In my work for Matthew 12 last week I had a think about Sabbath, what it looks like, and what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 12 with his grain-plucking disciples. (talk available here) Doing some work on the Hebrew word Shabbat - transliterated into English as Sabbath - yielded some interesting discussion on the primacy of either the verb or the noun.
The first time we meet the verb is in Genesis 2.2-3, where we hear that God shabbats after his 6 day creating week. He's done with his creating, now is time for his shabbat. When we talk about the Shabbat in Exodus 20, we find the verb accompanying is not shabbat but nuach - the verb 'to rest'. We also have a rich description of what is not to be done on that day - no one - human or animal, free or slave, is to do any work on that day. What they are to do is nuach - becaue that is what Yhwh did on the seventh day.
Where this gets interesting is that in some cognate languages the verb shabbat means not 'rest' or 'stop work' but 'celebrate the Sabbath'. The primary meaning is not to do with what is done - or should I say, not done - but with the day from whom the action (or inaction!) is named.
What the Pharisees have done is turn celebration and enjoyment of the creation God has made (one he also enjoys) into a regulatory nightmare, centering on what may not be done, so as to prohibit anything that might resemble 'work'.
What (I think) Jesus does in Matthew 12 with his 'the son of man is lord of the Sabbath' line is to explain that the very understanding of the word shabbat is wrong. It is and always has been about enjoying and resting in that joy, trusting that God is good and sovereign and trustworthy. There is no need for work, but a welcome into Sabbath rest - now for a day, but soon for eternity.
Wednesday, January 06, 2016
Matthew 13 Chiasm Structure
Saturday, July 12, 2014
Power as a tax
As I've been trying to sift through the debates around energy, I keep coming back to this: the government needs to keep us using energy - their livelihood depends on it.
What do I mean? Well, despite repeated encouragements to buy energy-efficient appliances, turn off appliances that aren't being used, and, until recently, to invest in household solar, things have now reached a tipping point.
Energy use has decreased at over 10% for the last three years, whereas investment in the grid is $50bn, in what they fear are now 'stranded assets'. For every person that installs solar with no government feed-in tariff, that turns off lights, that upgrades to more efficient appliances, there are less kilowatt hours to spread the massive costs of the gold-plated poles and wires on to. And as the costs increase, so too do consumers do all they can to decrease their dependency.
But there are government guarantees (that energy companies can charge what they need to recover costs), there are taxes on privatised energy companies, there are always the jobs (gotta save the jobs!), and there are agreements, back-room or otherwise, relating to coal mines and power generation that need to be honoured.
But if it is a tax, and if decentralised, personal or community-based power generation and storage is the future, then why not just tax us, get involved, and do everything possible to move away from the whole damned coal/gas/petrol/nuclear industry to things which have a future.
What do I mean? Well, despite repeated encouragements to buy energy-efficient appliances, turn off appliances that aren't being used, and, until recently, to invest in household solar, things have now reached a tipping point.
Energy use has decreased at over 10% for the last three years, whereas investment in the grid is $50bn, in what they fear are now 'stranded assets'. For every person that installs solar with no government feed-in tariff, that turns off lights, that upgrades to more efficient appliances, there are less kilowatt hours to spread the massive costs of the gold-plated poles and wires on to. And as the costs increase, so too do consumers do all they can to decrease their dependency.
But there are government guarantees (that energy companies can charge what they need to recover costs), there are taxes on privatised energy companies, there are always the jobs (gotta save the jobs!), and there are agreements, back-room or otherwise, relating to coal mines and power generation that need to be honoured.
But if it is a tax, and if decentralised, personal or community-based power generation and storage is the future, then why not just tax us, get involved, and do everything possible to move away from the whole damned coal/gas/petrol/nuclear industry to things which have a future.
Monday, June 30, 2014
Amos 8-9 Chiasm
Here's my structure of Amos 8.1-9.10. I think it works pretty well.
A 8.1-2 vision of summer fruit - ready to be eaten
B1 8.3-8 in that day - songs will be wailing
B2 8.9-10 in that day - songs into weeping
C 8.11-12 the days are coming - famine of the word
B' 8.13-14 in that day - they will fall
A' 9.1-10 vision of the Lord by the altar - everything will be shaken
A 8.1-2 vision of summer fruit - ready to be eaten
B1 8.3-8 in that day - songs will be wailing
B2 8.9-10 in that day - songs into weeping
C 8.11-12 the days are coming - famine of the word
B' 8.13-14 in that day - they will fall
A' 9.1-10 vision of the Lord by the altar - everything will be shaken
bookends are the visions,
inside are 'in that day'
and centremost is 'the days are coming'
I think this fits quite well with the whole picture of Amos - having so thoroughly rejected the word of God, God is now handing them over to their sinful desires. Having desired to be free of God's word, he is now deliberately withholding it, with all that goes along with that. This is indeed a dire judgement.
Thursday, March 06, 2014
Letters to the editor (SMH) March 5-7
Wednesday:
Thursday:
Friday:*
Surely the conservative call for the freedom to spout offensive racist hate speech would be more convincing if it were matched by a similar call for the freedom to marry whomever you wished, regardless of gender, or the freedom to end your own life with dignity? Or is it that all freedoms are good, but some are better than others?
Sunil Badami Rozelle
Thursday:
In advocating for unfettered freedoms, Sunil Badami (Letters, March 5) does not go far enough. Why just advocate for freedom to marry whomever one wished, without also delimiting however many? Why should polygamists be denied legal access and rights to marriage in Australia? Lifting restrictions on polygamy will help do away with angst about adultery and extra-marital affairs, no?
Hendry Wan Rosebery
Friday:*
On marriage, Hendry Wan (Letters, March 6) makes a good point. We as a society need to determine whether marriage is a good thing for society or not. If the marriage between a man and a woman, the stability and trust it brings, including a secure place to nurture children, if this is truly a bad thing, we should do away with it holus bolus. Otherwise, we need to confess that the permutations, such as multiple marriages (either serial or concurrent) are in fact harmful and we need to redouble our efforts to defend marriage.
Douglas Fyfe Carlingford
*they probably won't publish it, but I thought I'd have a crack.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Things that flow
Generally speaking*, there are two flows described in the Bible:
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?!
- 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).
- 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:
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:
The first three are the most interesting, and may bear on the later uses:
10.3 - desirable foodIn repentance Daniel refrains from eating choice food, meat and wine, as an outward expression of his repentance.
10.11,19 - esteemed man (cf. 9.23 for the only other use in Daniel)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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:
or in English:
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).
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)