That phraseology itself is but one of the differences between serving in the oldness of the letter, and in the newness of the Spirit (7:6). We should be able to see the differences from here to as the letter concludes.
One shock, that is not often pointed out, between Christianity and other religions / ethical systems is this very fact ... Paul's letter is concluding! Those who were reading chapters 1-11 of Romans, just so they could "get to the good part," that which we should be doing, have a short class. The very fact that Romans 12ff are the length that they are puts Christianity in a class of religions all by itself.
Not as if people have not tried to 'remedy' this. Alas, they've been too successful, in that Christianity is conceived of as an ethic first, and beliefs second. For Paul, Romans shows what he thought of as standing first, before our ethics can even be shaped: things about the Christian as a result of Christ's death and resurrection! What is left is pointedly NOT an ethics manual: it has too few few words for that: mostly about humility, in chapter 12, and a few words, about living under an earthly ruler, the governing rule of love, and about the urgency of behaving properly. The distinctive thing in Christianity is repeated for emphasis in 15:13, and then goes on to his closings.
The brevity of the ethical section is not an argument "from" silence, but an argument from brevity. Paul is writing to those "who are led by the Spirit of God" (8:14). It is a mark of the presence of that belief that Paul's ethics, neither here no in any other writing, assume the number one focus of His religion. His religion, i.e., his service to God, is in his spirit, in the gospel of His Son (1:9).
There is a danger that we might miss the forest for the trees in what Paul is saying in Romans 10. The quotations and illustrations of 10:6-8 are not to be illustrations of the means of salvation, i.e., confessing this one fact, believing this one fact, but they are illustrations and quotations about Christ, for showing that Christ's resurrection and exalted position go together with our salvation and righteousness, and are in fact as present as what the mouth already says and the heart already believes, which came from the word of faith that Paul preaches (10:8).
In 10;6, the attitude that there are only a few accomplished souls, maybe somewhere, who can do the job of going to heaven to bring Christ down to our level so He would benefit us ... Paul says "DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART" that kind of thing! Paul says, do not say in our hearts, that the distance between ourselves and Christ must be covered by us going up to Him. in 10:7 it's the opposite: Paul says, do not say in our hearts, Christ's death puts the distance to Him downward, i.e., that we must "bring Christ up." The twin thoughts are ridiculed, as well as the thought of living by "the righteousness which is out of law" (10:5).
There is culpability when the good news has been preached, and "they did not all heed the good news" (10:16). After establishing that culpability, and God's mercy in spite of it which comes in the future, Paul goes on to the practical implications of God's mercy in chapter 12. Thus chapter 12 is not so much a response to the whole letter so far, althought it is that, as well, but mainly a response to the mercy that has just been proven as late as 11:32.
Romans 11;32 goes on to 12:1, but Paul gives God glory first. And then, Christian ethics: what to do in a general way, general guidelines for the Christians in Rome, in light of who they are. We can ask many ethicists, "how do you go from an 'is' (i.e., the truths of Romans 1-11) to an 'ought' (i.e., "you must do x,y,z")," and many ethicists say you can't go, directly. For example, Paul says "by the mercies of God', present your bodies ...." in 12:1. Is the mercy of God something that implies obligations on our part? Many ethicists say that's impossible, that obligations can only be derived from other obligations, as elaborations or implications of already-accepted obligations.
In point of fact, Paul does not say that "present your bodies ..." is an implication of God's mercies. He urges the Romans, as brethren, and by God's mercies. That phraseology itself is but one of the differences between serving in the oldness of the letter, and in the newness of the Spirit (7:6). We should be able to see the differences from here to as the letter concludes.
One shock, that is not often pointed out, between Christianity and other religions / ethical systems is this very fact ... Paul's letter is concluding! Those who were reading chapters 1-11 of Romans, just so they could "get to the good part," that which we should be doing, have a short class. The very fact that Romans 12ff are the length that they are puts Christianity in a class of religions all by itself.
Not as if people have not tried to 'remedy' this. Alas, they've been too successful, in that Christianity is conceived of as an ethic first, and beliefs second. For Paul, Romans shows what he thought of as standing first, before our ethics can even be shaped: things about the Christian as a result of Christ's death and resurrection! What is left is pointedly NOT an ethics manual: it has too few few words for that: mostly about humility, in chapter 12, and a few words, about living under an earthly ruler, the governing rule of love, and about the urgency of behaving properly. The distinctive thing in Christianity is repeated for emphasis in 15:13, and then goes on to his closings.
The brevity of the ethical section is not an argument "from" silence, but an argument from brevity. Paul is writing to those "who are led by the Spirit of God" (8:14). It is a mark of the presence of that belief that Paul's ethics, neither here no in any other writing, assume the number one focus of His religion. His religion, i.e., his service to God, is in his spirit, in the gospel of His Son (1:9).
New Year: Rm 7-9 for Nov 28
The "newness of the Spirit" (7:6) is explained further by Paul, as he explains further the Christian life in Rm 7-8. Also in the reading for today is the beginning of his defense of the fact that Israel as a nation did not "arrive at" (9:31) the "righteousness which is by faith" (9:30), this righteousness he has been explaining since 3:21.
All three of today's chapters contribute to understanding of the Law. The Law has a "just requirement" (8:4), that is, requirement that there be justice. Either the Mosaic Law itself, in the case of Israel (3:19), or the "work of the Law written in their hearts" (2:15), in the case of the Gentiles, brings the obligation to do right upon the whole human race, and Paul personifies the failure of all the sinful human race in Rm 7. There is only one exception to the rule that all the human race is sinful, and that is God's Son. Christ's work has consequences that change things for the world's problem of sin, as we've seen in 1:16 to 3:31. Christ's work also has consequences that change things about us "who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead," (4:24) , as we've seen from Romans 5-6, and see more in Romans 7 and 8. The gospel (good news) is "of God" (1:1) and of God's Son (1:9)..
Among the consequences for those who are "children of God" (8:16) is a change in the manner of serving God (7:6). A change, from what, to what? Before, as well as now for Paul, the Law is good (7:16), but in the presence of sin (7:8), the product of the combination of the Law and sin is that Paul, personifying all human beings, says, "I died." (7:9). The Law, "effecting my death through that which is good" (7:13), had this effect.
The change is from a state that Paul calls "while we were in the flesh" (7:5), to "not in the flesh but in the Spirit," (8:9). This is a change of being, from being those who "are according to the flesh" (8:5a) to "those whare are according to the Spirit" (8:5b). How is this all related to Christ?
Paul gives credit to a divine act upon the "brethren" for this change, and it is related to the death of Christ! Having opened that subject up in Romans 6:2ff, he continues examining more of this event! "My brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God" (7:4).
Exclamation point! This is the passive voice, "you also were made to die" (7:4), indicating God's work! God made us to die to the Law through the body of Christ. Exclamation point! Even though Paul defends that kind of thing (Rm 9ff), judging from the glory of that kind of thing, expressed all through Rm 3-8 (really: ...) God needs no defense for such a glorious combination of acts! "Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (7:24-5).
Paul explains this new freedom in terms that outstrip the glories of everything in our present creation: "the whole creation groans" (8:22). The existence of the whole present creation is characterized as "slavery to corruption" and compared to its future freedom, which it will share. What freedom? Shared with whom? "The freedom of the glory of the children of God" (8:21)!
All three of today's chapters contribute to understanding of the Law. The Law has a "just requirement" (8:4), that is, requirement that there be justice. Either the Mosaic Law itself, in the case of Israel (3:19), or the "work of the Law written in their hearts" (2:15), in the case of the Gentiles, brings the obligation to do right upon the whole human race, and Paul personifies the failure of all the sinful human race in Rm 7. There is only one exception to the rule that all the human race is sinful, and that is God's Son. Christ's work has consequences that change things for the world's problem of sin, as we've seen in 1:16 to 3:31. Christ's work also has consequences that change things about us "who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead," (4:24) , as we've seen from Romans 5-6, and see more in Romans 7 and 8. The gospel (good news) is "of God" (1:1) and of God's Son (1:9)..
Among the consequences for those who are "children of God" (8:16) is a change in the manner of serving God (7:6). A change, from what, to what? Before, as well as now for Paul, the Law is good (7:16), but in the presence of sin (7:8), the product of the combination of the Law and sin is that Paul, personifying all human beings, says, "I died." (7:9). The Law, "effecting my death through that which is good" (7:13), had this effect.
The change is from a state that Paul calls "while we were in the flesh" (7:5), to "not in the flesh but in the Spirit," (8:9). This is a change of being, from being those who "are according to the flesh" (8:5a) to "those whare are according to the Spirit" (8:5b). How is this all related to Christ?
Paul gives credit to a divine act upon the "brethren" for this change, and it is related to the death of Christ! Having opened that subject up in Romans 6:2ff, he continues examining more of this event! "My brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God" (7:4).
Exclamation point! This is the passive voice, "you also were made to die" (7:4), indicating God's work! God made us to die to the Law through the body of Christ. Exclamation point! Even though Paul defends that kind of thing (Rm 9ff), judging from the glory of that kind of thing, expressed all through Rm 3-8 (really: ...) God needs no defense for such a glorious combination of acts! "Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (7:24-5).
Paul explains this new freedom in terms that outstrip the glories of everything in our present creation: "the whole creation groans" (8:22). The existence of the whole present creation is characterized as "slavery to corruption" and compared to its future freedom, which it will share. What freedom? Shared with whom? "The freedom of the glory of the children of God" (8:21)!
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
New Year: Rm 3-6 for Nov 27
Having finished describing the state of the whole human world including those under the Law (2:17ff, 3:9-20), Paul begins describing what God has done about it in Romans 3:21 - 6:23, and beyond.
Paul not only has the most closely and clearly reasoned extended arguments in the Bible so far all year (cf. 4:3-22, 5:12-21), but assumes a familiarity with the actual text of the Old Testament -- not just a familiarity with it, but the ability to come to conclusions from it. Whoever is leary of coming to conclusions will not be able to understand Paul, because he wants us to be able to come to conclusions, very important ones, by the way, not only about the Old Testament (3:19-20), but about God (4:6, 5:1, Christ (6:3-11), and ourselves (6:2): what He has done (6:17-18) so that what we were is not what we are (6:20-22), and this described in many detailed and definitive ways (6:5). God has done a redemptive act (3:24) in public display of dealing with sin, a propitiation in the blood of Christ (3:25). Faith in Christ is credited as righteousness, (4:5), as free gift of God (6:23), and this grace through righteousness will reign to eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (5:21).
Paul not only has the most closely and clearly reasoned extended arguments in the Bible so far all year (cf. 4:3-22, 5:12-21), but assumes a familiarity with the actual text of the Old Testament -- not just a familiarity with it, but the ability to come to conclusions from it. Whoever is leary of coming to conclusions will not be able to understand Paul, because he wants us to be able to come to conclusions, very important ones, by the way, not only about the Old Testament (3:19-20), but about God (4:6, 5:1, Christ (6:3-11), and ourselves (6:2): what He has done (6:17-18) so that what we were is not what we are (6:20-22), and this described in many detailed and definitive ways (6:5). God has done a redemptive act (3:24) in public display of dealing with sin, a propitiation in the blood of Christ (3:25). Faith in Christ is credited as righteousness, (4:5), as free gift of God (6:23), and this grace through righteousness will reign to eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (5:21).
Sunday, December 11, 2011
New Year: Acts 28 - Rm 2 for Nov 26
Even though this day's reading straddles two books, it is appropriate for the consecutive reader almost more than any two books of the New Testament in canonical order. Paul in Rome, Acts 28. Paul speaking to them, Romans 1ff.
When Paul has not even yet arrived in Rome, there are Christians there with whom he stays, while still on the outskirts. Hearing that Paul is "unhindered" is the last word of Luke in the book of Acts, and Romans 1 appropriately says that Paul had been "prevented thus far" (1:13). So we see that the letter to the Romans predates Acts 28.
In another way, Romans supplies "the other side," the theological-treatise side, to the narrative of Acts, in which Luke, describing the providentially guided acts of the apostles and others in the church, spent less time describing their doctrine. That is remedied in Romans. Moo's [1996] commentary on Romans correctly identifies Romans as a theological treatise with opening and closing remarks. We'll comment further on Moo's commentary in the comments, something that we have dropped since early 2010.
What is remarkable in Romans 1 are the crowning statements in 1:16-17. These statements are as above the day-to-day descriptions of the activities of religious people trying to encourage one another, as the acts of God are above the acts of men. Indeed, that is the gospel's chief advantage, that it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes. It's something greater than human teaching or human activity.
In a remarkably even-handed way, addressing the human condition from the points of view of "men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" -- whether Gentile or Jew (2:14,17), Paul lays out the problem which salvation rescues the human being from, in the way it does, by the bringing in of the gospel.
When Paul has not even yet arrived in Rome, there are Christians there with whom he stays, while still on the outskirts. Hearing that Paul is "unhindered" is the last word of Luke in the book of Acts, and Romans 1 appropriately says that Paul had been "prevented thus far" (1:13). So we see that the letter to the Romans predates Acts 28.
In another way, Romans supplies "the other side," the theological-treatise side, to the narrative of Acts, in which Luke, describing the providentially guided acts of the apostles and others in the church, spent less time describing their doctrine. That is remedied in Romans. Moo's [1996] commentary on Romans correctly identifies Romans as a theological treatise with opening and closing remarks. We'll comment further on Moo's commentary in the comments, something that we have dropped since early 2010.
What is remarkable in Romans 1 are the crowning statements in 1:16-17. These statements are as above the day-to-day descriptions of the activities of religious people trying to encourage one another, as the acts of God are above the acts of men. Indeed, that is the gospel's chief advantage, that it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes. It's something greater than human teaching or human activity.
In a remarkably even-handed way, addressing the human condition from the points of view of "men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" -- whether Gentile or Jew (2:14,17), Paul lays out the problem which salvation rescues the human being from, in the way it does, by the bringing in of the gospel.
New Year: Acts 25-27 for Nov 25
From its beginnings in Acts 21:31 until the end of Acts, the Roman presence around Paul functions in God's purposes for his protection, both where Paul has control (21:40; 25:11; 26:2) and where he doesn't (23:30-31; 24:27; 25:21).
As the station increases in rank, from the soldiers and centurions (21:32) to King Agrippa (25:13), each higher authority is both equally fair and more knowledgeable than the previous. King Agrippa was not further identified to the readers, being the current king at the time of writing (A.D. 44-100, NBD). He is the son (Herod Agrippa II) of the earlier Herod (Herod Agrippa I) who executed James the apostle brother of John the apostle (12:2).
Paul's third recitation of his conversion story is the most polished, including his mission to the Gentiles. Before Agrippa, who is not a Jewish separatist but sided with Rome and was rewarded subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem for his loyalty to Rome, Paul's elucidation of his mission to the Gentiles is just fine. In fact, to Agrippa II Paul is a great scholar, so much so that they have a tete-a-tete moment of mutual recognition (26:24-28). By the time the reader hears the verdict on Paul, we are so used to the providence of God guiding Paul forward, that we say "bring it on!"
As the station increases in rank, from the soldiers and centurions (21:32) to King Agrippa (25:13), each higher authority is both equally fair and more knowledgeable than the previous. King Agrippa was not further identified to the readers, being the current king at the time of writing (A.D. 44-100, NBD). He is the son (Herod Agrippa II) of the earlier Herod (Herod Agrippa I) who executed James the apostle brother of John the apostle (12:2).
Paul's third recitation of his conversion story is the most polished, including his mission to the Gentiles. Before Agrippa, who is not a Jewish separatist but sided with Rome and was rewarded subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem for his loyalty to Rome, Paul's elucidation of his mission to the Gentiles is just fine. In fact, to Agrippa II Paul is a great scholar, so much so that they have a tete-a-tete moment of mutual recognition (26:24-28). By the time the reader hears the verdict on Paul, we are so used to the providence of God guiding Paul forward, that we say "bring it on!"
New Year: Acts 21-24 for Nov 24
In view of the spate of interest in the Roman Empire, Acts 21-24 reads like a plot for another great drama. There is plenty of drama (22:23), conflict (21:11,21-22), violence (21:31-36), flight (22:18), religious fanaticism (23:12-15), and the providential handling of these things (23:16). There's even government bureaucratic delay (24:25).
As far as speeches go, that of Paul to his accusers in Jerusalem is of a pattern with Stephen's in Acts 7. People will listen to lots of detailed facts, but if they include some sort of mirror of accusation back on the listeners (7:53), or the putting of the listeners in a relatively unfavorable light (22:21), the listening stops and the opposition often ensues.
Again the pax Romana is in evidence here (21:32), although it is not always "right-on" (21:38). In these chapters, Paul's rescue from Jerusalem's religious leaders is enabled through Paul's nephew (23:16), but it is actually brokered through a Roman centurion and a Roman commander, "Claudius Lysias" (23:26). We sense some fairness, along with an incredulity, in the secular arm (23:29).
In the case of the secular governor, Felix, his response to Paul is like a man who can point each eye separately. One eye views Christianity more exactly (24:22). But with the other eye, he summons Paul to preach to him, but hopes Paul will give him money (24:26)! Politics trumping knowledge ensues, and Felix passes from the scene.
As far as speeches go, that of Paul to his accusers in Jerusalem is of a pattern with Stephen's in Acts 7. People will listen to lots of detailed facts, but if they include some sort of mirror of accusation back on the listeners (7:53), or the putting of the listeners in a relatively unfavorable light (22:21), the listening stops and the opposition often ensues.
Again the pax Romana is in evidence here (21:32), although it is not always "right-on" (21:38). In these chapters, Paul's rescue from Jerusalem's religious leaders is enabled through Paul's nephew (23:16), but it is actually brokered through a Roman centurion and a Roman commander, "Claudius Lysias" (23:26). We sense some fairness, along with an incredulity, in the secular arm (23:29).
In the case of the secular governor, Felix, his response to Paul is like a man who can point each eye separately. One eye views Christianity more exactly (24:22). But with the other eye, he summons Paul to preach to him, but hopes Paul will give him money (24:26)! Politics trumping knowledge ensues, and Felix passes from the scene.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
New Year: Acts 19-20 for Nov 23
Pauls ministry in Ephesus is highlighted in Acts 19-20.
The snippets of Paul's teaching that Luke reports make it instantly recognizable that it is the same man who wrote the New Testament letters we have (20:24,28,32). And the combination of these things with Luke's patterns of showing the success of the ministry among acts and patterns of opposition show it to be part of Luke's pattern of depiction (19:8,9,29; 20:3).
Luke also brings forward resolutions of conflict that make us say "that worked?" The speech of the town clerk (19:35ff) actually worked? Yes. It was not the current situation today. We aren't under a pax Romana as Paul was then.
Another interesting sidelight of the story of the "no small disturbance" at Ephesus (19:23) is what was said -- by a neutral party, not the Christians -- about the handling of idolatrousness. The neutral party said, regarding Paul and his companions, that Paul and his companions "are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of our goddess" (19:37).
This selectivity on the missionaries' part is reminiscent of the depiction of Paul before the other idolatrous group in Athens (17:22ff). Therefore the town clerk's summary rings true. Talking about "the God who made the world and all things in it" (17:24) has implications for idolatry, and the profits from idolatry, no doubt, but that is not the focus of the missionary message.
The snippets of Paul's teaching that Luke reports make it instantly recognizable that it is the same man who wrote the New Testament letters we have (20:24,28,32). And the combination of these things with Luke's patterns of showing the success of the ministry among acts and patterns of opposition show it to be part of Luke's pattern of depiction (19:8,9,29; 20:3).
Luke also brings forward resolutions of conflict that make us say "that worked?" The speech of the town clerk (19:35ff) actually worked? Yes. It was not the current situation today. We aren't under a pax Romana as Paul was then.
Another interesting sidelight of the story of the "no small disturbance" at Ephesus (19:23) is what was said -- by a neutral party, not the Christians -- about the handling of idolatrousness. The neutral party said, regarding Paul and his companions, that Paul and his companions "are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of our goddess" (19:37).
This selectivity on the missionaries' part is reminiscent of the depiction of Paul before the other idolatrous group in Athens (17:22ff). Therefore the town clerk's summary rings true. Talking about "the God who made the world and all things in it" (17:24) has implications for idolatry, and the profits from idolatry, no doubt, but that is not the focus of the missionary message.
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
New Year: Acts 17-18 for Nov 22
The preaching of Paul in various places -- it sounds slightly different in its approach, in various places in Acts 17-18.
Among synagogue attenders, both Jews and "the God-fearing" (17:4,17), Paul "reasoned with them from the Scriptures" (17:2). Among the Athenians at the Areopagus (17:22) Paul quoted "some of your own poets" (17:28). What was the common denominator? Jesus -- proving that He "is the Christ" (17:3) to the Jews in Thessalonica, and bringing up this same "man whom He [God] has appointed...." to the Athenians (17:31). The Anointed One, and whom God has appointed, of course, are the same. The Jews, already knowing the exaltation of the Messiah from the Old Testament scriptures such as Ps 2, would already know that at some point the Messiah will break and shatter the nations (Ps 2:9). The Greeks, in Athens, from philosophy, would know about the breaking and shattering of all nations of history (17:26), but wouldn't know about the one God has appointed judge of all human beings.
The Jews of the time knew about a Person coming, but didn't know He came. The Greeks of the time knew about the process of nations coming and going, but didn't know about the judgment of the individual person, and about Person through whom God would judge all, and the recent public proof God has provided of that (17:31).
Among synagogue attenders, both Jews and "the God-fearing" (17:4,17), Paul "reasoned with them from the Scriptures" (17:2). Among the Athenians at the Areopagus (17:22) Paul quoted "some of your own poets" (17:28). What was the common denominator? Jesus -- proving that He "is the Christ" (17:3) to the Jews in Thessalonica, and bringing up this same "man whom He [God] has appointed...." to the Athenians (17:31). The Anointed One, and whom God has appointed, of course, are the same. The Jews, already knowing the exaltation of the Messiah from the Old Testament scriptures such as Ps 2, would already know that at some point the Messiah will break and shatter the nations (Ps 2:9). The Greeks, in Athens, from philosophy, would know about the breaking and shattering of all nations of history (17:26), but wouldn't know about the one God has appointed judge of all human beings.
The Jews of the time knew about a Person coming, but didn't know He came. The Greeks of the time knew about the process of nations coming and going, but didn't know about the judgment of the individual person, and about Person through whom God would judge all, and the recent public proof God has provided of that (17:31).
New Year: Acts 14-16 for Nov 21
How remarkably free from individuals "rising" to power is the expansion of the gospel in these chapters, Acts 14-16.
However, opposition is not all external. The external opposition is very brutal (14:19; 16:23-24). The internal opposition, focusing on the issue of circumcision and the Law in its entirety (15:1,5,21), is dealt with by a large group of leaders but more than just leaders (15:22).
We might miss how, in these days of daily communication about religion, how such a group of dispersed people, hundreds of miles away in modern Turkey, or over a thousand miles from Jerusalem in Greece, could grow. To "see how they are" in Acts 15:36 seems quite an understatement. This is also very true about remote places today into which Christians have gone, people have believed the word of God, and the messengers who brought the word have left. What is a new Christian left with?
God, and God's grace of course. He tends His own. This emphasis on the "grace side of things" came out earlier (cf. 15:11,40). It comes from the fact that "God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance to life." (11:18). If God has granted the turning of someone to life, the church's first order of responsibility is "do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles," as James summarized (15:19). When the original messengers went through where they had been before, what was their activity? They "strengthened the churches" (15:41). That sounds very positive, for being hundreds of miles and mountains and ships away from the origin of the religion.
Can God, His leading in grace, be specific enough for a new Christian? Is 16:6-10 specific enough, as an example, for the missionaries themselves? It is interesting that this specific example of God's guidance comes right after two incidents that seem very awkward in the missionary journey. The first is the "sharp disagreement" in 15:39. The second is the circumcision of Timothy in 16:3. The missionaries themselves were taking "the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them [the Christians located in those remote cities] to observe" (16:4). Among these decrees were the words about circumcision not being necessary. The circumcision was done "because of the Jews who were in those parts," (16:3), not for the sake of the Christian life. And Barnabas and Mark worked in a separate arena (15:39). Neither activity was man-led. On the issue of circumcision, the issue was described as resolved when "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (15:28). On the issue of where to go, God leads that too, as He made plain in 16:6-10. Paul speaks from experience, as well as revelation, when in Romans he says "all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God" (Rm 8:14).
However, opposition is not all external. The external opposition is very brutal (14:19; 16:23-24). The internal opposition, focusing on the issue of circumcision and the Law in its entirety (15:1,5,21), is dealt with by a large group of leaders but more than just leaders (15:22).
We might miss how, in these days of daily communication about religion, how such a group of dispersed people, hundreds of miles away in modern Turkey, or over a thousand miles from Jerusalem in Greece, could grow. To "see how they are" in Acts 15:36 seems quite an understatement. This is also very true about remote places today into which Christians have gone, people have believed the word of God, and the messengers who brought the word have left. What is a new Christian left with?
God, and God's grace of course. He tends His own. This emphasis on the "grace side of things" came out earlier (cf. 15:11,40). It comes from the fact that "God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance to life." (11:18). If God has granted the turning of someone to life, the church's first order of responsibility is "do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles," as James summarized (15:19). When the original messengers went through where they had been before, what was their activity? They "strengthened the churches" (15:41). That sounds very positive, for being hundreds of miles and mountains and ships away from the origin of the religion.
Can God, His leading in grace, be specific enough for a new Christian? Is 16:6-10 specific enough, as an example, for the missionaries themselves? It is interesting that this specific example of God's guidance comes right after two incidents that seem very awkward in the missionary journey. The first is the "sharp disagreement" in 15:39. The second is the circumcision of Timothy in 16:3. The missionaries themselves were taking "the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them [the Christians located in those remote cities] to observe" (16:4). Among these decrees were the words about circumcision not being necessary. The circumcision was done "because of the Jews who were in those parts," (16:3), not for the sake of the Christian life. And Barnabas and Mark worked in a separate arena (15:39). Neither activity was man-led. On the issue of circumcision, the issue was described as resolved when "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (15:28). On the issue of where to go, God leads that too, as He made plain in 16:6-10. Paul speaks from experience, as well as revelation, when in Romans he says "all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God" (Rm 8:14).
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
New Year: Acts 11-13 for Nov 20
In those days in which Peter preached to Cornelius, the receiving of the Holy Spirit by Gentiles (10:47) was not widely known back in Jerusalem until Acts 11:1. This section of Acts begins the specific story of how the Christian message goes out to those who are not already in Peter's religion.
This was not Paul's doing. Peter gets a vision from God about it, which he explains to those who are initially against it (11:3). They change their mind, and ended up glorifying God for this (11:18).
Even in Antioch, where Paul was going to be pivotal, in which "speaking to the Greeks, they preached the Lord Jesus" occured, it wasn't started by Paul. Here there is no miraculous sign given of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Barnabas was sent by the apostles to see the nature of the movement. When he arrived, he "saw the grace of God" (11:23), and by himself, without Paul's verification, he was convinced of their beginnings, and told them to remain true to the Lord. Only then, he went to get Paul (11:25ff).
This was not Paul's doing. Peter gets a vision from God about it, which he explains to those who are initially against it (11:3). They change their mind, and ended up glorifying God for this (11:18).
Even in Antioch, where Paul was going to be pivotal, in which "speaking to the Greeks, they preached the Lord Jesus" occured, it wasn't started by Paul. Here there is no miraculous sign given of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Barnabas was sent by the apostles to see the nature of the movement. When he arrived, he "saw the grace of God" (11:23), and by himself, without Paul's verification, he was convinced of their beginnings, and told them to remain true to the Lord. Only then, he went to get Paul (11:25ff).
Saturday, December 03, 2011
New Year: Acts 9-10 for Nov 19
Acts 9-10 are why so many people associate the beginning of the church with both Peter and Paul. The outstanding descriptions of their activities in these chapters gain our attention, but do we notice the providential guidance that is underneath (9:16; 10:19-20)?
So Peter and Paul would both beg to differ on being its beginners, and would ask us to look above them. Luke has a way of doing this, without denigrating their part. For example, lest we're too enamored with one mechanism or topic sequence (2:38), He provides another (10:44-48). It's human nature to ask questions such as "what's first? what's second? what do I have to do next?", but when God is doing the very same thing (10:47) during events which occur a different order, Peter has to backtrack (10:47).
Another example occurs in the variety of the various "conversion" stories. Here was that of Cornelius and his household, which defies us to list the things that were told to them before they were converted (10:44). But that's only one conversion story. Take Paul's: the only doctrine of preparation for conversion we can get from Acts 9:1-3 is what Paul's preceding state before his conversion was, and as far as we can tell, he was travelling on his way to Damascus. As far as I know, there has been no theory of preparing for conversion, among many, many, many, that has stipulated that one needs to be on the way to Damascus.
So Peter and Paul would both beg to differ on being its beginners, and would ask us to look above them. Luke has a way of doing this, without denigrating their part. For example, lest we're too enamored with one mechanism or topic sequence (2:38), He provides another (10:44-48). It's human nature to ask questions such as "what's first? what's second? what do I have to do next?", but when God is doing the very same thing (10:47) during events which occur a different order, Peter has to backtrack (10:47).
Another example occurs in the variety of the various "conversion" stories. Here was that of Cornelius and his household, which defies us to list the things that were told to them before they were converted (10:44). But that's only one conversion story. Take Paul's: the only doctrine of preparation for conversion we can get from Acts 9:1-3 is what Paul's preceding state before his conversion was, and as far as we can tell, he was travelling on his way to Damascus. As far as I know, there has been no theory of preparing for conversion, among many, many, many, that has stipulated that one needs to be on the way to Damascus.
Friday, December 02, 2011
New Year: Acts 7-8 for Nov 18
Let's not let "Oh, I know this story" prevent us from reading about the martyrdom of Stephen as if for the first time, in Acts 7.
Much has been made of Stephen's knowledge of the Old Testament. If he was a Hellenistic Jew he certainly carries the torch well for knowledge of the Old Testament outside the borders of Israel, just as Paul later does. Paul, who was present at this speech, but was as yet unconverted, possibly was hearing something said, by a person who used his language, yet refuted his views all the more.
Just as important is the reflection of the chapter on us. Stephen's speech shows that reciting the history of the nation need not be an hagiograph of the nation. How often have you heard a story of the Israelite wandering in the wilderness that uses the facts Stephen found in Amos 5? (Acts 7:42-43)? Today, the chief use being made of the wanderings in the wilderness, is to exhort us to not follow their example of unbelief. And well we shouldn't. But when have you heard a sermon about the idol factories in the wilderness, and not to follow those!
In his dying words, Stephen's example shows another rarity. It is perfectly compatible to be very much a critic of someone, yet forgive them from your heart and seek at all costs, their forgiveness (7:60).
Much has been made of Stephen's knowledge of the Old Testament. If he was a Hellenistic Jew he certainly carries the torch well for knowledge of the Old Testament outside the borders of Israel, just as Paul later does. Paul, who was present at this speech, but was as yet unconverted, possibly was hearing something said, by a person who used his language, yet refuted his views all the more.
Just as important is the reflection of the chapter on us. Stephen's speech shows that reciting the history of the nation need not be an hagiograph of the nation. How often have you heard a story of the Israelite wandering in the wilderness that uses the facts Stephen found in Amos 5? (Acts 7:42-43)? Today, the chief use being made of the wanderings in the wilderness, is to exhort us to not follow their example of unbelief. And well we shouldn't. But when have you heard a sermon about the idol factories in the wilderness, and not to follow those!
In his dying words, Stephen's example shows another rarity. It is perfectly compatible to be very much a critic of someone, yet forgive them from your heart and seek at all costs, their forgiveness (7:60).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)