Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Things that flow

Generally speaking*, there are two flows described in the Bible:

  1. things that flow (ῥέω) in a good way are: milk and honey in the promised land, water from the rock, and living water from the heart of the believer (Jn 7.38). 
  2. but things which may flow away (παραρρέω) or drift if we're not careful are: sound wisdom and discretion for the fool (Prov 3.21) and us from our salvation (Heb 2.1).

The answer to holding onto the good flows and not letting them drift is found in Hebrews also: 6.19 - holding onto our hope which is the anchor** for our soul.

I'm enjoying getting into Hebrews - looking forward to preaching through it for the next two months.

* there are some exceptions. in Leviticus uncleanness is also said to 'flow'.
** hey - anchor's a Greek word: ἄγκυρα - who knew?!

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Desired in Daniel

One thing which hit the cutting room floor on Sunday's sermon on Daniel 10.1-12.4 was the root chamad (חמד) which is used several times in these chapters.
The first three are the most interesting, and may bear on the later uses:
10.3 - desirable food
10.11,19 - esteemed man (cf. 9.23 for the only other use in Daniel)
In repentance Daniel refrains from eating choice food, meat and wine, as an outward expression of his repentance.
In answer to his acts of penance, God sends his messengers, for Daniel is a man of high esteem.
Putting this together, it is because of his self-denial of that God has recognised him. Or perhaps, to use synonyms, out of Daniel's desire to please God, he has withheld desired food, and now God has desired him.

In contrast, the further four uses of chamad are with regard to things opposed to God:
11.8 - precious vessels
11.38, 43 - costly things
11.37 - a false god worshipped by women

The first three in the list are quite similar - they are things desired by people. Things which are bestowed worth by the desire accorded them.
The fourth (11.37) is referring to an idol that women get right into. Perhaps it is women's Baal, to men's Ashteroth. 
Whatever the case, all of these things are desired by people who have no self control, whereas food - a good thing created by God to be enjoyed - Daniel refrains from, that he might better focus his affections on God. And because he does this, he is acknowledged by God.

There are surely a bunch of implications that flow from this (I'm thinking 1 Corinthians and food and freedom). But no time on Sunday. Oh well. Enjoy.

Saturday, June 08, 2013

The Kingdoms of Daniel 2, 7, 8 and 9

A short while ago I put up a preterist reading of Daniel 2. Well, here it is extended to encompass Daniel 7-9 also.



All of these chapters are extrapolated by many into our time (try finding a picture on google which doesn't point to Rome or Obama!), such that the fulfilment is to be found in the very near future. While that is not wrong (Christian eschatology in a sense places the end tomorrow - Cf. Jesus' parable in Luke 12.13-21), it is not the plain reading of the text, and it is incorrect to interpret symbols as signs. What this diagram, and any preterist reading, sets out to do, is show the primary referent of the symbols before they are extrapolated to all powers and authorities which arrogantly set themselves up in opposition to God and their (his) people.

A quick note of explanation on Daniel 9 - Daniel is reappropriating Jeremiah's prophesied 70 years of exile as 70 weeks (literally 70 sevens), which this diagram shows as 70 non-consecutive 'weeks of years'.  This then encompasses not just the exile (which are completed in just 7 sevens), but from Nebuchadnezzar's ascension to  the rededication of the temple and the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the brutal reign of whom is the period especially focussed on throughout the second half of Daniel. Further information on this reading of the 70 sevens can be found in George Athas' article: http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_104.pdf

Update: I can't count. Well, I can, so I fixed the picture.

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Babylonian and Persian Kings Diagram

I've tried to work out the relationships between the different kings of the 6th to 4th Centuries. Here's my effort (thanks to the highly reliable information source of wikipedia).


The main reason is (going by the post two below) trying to understand what's happening in Daniel. The kings he mentions are Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar his son, Darius the Mede son of Xerxes (Ahasuerus), and Cyrus the Persian  (in that order).

To explain the diagram as it relates to Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar is the king who was at the head of the Babylonian Empire as the Assyrians were finally finished off. Three kings later, Nabonidus usurps the throne, and while hanging out in some desert oasis, gets his son Belshazzar to look after Babylon while he's gone. Calling Belshazzar Nebuchadnezzar's son is then a literary device, to make us compare father with son, to see if he would learn from his father's mistakes and humble himself before the one true God (he doesn't).

The gap into which the Danielic Darius should slot into is the one between Nabonidus/Belshazzar and Cyrus. The fact that there is no gap, that the Medes never ruled Babylon (although Cyrus was half-Median), and that the Dariuses we know of came much later means this is a literary riddle, rather than an historical one. That is, why 1) invent a kingdom and a king, and 2) why give him the name Darius and the father Xerxes (Ahasuerus)? I'll proffer my suggestions below:

1. According to commentators, a four kingdom model was quite the thing back in the day. Being in the time of the kingdoms of Alexanders successors (the Diadochi), yet using stories from the Babylonian era, leaves only three kingdoms - Babylon, Persia, Greece. Media was a kingdom north and east of Babylon, and were pretty big, so from a literary perspective, Media seems a pretty good idea.

2. Darius is a pretty well known name, there being three kings with that name, and the names Xerxes and Artaxerxes  (i.e. Xerxes with an 'Arta' tacked on) similarly so. So it's a pretty common name, but there has to be more. Well, Darius III, as you can see from the diagram, is an epoch finishing guy. He was the last of the line, and after him a new mob took over. Less importantly, his familial connection with the dynasty is a bit tricky/murky. Therefore, being relatively unattached, yet still important, his name would seem to be the most appropriate for a literary second kingdom.


Let me know what you think.

If I'm in a particularly masochistic mood I'll have a crack at the successors, that is, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, to complete the table all the way to the 'abomination of desolation', that is, the misdeeds of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the 2nd Century.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Infant Baptism Articles

This is more for my records than you, dear reader(s).
Some articles I've found helpful in thinking about infant baptism.

A 1990 article by Glenn Davies available for download while he's going for ABp: Covenant and Baptism.

A post by Michael Jensen: Baptism in Reformation Anglicanism.

Four posts by Bruce Pass: Why would I baptise my child?

As it stands, we're at a church which practices adult baptism, so we'll be getting our son 'dedicated'. But these articles, and discussions in person with Bruce, have definitely pushed me to defend the importance of infant baptism, and recognition of children as full members of the people of God.

Thursday, May 09, 2013

Daniel 2 - The Preterist Reading

For some reason it's impossible to find a picture of the statue in Daniel 2 labelled normally. So here's mine. It's not complicated, and it is what Daniel pretty much is about.

 

 Daniel is set in the 6th Century BC, but is written to a 2nd Century BC audience.

In his schema within the book, Daniel has three kingdoms - Babylon, Media and Persia. Historically we know that Babylon passed directly to Persia, when Cyrus took it (was given it) after Nabonidus was on the nose (Belshazzar was his son and ruler in his absence). So where Media came from is unclear - they did exist, but didn't ever hold Babylon (although Cyrus was half-Persian perhaps) - but that doesn't matter. In Daniel, the order is Babylon, Media, Persia. So, the statue starts off Gold-Babylon, Silver-Media, Bronze-Persia.

Now for the tricky bit. Well, not really.
In the second century, Alexander's kingdom took over from Persia, and more, and when he died, when asked about his successor, he (apocryphally) said 'the strongest'. So, next after Alexander was an AVP-style all-in, with the Diadochi (the successors) fighting it out amongst themselves.

Unfortunately for Jerusalem, they were smack bang in the middle. Lots of horrific things happened in and around Jerusalem, as the Seleucids battled the Ptolemies for centuries. This includes the 'abomination of desolation' - the slaughtering of a pig on the altar in the temple.

So for the writer/editor/compiler of Daniel in the 2nd Century, this was the end of the world. It was the last evil age, when all the evil powers were assembled against God and his people. So, the message of encouragement to them was - the rock - God's intervention - is coming any day now. The horror will end, because God will not leave us in the hands of these mad men forever.

That's the message of Daniel, that's the apocalyptic perspective, and that's really all the statue can mean, both literarily and historically. Enjoy the picture.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Cradle.Cross.Crown.Choice Series

Series finished.
Think it was good.

All the talks are now up:

Cradle
Why it is legitimate to search for God, and why that search is rightly begun in trying to understand Jesus.

Cross1
That Jesus willingly went to the cross points to a great problem, which can only be solved by his death.

Crown
If Jesus was raised from the dead, it vindicates him, it points to the goodness of our physicality (our bodies), and points to his authority both now and into the future.

Choice2
Jesus' message was that we need to choose between the true God that he reveals, or a false god of our own making.

1Recording failed - re-recorded later on in my lounge room (hence no laugh-track!)
2Projector died, AND laptop also. People had to squint to see laptop, which was crashing every couple of minutes. Fun technological times!

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Euthanasia on 702

Every now and then I get a bit upset listening to the radio. Sometimes I even text in or call in.

They were discussing euthanasia on Adam Spencer's show, and people were talking about how demeaning it is to be old and in need of care.

So I asked:
Why is it not demeaning to care for an infant you love, but it is for a parent?

The producer gave me a call, asked if I could say it on air. So I was on hold and then...
Unfortunately there was too little time left; I got cut.

I guess it's the thought that counts!

Monday, September 03, 2012

Colossians 4 Chiasm

It's been a while between chiasms. Not because they're not out there, more because I've not been posting.
Are you ready for it?
Here goes:

7 Τὰ κατ᾿ ἐμὲ πάντα γνωρίσει ὑμῖν

      Τύχικος
      ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ πιστὸς διάκονος
      καὶ σύνδουλος ἐν κυρίῳ,
      8 ὃν ἔπεμψα πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο,

            ἵνα γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν καὶ
            παρακαλέσῃ τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν,

      9 σὺν Ὀνησίμῳ
      τῷ πιστῷ καὶ ἀγαπητῷ ἀδελφῷ,
      ὅς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν·

πάντα ὑμῖν γνωρίσουσιν τὰ ὧδε.

or in English:

everything about me he shall make known to you

     Tychicus,
      the beloved brother, faithful servant,
      co-slave in the Lord,
      whom i am sending to you for this reason:

            that you might know about me,
            and that your hearts might be encouraged.

      [whom i am sending to you] with Onesimus
      the faithful and beloved brother,
      who is from you,

everything here shall they make known to you.

What stands out is both the florid descriptions of Tychicus and Onesimus, but also the way in 4.8 Tychicus' name doesn't get a mention for some time. This is perhaps to allow the 'making everything about me known to you' to frame the section.

This idea of what's happening with Paul and Co. also gets a jersey in the middle, but also perhaps the purpose of the letter: that your hearts might be encouraged. The whole theme of the Supremacy of Christ is an encouragement to those who are trying to be holy in a world which isn't, and trust in Christ in a world which doesn't (1.2 - nb TNIV, NIV11, Gk).

Saturday, June 23, 2012

The gospel according to Colossians

We're going to start off nine weeks in Colossians, and going through it, it's been fascinating to see how many formulations of the gospel Paul presents.

1.13 - transfer of kingdoms
For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,

1.14 - redemption
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 

1.22 - reconciliation
But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation


2.11-12 - death of sinful nature
Your sinful nature was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 

2.13 - made alive
When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ.

2.13-14 - forgiving debt
He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.

2.15 - triumph over evil powers
And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

2.20 - dying to stoicheia
Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world

3.1 - resurrection
Since, then, you have been raised with Christ

3.3 - life in Christ
For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 

3.9-10 - old to new
since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self,

You could also talk about the gospel, among other things, as the mystery of God (1.26, 27; 2.2; 4.3), the hope stored up in heaven (1.5), and the reconciliation of all things to Christ (1.20). 

It's great to see the breadth of description, but a rebuke to our narrow, 2D descriptions. I'm looking forward to thinking through the implications of this gospel over the next few months.

Saturday, June 02, 2012

Getting Angry

Here's a short talk i did this week on anger.

Intro] 

Marcion is one of the earliest, and most interesting heretics.
he's the guy 1st/2nd Century who had two Gods - the jealous creator God of the OT, who is all about reciprocal justice, punishment - in sum, an angry God.
the other God was the one Jesus professed - characterised by love, benevolence, forgiveness, mercy.

OT] 

And we can get where Marcion is coming from - the God we meet as we read through the OT is an angry God.
he is constantly provoked, and responds in anger. and yes, he is slow to anger, but he gets angry, and when he gets angry, Israel get exiled.

NT] 

In contrast, the God of the NT says 'no' to anger:
  • 2 Cor 12.20 
  • Gal 5.20 
  • Eph 4.31 
  • Eph 6.4 
  • Col 3.8 
  • 1 Tim 2.8 
  • Jas 1.19-20 
these all say no to anger. anger is the antithesis of the new Christian life.
the one who is born again is no longer angry.
this is one of those things which the gospel tells us to put off.
Col 3 is a perfect example with a classic vice/virtue list.
Put to death and put away, among other things, Col 3.8 anger, wrath, malice, slander and obscene talk.
These are all part of the old self Col 3.9.
But Col 3.10 we've put on the new self, which is modelled after and renewed in Christ.

defn]

before we think about what this looks like, let's have a quick think about what anger is, what it looks like, and what it might mean to put it off.
so what is anger?
all the related words (anger, wrath, malice) are along some spectrum of displeasure.
they may be internalised, or realised in some way.
psychologically anger is a response to a threat - something important to us is threatened, and one response to that threat is anger.
now what is threatened might be a good thing to be worried about, but it also might not be.
it might be a loved one, a virtue, a value. but it may also be our own kingdom, our own plans. our own sense of worth.
sometimes it's hard to work out disentangle the reason - if someone lies to your face or about you - is it what's right and wrong, is it betrayal, or is it just that people won't think you're perfect any more?

personally, i am someone who historically has gotten angry a lot.
i used to get on detention a lot in primary school, not for ever starting a fight, but for retaliating, for hitting back, for not letting sleeping dogs lie.
And anger has continued to characterise my response to many many situations.
Living in Sydney's eastern suburbs, not being able to park anywhere - there was literally no spot to put my car - within a reasonable walk from my house, used to drive me absolutely mental. I used to curse the apartment blocks, the boats, the scooters, people taking up more than one spot, parking inspectors, fig trees, backpackers, abandoned cars; everything and everyone.

In Joined Up Life, Andrew Cameron describes his journey as an angry man. He writes that when anyone questioned the compatibility of his anger with his Christian faith, he received such criticism as questioning his very identity - that's just who he is.
But what he came to understand, and what I need to understand, and what we need to understand, is our own identity - not from our own perspective, but from Christ's perspective.
It's a question of identity.

for example] 

have a think about when you've been recently angry, whether it was with unreasonable demands from your family, with systems and structures, with sermon feedback, with tardiness or non-attendance.
How much of your response is tied up not with righteous anger, but with pride, on insisting on things you see as key to your identity?
do you get angry playing sport? with traffic? when your computer doesn't work?
have a think, what is being threatened?

The Bible teaches us that wrath is rightly left to God, for in him alone is anger orderly, pure and rightly expressed. Whereas mine isn't. God teaches us that our way of relating to him and to others is primarily in response not to his anger but to his mercy, as we understand it in Christ.

good anger] 

i chatted to someone who's just written a paper on Anger - and he describes a pathway of anger which is godly, and modelled after God. the key, for him, was seeing God describing himself as a jealous God.
Love-driven-jealousy expressed in anger is what is modelled by God in the OT, shown in Jesus, and evident in Paul where he confronts immorality and false teachers, as well as in Jude and 2 Peter in conflict with heretics.

now, this friend has done much more thinking and reading than me about the topic, and his pathway makes sense to me.
But I think the danger of thinking about righteous anger is that our intentions are so easily perverted by sin.
it's so easy.
sin is so pervasive that we can be angry at appropriate evils, but for the wrong reasons.
and even if we are angry for the right reasons, anger can so easily lead to things that aren't right - obscene speech, lack of self-control - even, as we see with Cain and many other crimes of passion, to violence and murder.

what we need to hear]

So the opportunity for righteous anger is not what I first need to hear.
I don't need to hear the two times some measured anger is permitted in the NT.
I need to hear the many other times anger is referred to as a wicked vice, that anger does not produce the righteousness of God.
ultimately, we treat others in response to God's treatment of us. less anger, more compassion, more mercy, more love, and more prayer, for it is hard to be angry at those you pray for in love.
and we need to keep reconsidering our own hearts and our identity.
are we angry at the same time as living out all the other virtues in the list?
or is anger another example that we haven't truly put on the new life, that the peace of Christ doesn't truly rule our hearts?

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Psalm 149 Chiasm

A   Praise Yah!
B     the faithful sing
C       the true king
D         physical praise
E            Yhwh delivers
F               the faithful exult
E'            we fight for God
D'         physical violence
C'       the false kings
B'     the faithful execute judgment
A' Praise Yah!

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Exodus Collection Psalms 90-106

Book IV could be summarised as the Exodus collection, as they reference key events in the Psalms as follows:
Exodus 1-2 (calling out in affliction) Ps 90.0, 13-17 (by Moses)
Exodus 3-12 (Plagues) Ps 91.3-4, 11
Exodus 13.3 (brought out of land of slavery) Ps 92.9
Exodus 14-15 (crossing of the sea) Ps 93.3-4
Review of the story so far Ps 94 (vibe)
Exodus 15.20-21 (Miriam's song of joy by the sea) Ps 95.1-7
Exodus 17.7 (testing and strife / Massah and Meribah) Ps 95.8-11
Exodus 24 (sacrifice; glory appears) Ps 99.6-7
Exodus 34.6 (Yhwh, Yhwh, gracious & merciful) Ps 103 Yhwh Gracious & merciful
Whole story positively Ps 105
Whole story negatively Ps 106

Summarised from Michael Wilcock's Bible Speaks Today Ps 73-150

I put this down because I was working through Psalm 95, where God is the Rock of Salvation.

I hadn't thought much of the link until i then read 1 Corinthians 10.1-4:
1 Corinthians 10 1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

All this together makes me rethink what it for Ps 95.1 to talk about the Rock of our Salvation. Originally I thought it was a general reference to God as a rock - a very common metaphor. But from the macro-structure of Book IV of the Psalms, I now think it's a specific reference to the rock in the desert, when the people were complaining, God instructed Moses to strike it with his staff and water came out for the people to drink.

1 Cor 10.4 tells us the rock was Christ, the living water which sustained God's people in the wilderness. So it is appropriate that we call upon our rock, our firm foundation, who sustained his people in the desert, and sustains us now with the living water, which fully satisfies.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

a couple of handy image generator websites

i forgot about this one last week when mentioning the atheist bus slogan: There's probably no God. now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
http://ruletheweb.co.uk/b3ta/bus/
here's what i would've put up in response to Philippians 4.4-7

there's also a whole bunch of similar sign generators over at RedKid.net, like bumper stickers and alphabet soup!

Thursday, February 09, 2012

passive imperatives in Phil. 4

I'm trying to understand the difference in emphasis between the two passive imperatives in Philippians 4.5,6:

5 (τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν) γνωσθήτω πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις. [aorist]
6 (τὰ αἰτήματα ὑμῶν) γνωριζέσθω πρὸς τὸν θεόν. [present]

5 let (your gentleness) be known by all people
6 make (your requests) be known to God

they stand out in that they have essentially the same construction except for the verbal aspect.
now, the roots are fairly similar, and i don't know if you can make much of the difference between them (they both are from that gnosis word, knowledge).
so the difference then must be the aspect in the verbs.
but the difficulty comes in understanding the emphasis in a passive imperative.

with the aorist, the force might be toward a result, with a summary aorist; may people come to the knowledge of your gentleness.
with the present, it's about making God aware of something, namely, your requests; may God now know of your requests.

i think my question is to do with how do i get across the parallel construction and emphasis, which i think Paul had in mind, in a way that i and others can grasp hold of?

this is where i'm up to at the moment anyway.