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!
Friday, October 26, 2012
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.
Saturday, June 02, 2012
Getting Angry
Here's a short talk i did this week on anger.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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!
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!
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:
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Abram's Altars
has anyone else noticed the two altars in Genesis 12?
the first altar seems to be about thanksgiving. upon entering the promised land, but finding it occupied, God promises, and Abraham gives thanks for this promise despite appearances by making the altar (and theoretically sacrificing upon it also).
but then he makes another one, seemingly with no purpose.
my thinking is this:
all of Abram's travels were directed by something specific.
the Battles edition of the Institutes i have lists Genesis 12.8 as a cross-reference here, that is, he was praying to God for guidance, direction, and proleptically, pointing to Jesus, the high priest who, because of his shed blood, is able to intercede directly with the Father on our behalf.
Gen 12.6 Abram traveled through the land as far as the site of the great tree of Moreh at Shechem. But the Canaanites were in the land. 7 The LORD appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.” So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him.
Gen 12.8 From there he went on toward the hills east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. There he built an altar to the LORD and called on the name of the LORD.
Gen 12.9 Then Abram set out and continued toward the Negev.
the first altar seems to be about thanksgiving. upon entering the promised land, but finding it occupied, God promises, and Abraham gives thanks for this promise despite appearances by making the altar (and theoretically sacrificing upon it also).
but then he makes another one, seemingly with no purpose.
my thinking is this:
all of Abram's travels were directed by something specific.
- Ur to Harran because of his dad
- Harran to Canaan because of God's word
- Shechem to Bethel-Ai because God speaks of future promise
- Bethel-Ai to Negev because of [something to do with the altar]?
- Negev to Egypt because of famine
- Egypt to Negev because of the Pharaoh
- Negev to Bethel-Ai because of flock size
- and so on
Hence, under the law it was necessary to consecrate prayers by the expiation of blood, both that they might be accepted, and that the people might be warned that they were unworthy of the high privilege until, being purged from their defilements, they founded their confidence in prayer entirely on the mercy of God.
the Battles edition of the Institutes i have lists Genesis 12.8 as a cross-reference here, that is, he was praying to God for guidance, direction, and proleptically, pointing to Jesus, the high priest who, because of his shed blood, is able to intercede directly with the Father on our behalf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)