Bible

It's 1 Corinthians 8-9 that makes this perfectly clear!

There are (at least) two similarities.

One, both are from God.

In Corinth, Christians had some difficulty with buying or eating meat. It was very likely that the supermarket sold fine cuts that had initially been offered to idols. Could Christians eat this type of BBQ?

Yes! Idols are nothing, these 'gods' don't exist. But the food is tasty and a good thing from God. So enjoy your steak sandwich. (Personally, I recommend sweet chili sauce or a decent relish, rather than the commercial red sugar syrup named 'tomato sauce.') See 1 Corinthians 8.

Likewise, apostles - Paul himself - were not bad, or a terrible burden. Paul did a good work, which was a work from God. Therefore he had every right to live by this. In other words, to be financially supported by those blessed by his apostleship. See 1 Corinthians 9:1-11.

Yet, secondly, both can be given up for love.

If a Christian of tender conscience found out that your steak sandwich included meat butchered in an idol's temple, a strong Christian would naturally not eat it (1 Cor 8:13). The reason: nothing to do with the quality of the steak, everything to do with love for the weaker Christian. It's never worth hurting the faith of a Christian, never worth leading a Christian to do what he/she thinks is ungodly. Not ever for steak!

Likewise Paul, after strongly insisting that he had the right to be supported as Christ's apostle, says 'I never sent you an invoice and never will.' See 1 Cor 9:12 and following.

Paul refused to take the cash and insisted on working for free. He chose to serve, not insist on rights. He did so to better preach the gospel. The 'better' is important. Paul already was preaching the gospel of Jesus, but he strove to do it more clearly, more accurately, with less distraction.

Thus, Paul's apostleship changed even the way he ate at a BBQ. And was the model Corinthian Christians were also to follow.

So too for us. While we love the good things of this world - knowing them as real gifts of God - we will always hold them very loosely, that we can choose to give them up. This light hold is so we can easily choose the better way to share the gospel, the wonderful news of Jesus as Lord.

Here's a quotation that's movingly full, deep and rich in its expression of what salvation means, in the book of Isaiah.

The problem is rebellion, self-exaltation, injustice, alienation, and resultatnt devastation; the solution must deal with all of these. ... Salvation must produce people who submit to God, trusting him to supply all their needs. It must result in reconciliation between God and humans, and between humans. It must include deliverance from physical and spiritual bondage. It must involve forgiveness and cleansing. It must produce people who are committed to the justice prescribed in their covenant with God. It must issue in a glad desire to declare the glory, the uniqueness and the salvation of God to all the world.

From J.N.Oswalt, 'Isaiah', New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, page 221.

A (lumbering) translation of Romans 15:26-27

For Macedonia and Achaia were glad to have fellowship with the poor of the Jerusalem saints.
For they were glad and also they are obliged.
For if the nations fellowship in their spiritual matters, they also have obligation to serve them in fleshly matters.

Two quick thoughts, both of which reveal a depth of truth rather than superficial truth.

One: fellowship. Fellowship is spiritual: the nations share/fellowship in the blessings of the Jews. That is, we too can know Christ! But fellowship is also very down to earth, namely money. Spiritual provision and fleshly provision are deeply intertwined.

(By the way, how's your giving going?)

Two: acts of love. The Christians of Macedonia and Acaia were glad and pleased to give. At the same time they were obligated, and in debt, such that giving was required. Both are true.

(Which motivation do you need to hear today, compassion or command?)

PS I love the way God's word emphasises things for slow people like me. Two times 'were glad', two times 'fellowship', two times 'obliged'.

A short history of time, by Leofranc Holford-Strevens, helped me with the question of knowing what day of the week Jesus died.

This one raises its head when looking at John's gospel. One idea is that John presents Jesus' death as at the same time lambs for Passover were being killed. (See John 19:14, and understanding 'preparation of the Passover' as when the Passover meal is prepared - Thursday, by modern name, for that year.)

But in the synoptics, Jesus and his disciples are clearly presented a sharing the Passover meal, on the night before the events of John 19.

What's going on, then? Condradiction and confusion? I think not.

I think it's most likely that 'preparation of the Passover' refers to the Friday. Preparation is a very common term for the pre-Sabbath day (Friday, as we name it, though the start and end would be 6pm rather than 12 midnight).

But if that were not the case, one suggestion is that the synoptics and John were referring to different calendars. Different ways of calculating Passover mean different days for killing the lamb. For an explanation of this, see Leon Morris' The Gospel According to John. (This link is to the revised edition. In my copy of the unrevised the pages to read are 782-788.)

I now admit my prejudice. I easily dismissed the idea of different calendars. 'How dumb is that?', I thought, on the basis of my experience of easy access to common and worldwide dating, even given the existence of different year numbering systems (1 Jan 2011 falls in Jewish year 5771, for example).

A short history of time opened my eyes to my own failure of sympathy. My experience of calendrical stability is not universal. There certainly were differences and disputes about calendars. Holford-Strevens speaks of the readingess of some Jewish communities acting to "regulate the calendar for themselves, rather than following the Rabbis of Jerusalem" (p.82).

So it seems the 'different calendar' idea is not crazy like I thought it must be.

In reading the Bible, or any literature, we are liable to see patterns the author includes. Once such is the chiasm or chiasmus. This is when the first section/word finds an echo in the last. The second echoes with the second last. And so on. It is often represented by A B C C' B' A' (for an example of six elements).

One thing I've wondered, and heard from others, is this: would an author really expect readers or listeners to pick up on such a pattern?

After all, it seems we only find the pattern with slow and deliberate reading.

Something I read about Greek months suggests that the ancient world was far more attuned to the idea of a chiasm.

In some [Greek] cities, the middle ten days of the month were counted separately from the first ten, and in most cities the final days were counted backwards
A short history of time, p86.

So, there was widespread counting forwards at the start, then backards at the end. Very odd to may way of dating, of course. But this method - chiastic, though not in literature - was a simple part of daily life.

It seems the 'oddness' of chiasmus maybe more to do with my culture, that finding this in the Bible is perfectly reasonable.

A gem from Gospel-centred hermeneutics, by Graeme Goldsworthy:

Christians hermeneutics focuses on the Bible. because through the Bible we gain understanding of the whole of reality. The Bible is God's way of connecting us with redemption and thus of reconnecting us with himself. It is God's way of showing us ourselves and the world. It is God's way of showing us his rule over all creation and thus over all people. It is God's way of establishing and sustaining fellowship with his Son and, through him, with himself.

Today in Rome, the Roman Catholic church made a new saint: Mary Mackillop. Today in church, we began a series on the last section of the book of Romans, chapters 12-16.

The first verse lays down some essential ideas about living as a Christian.

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
Romans 12:1 (esv)

This verse made me realise again the distance between formal Roman Catholic theology and biblical faith.

In the verse above, the start is God's mercy. It's all about the work of God in Jesus Christ. He takes sinners and makes them saints.

In the verse above, the consequence is serving God. Doing good, with the whole of oneself, follows on from what God did.

In the Roman Catholic church - and in the case of Mary Mackillop - the start is serving God. To put it in concrete terms, Mark Mackillop did good things (on earth, and even now beyond the grave).

In the Roman Catholic church - and in the case of Mary Mackillop - the consequence is being made a saint. In concrete terms, Mary becomes a saint today.

It's all back to front, putting human effort before God's work.

Sadly, putting people first has further effect in displacing God. For what can saints do? They can hear prayers - a privilege of God alone. They can intercede with God on behalf of those who pray - a privilege of the one mediator, Jesus Christ.

It's all so sad to see such misplaced confidence on the goodness and saving power of any person apart from Jesus the Lord.

A touch of coincidence today, comin across two positive references to Christian heretics within about half an hour.

The first is this blog on necessary heresies, 'What the heretics have to teach us.' (Go on, click through and read - it's great stuff.)

Then, while re-reading part of this classic commentary on Romans, I read

One needs neither a special sympathy with Pelagianism nor the sort of nationalistic fervour which led Milton to make excessive claims for Wyclif, to to recognise in Pelagius (died after 418), the first known British commentator on Romans, a considerable biblical scholar. His commentary shows a deep and extensive knowledge of scripture, familiarity with earlier and contemporary biblical scholarship ..., a by no means insignificant spiritual insight, great moral earnestness and a pleasing and succinct style.

One thing that worries me about contemporary Christians is our reaction to wrong.

We might completely write off a person/idea ('heretic!') in a manner that suggests we simply don't want to engage. Or we shy away from discussing difference at all, as 'too divisive.' Much better is seen in these two examples of honesty with humility: 'I disagree, but know I will learn much by interacting with you.'

We've been reading Revelation as a family, tonight getting to Revelation 7. What a wonderful picture of the safety and completeness of God's people!

I was struck by the song of verse 10. The multitude from all nations sing:

"Salvation belongs to our God,
who sits on the throne,
and to the Lamb."
(niv, as we read together)

I thought: What does it mean by 'salvation belongs to our God'?

There's no verb in the Greek, but I am sure the niv translators had good reasons to put it in English like this. After all, a dead literal rendering also raises questions of understanding.

Here's the literal nasb:
"Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."
Now the Message, usually very periphrastic:
"Salvation to our God on his Throne!
Salvation to the Lamb!"
The New Living Translation has switched the order right around, using from instead of to:
“Salvation comes from our God who sits on the throne
and from the Lamb!”

I could continue, of course.

The surprise to me comes because I think of salvation as all about me. 'My salvation is cause for joy.'

But Revelation 7:10 tells us that salvation is a bigger picture. Salvation points foremost to the Saviour, not to the saved. God enthroned in heaven is the only one able to save - so let's sing!

(By the way, how good is www.biblegateway.com as a resource for on-line Bible study? Fantastic.)

In the Bible, human death and judgement for rebellion are associated.

For every individual, death leads to the judgement

From Hebrews 9 (esv)
... it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment ...

More than that, we can see when human death is judgement.

From Genesis 2 and 3 (esv)
[Before human sin] And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

[After human sin] "Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—" therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.

So far, so straightforward.

But what about the argument that death always means 'sin is present'? It's an argument in the opposite direction from the Bible material, which move from sin to death.

And yes, this is a post about young earth creation theories, which say that death is therefore impossible before human sin.

We're not justified to argue in reverse, and we know this from the gospel.

The gospel of Jesus tells us that all who die trusting Jesus do so in perfect assurance of forgiveness. They certainly die, but not for their sins - it was Christ who died for their sin. In other words, there is at least one situation that uncouples death from judgement. Which means, of course, that there may be more than one such situation.

Perhaps I am mainly writing this for myself, and for thinking it through. That is, it's likely I haven't explained every step of the process or all the implications. But if you'd like to comment or ask for some more, go ahead. I'll see if I make any sense!