The New Testament preserves two of Paul's letters to Thessalonica. These letters are possibly the earliest writings of the New Testament, probably written in 52 CE, just two decades after the death and resurrection of Christ. These letters compete with the letter to the Galatians as the first New Testament book.
Wikipedia has an article on First Thessalonians. I think that article, along with the one on Second Thessalonians, is reasonably well-balanced, giving weight to both traditional and secular views of these letters.
The city of Thessalonica, now called Thessaloniki, was -- and still is -- a major city in Greece. (Wikipedia also has an article on the modern city of Thessaloniki.)
Shortly after visiting Thessalonica on his second missionary journey (see Acts 17:1-9), Paul is attacked by rabble-rousers and forced to leave town, moving on to the Greek cities of Berea, Athens and Corinth. In Athens or Corinth, anxious about the new church in Thessalonica, Paul sends Timothy back to check on the young believers he has left behind. Timothy returns with a report that the Thessalonians, although persecuted and attacked, are continuing to grow and mature in their faith. Paul's letter is in response to Timothy's good report.
The first half of the letter is personal and intimate, more concerned with spiritual growth than doctrine or theology. The theology of the letter emphasizes the reality of the resurrection and the second coming of Jesus. Paul commends the people for their faith and growth, claiming they are a model for the rest of Macedonia and Achaia and encourages them to be steady and stable in the faith.
There is a nice article on the letter at OverviewBible.
In his second letter to the Thessalonians, Paul responds to some more serious questions about the second advent of Jesus, including apparent claims that Jesus has already returned. The entire second chapter is a description of the second coming of Christ. The third and final chapter encourages steady and consistent work and life by those who patiently await their Savior. (OverviewBible.com also has a nice summary of II Thessalonians.)
Showing posts with label Sunday. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sunday. Show all posts
Sunday, March 16, 2025
Sunday, December 31, 2017
A Few Praise Passages from Revelation
Looking more at Revelation, I have collected some adoration & praise passages
Revelation 1: 5b-8
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father--to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."
Revelation gives a long overarching vision of history, begun and ended by the eternal Creator.
Revelation 1: 18
I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
The Living One experienced even death and now controls all sin and death.
Revelation 4: 11
"You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."
A simple praise chorus based on the creative character of God.
"You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."
Again, the praise leans on the willing sacrifice of the Lamb. Notice the diversity of the Kingdom of God, purchasing from death men and women of every tribe, language, people, nation.
"Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"
Praising the slain Lamb.
Revelation 7: 10-12
And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."
All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying:
"Amen! Praise and glory and wisdom and thanks and honor and power and strength be to our God for ever and ever. Amen!"
The Lamb reigns forever!
Revelation 7: 15-17
Therefore,
"they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them. 16 Never again will they hunger; never again will they thirst. The sun will not beat upon them, nor any scorching heat. For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; he will lead them to springs of living water. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."
I look forward to the time when God wipes away every tear.
Revelation 19: 1-4
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father--to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."
Revelation gives a long overarching vision of history, begun and ended by the eternal Creator.
I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
The Living One experienced even death and now controls all sin and death.
Revelation 4: 11
"You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."
A simple praise chorus based on the creative character of God.
Revelation 5: 9-10
And they sang a new song:"You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."
Again, the praise leans on the willing sacrifice of the Lamb. Notice the diversity of the Kingdom of God, purchasing from death men and women of every tribe, language, people, nation.
Revelation 5:12
In a loud voice they sang:"Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"
Praising the slain Lamb.
And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."
All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying:
"Amen! Praise and glory and wisdom and thanks and honor and power and strength be to our God for ever and ever. Amen!"
The Lamb reigns forever!
Revelation 7: 15-17
Therefore,
"they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them. 16 Never again will they hunger; never again will they thirst. The sun will not beat upon them, nor any scorching heat. For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; he will lead them to springs of living water. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."
I look forward to the time when God wipes away every tear.
Revelation 19: 1-4
After this I heard what sounded like the roar of a great multitude in heaven shouting: "Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God, for true and just are his judgments. He has condemned the great prostitute who corrupted the earth by her adulteries. He has avenged on her the blood of his servants."
And again they shouted: "Hallelujah! The smoke from her goes up for ever and ever."
And again they shouted: "Hallelujah! The smoke from her goes up for ever and ever."
The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God, who was seated on the throne. And they cried: "Amen, Hallelujah!"
A time of reckoning, justice, and praise. The praise focuses on the longterm, eternal reign.
Rejoice!
Monday, June 26, 2017
Prelude to the New Testament
The Old Testament ends with a number of prophetic passages, probably written around 400 BCE. More than four centuries later, Jesus begins his ministry in Galilee and we have the writings of the New Testament. It might be good to review the history that leads up to the New Testament.
The Old Testament records God calling Abraham out of the area of modern Iraq to Canaan, the site of modern Israel, around 2000 BCE. The children of Abraham's grandson, Jacob, eventually settle in Egypt, where they become a large tribe which eventually leaves Egypt about 1500 BCE under the leadership of Moses. This tribe, the people of Israel, settles the land of Canaan where, around 1000 BCE, they are a nation ruled by a king, David. The nation of Israel reaches its greatest strength during the reign of David's son, Solomon, but splits into two kingdoms, the northern ten tribes ("Israel") and the southern two tribes ("Judah") at Solomon's death.
Much of the Old Testament history then chronicles the ups and downs of these two countries, as they are repeatedly urged to return to God and Mosaic law. Eventually the two kingdoms are invaded by the Babylonian empire with Judah becoming a Babylonian vassal around 605 BCE. Shortly after this, the inhabitants of Judah (such as the young man, Daniel) are deported to Babylon. The Jews living in Babylon were allowed to return to their original land then around 538 BCE, an event covered by the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Shortly after that time, the Old Testament prophets go silent. But we know from other sources that Alexander the Great conquered the region around 332 BCE, as he expanded his empire east and that the region was ruled by the Ptolemaic dynasty from 301 BCE to 198 BCE and then by a number of Jewish priest-kings after the Maccabean revolt in 167 BCE. In 63 BCE the Roman ruler Pompey conquered Jerusalem and after that time, the Romans ruled Judea, delegating their authority a series of Jewish kings given the name Herod, beginning with Herod the Great, the founder of the Herodian dynasty. It is within this dynasty that Jesus is born. The nation of Israel was officially ruled by Herod the Great, but ultimately Herod answered to Caesar Augustus in Rome.
This Wikipedia page has more details on the history of Israel.
The New Testament opens with four accounts of the ministry of Jesus. The “synoptic gospels”, Mathew, Mark and Luke have much in common (thus the term "synoptic" or "similar") and presumably reflect the early accounts of Peter and others on the ministry of Jesus. These three gospels often tell of the same episodes, with slightly different points of view. Matthew, a Jew, emphasizes that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Mark, while reporting Jesus as the Messiah (in Greek Christos) also portrays Jesus as a man of action, engaged in reformation of Israel. Mark's gospel is a sequence of short vivid accounts of Jesus's acts and words and is most likely the life of Jesus as reported by Peter during Peter's later ministry. Luke, a Gentile convert, emphasizes the role of Jesus as a universal savior, savior not just of the Jews but of all mankind.
The Gospel of John is apparently the report of the young disciple John. John was probably a teenager during the ministry of Jesus and, written after the other gospels, this account fills in details missed by the earlier ones. It also adds a philosophical view, from the vantage point of sixty years after the events. John describes Jesus as not just the Jewish Messiah but the (Greek) Logos, the Creator of the universe appearing in the flesh, living among mankind.
We will continue in the Gospel of Mark tomorrow.
The Old Testament records God calling Abraham out of the area of modern Iraq to Canaan, the site of modern Israel, around 2000 BCE. The children of Abraham's grandson, Jacob, eventually settle in Egypt, where they become a large tribe which eventually leaves Egypt about 1500 BCE under the leadership of Moses. This tribe, the people of Israel, settles the land of Canaan where, around 1000 BCE, they are a nation ruled by a king, David. The nation of Israel reaches its greatest strength during the reign of David's son, Solomon, but splits into two kingdoms, the northern ten tribes ("Israel") and the southern two tribes ("Judah") at Solomon's death.
Much of the Old Testament history then chronicles the ups and downs of these two countries, as they are repeatedly urged to return to God and Mosaic law. Eventually the two kingdoms are invaded by the Babylonian empire with Judah becoming a Babylonian vassal around 605 BCE. Shortly after this, the inhabitants of Judah (such as the young man, Daniel) are deported to Babylon. The Jews living in Babylon were allowed to return to their original land then around 538 BCE, an event covered by the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Shortly after that time, the Old Testament prophets go silent. But we know from other sources that Alexander the Great conquered the region around 332 BCE, as he expanded his empire east and that the region was ruled by the Ptolemaic dynasty from 301 BCE to 198 BCE and then by a number of Jewish priest-kings after the Maccabean revolt in 167 BCE. In 63 BCE the Roman ruler Pompey conquered Jerusalem and after that time, the Romans ruled Judea, delegating their authority a series of Jewish kings given the name Herod, beginning with Herod the Great, the founder of the Herodian dynasty. It is within this dynasty that Jesus is born. The nation of Israel was officially ruled by Herod the Great, but ultimately Herod answered to Caesar Augustus in Rome.
This Wikipedia page has more details on the history of Israel.
The New Testament opens with four accounts of the ministry of Jesus. The “synoptic gospels”, Mathew, Mark and Luke have much in common (thus the term "synoptic" or "similar") and presumably reflect the early accounts of Peter and others on the ministry of Jesus. These three gospels often tell of the same episodes, with slightly different points of view. Matthew, a Jew, emphasizes that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Mark, while reporting Jesus as the Messiah (in Greek Christos) also portrays Jesus as a man of action, engaged in reformation of Israel. Mark's gospel is a sequence of short vivid accounts of Jesus's acts and words and is most likely the life of Jesus as reported by Peter during Peter's later ministry. Luke, a Gentile convert, emphasizes the role of Jesus as a universal savior, savior not just of the Jews but of all mankind.
The Gospel of John is apparently the report of the young disciple John. John was probably a teenager during the ministry of Jesus and, written after the other gospels, this account fills in details missed by the earlier ones. It also adds a philosophical view, from the vantage point of sixty years after the events. John describes Jesus as not just the Jewish Messiah but the (Greek) Logos, the Creator of the universe appearing in the flesh, living among mankind.
We will continue in the Gospel of Mark tomorrow.
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
Textual conflicts and differences
In this second year of New Testament study, I have been rewriting studies and posts from last year. At this time I am traveling and running a bit behind, so ... here is a post from last year where I summarize my understanding of some of the textual conflicts in the New Testament.
Any serious student of the New Testament becomes aware of the discrepancies and differences in the ancient manuscripts. When we looked at Mark 11, for example, the New International Version (NIV) has no verse 26, but includes footnotes that the phrase, "But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your sins" is not in the ancient manuscripts.
The New Testament was written in Greek, during the first century, on papyrus sheets that did not last long. The letters that make up the New Testament were copied and recopied. Our most ancient preserved versions date to the second or third centuries and these ancient versions (or copies of them) vary. Most of the variations are slight, as the addition (or deletion) of a common phrase like that occurring in Mark 11:26. Many of the deviations are a single word or a modification of a word, with no change in meaning. However, some deviations are significant, as the end of Mark, where most ancient manuscripts stop suddenly at the end of Mark 16:8. (See this Wikipedia article on Mark 16.) The sudden ending at Mark 16:8 was surely not intended -- something has been lost -- but what?
Another famous manuscript difference occurs with John 7:53-8-11, which is absent in the most ancient manuscripts. On the other hand, John 21, occurring in the most ancient manuscripts, has some stylistic attributes that suggest to some scholars that it was a slightly later addition. In the first epistle of John, I John 5:7-8, there is a late addition suddenly describing the Trinity; surely this was not in the original text and is not in the older manuscripts.
Evangelical tradition is to insist that God was active in creating an "inerrant original manuscript", through the Holy Spirit guiding the thoughts to the New Testament writer. But due to the quick decay of the ancient writings, we do not have copies of those originals. It is also possible that some letters had more than one "original". When Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians, did he just write one copy and pass it around? Or did he write several copies? Although papyrus was expensive, it is possible that Paul wrote several copies, each varying slightly. Paul's letters read as if written naturally, on the spot, without drafts or outlines. (In I Corinthians 1:13-17, for example, Paul starts to write that he "baptized no one" and then corrects himself.)
The situation is even move complicated with the more ancient Old Testament. Wikipedia has nice articles on Hebrew manuscripts (here and here) and on the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament.
My experience in the evangelical community suggests that some Christians focus on making claims about the Bible's inerrancy, in place of reading it. If one believes (as I do) that the Bible is God's communication to humankind, then we should spend significant time reading it! We will get back to that tomorrow.
Any serious student of the New Testament becomes aware of the discrepancies and differences in the ancient manuscripts. When we looked at Mark 11, for example, the New International Version (NIV) has no verse 26, but includes footnotes that the phrase, "But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your sins" is not in the ancient manuscripts.
Another famous manuscript difference occurs with John 7:53-8-11, which is absent in the most ancient manuscripts. On the other hand, John 21, occurring in the most ancient manuscripts, has some stylistic attributes that suggest to some scholars that it was a slightly later addition. In the first epistle of John, I John 5:7-8, there is a late addition suddenly describing the Trinity; surely this was not in the original text and is not in the older manuscripts.
Preserved ancient New Testament manuscripts vary by age and region of preservation. They have been extensibly studied and catalogued. Here, from Wikipedia, is a list of Bible verses in dispute, left out of most modern translations. (As mentioned earlier, most of these are small minor changes between one manuscript and another, differences that have accumulated over time. While one manuscript says "prayer and fasting", a commonly used phrase, another simply says "prayer.")
Evangelical tradition is to insist that God was active in creating an "inerrant original manuscript", through the Holy Spirit guiding the thoughts to the New Testament writer. But due to the quick decay of the ancient writings, we do not have copies of those originals. It is also possible that some letters had more than one "original". When Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians, did he just write one copy and pass it around? Or did he write several copies? Although papyrus was expensive, it is possible that Paul wrote several copies, each varying slightly. Paul's letters read as if written naturally, on the spot, without drafts or outlines. (In I Corinthians 1:13-17, for example, Paul starts to write that he "baptized no one" and then corrects himself.)
The situation is even move complicated with the more ancient Old Testament. Wikipedia has nice articles on Hebrew manuscripts (here and here) and on the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament.
My experience in the evangelical community suggests that some Christians focus on making claims about the Bible's inerrancy, in place of reading it. If one believes (as I do) that the Bible is God's communication to humankind, then we should spend significant time reading it! We will get back to that tomorrow.
Sunday, June 11, 2017
God of All Comfort
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God.
II Corinthians 1: 3-4
On Sundays I generally look at some concepts related to the New Testament text under study. Today I will digress a bit to discuss some New Testament concepts related to suffering, stimulated by some recent personal events.
This meme recently came across my FB feed:
This meme recently came across my FB feed:
This FB "bumper sticker" briefly mentions two legitimate issues in philosophy and religion, but, of course, it just touches on tip of these philosophical icebergs, as if they were shallow concepts, not deep. An atheist may attempt to explain away beauty as mere illusion while Christians must deal with the problem of evil and pain in a universe created by a loving God.
A children's hospital will rub one's face in the problem of pain.
The problem of evil has a long and deep discussion within Christian philosophy, going back to the book of Job in the Old Testament. The related "problem of pain" is discussed in some depth by C. S. Lewis in his book by that name, written at the end of World War II.
A children's hospital will rub one's face in the problem of pain.
The problem of evil has a long and deep discussion within Christian philosophy, going back to the book of Job in the Old Testament. The related "problem of pain" is discussed in some depth by C. S. Lewis in his book by that name, written at the end of World War II.
I am vividly reminded of this meme by some recent visits to a hospital, to Children's Minnesota in St. Paul.
Most of us do not visit children's hospitals because we are curious or because we have philosophical questions. A visit to a children's hospital is forced on us by the pain and grief of an ill child that we dearly love. Years ago, Jan and I visited a children's hospital in Ann Arbor, Michigan, invited by a frightened young couple whose daughter was seriously ill. I recall tearing up and crying, just getting off the elevator, before stepping onto the child's floor. The sight of numerous children bundled into hospital beds with anxious parents standing nearby -- all that innocent suffering -- it was overwhelming.
Most of us do not visit children's hospitals because we are curious or because we have philosophical questions. A visit to a children's hospital is forced on us by the pain and grief of an ill child that we dearly love. Years ago, Jan and I visited a children's hospital in Ann Arbor, Michigan, invited by a frightened young couple whose daughter was seriously ill. I recall tearing up and crying, just getting off the elevator, before stepping onto the child's floor. The sight of numerous children bundled into hospital beds with anxious parents standing nearby -- all that innocent suffering -- it was overwhelming.
I had the same feeling this time. This time the sick little girl was my granddaughter and the anxious parents were my son and daughter-in-law. This deepened the pain. We cried and prayed over the little bundle in the hospital bed. We worried and hoped -- and then rejoiced -- as she slowly got better.
During the week that our granddaughter was in the PICU at Children's Minnesota, she was treated by devoted nurses and doctors. This began in the hurried flurry of activity in the ER as the little girl was admitted and it continued throughout the week. (We have hopes that our granddaughter will be discharged later in the coming week!)
In addition to experienced and dedicated staff, there were a variety of other support services, including the Ronald McDonald Family Room in a nearby wing of the hospital. The "Family Room" has friendly staff and many awesome resources for parents and family members dealing with a child in a nearby wing. The "Family Room" includes four private sleeping rooms and a kitchen with lots of different foods (some ready to be microwaved.) The kitchen is adjacent to a bright beautiful children’s play area staffed by people eager to play with young children. Guests can do laundry, take a shower, nap, relax, recover. Stressed couples can talk to other families; home-cooked meals are offered on a regular schedule. Yes, it is traumatic to have a child in this part of the hospital but the staff understand the suffering and they help families eat, sleep, grieve and then hurry back to hovering over their child’s bed. Alex and Sierra had opportunities to meet other anxious couples at the Ronald McDonald house during their visits.
If there is to be pain and evil in the world, I am grateful that there are places like a children's hospital, where one can see a variety of caring people reaching out, as a hand of God, to hurting families. Each actor, whether doctor, nurse, security, or Family Room staff, each seems to be using his or her talents in critical acts of compassion. I am grateful to God for children's hospitals.
Tomorrow we return to the gospel of Mark, where we read of God's direct intervention in evil, pain and suffering.
Tomorrow we return to the gospel of Mark, where we read of God's direct intervention in evil, pain and suffering.
Sunday, June 4, 2017
Pericopes of Peter, the Gospel of Mark
Early in this week we will finish up Paul's letter to the Romans and begin a read through the Gospel of Mark, a favorite of mine. On Sundays I take a break from the chapter-per-day posting and examine a topic or do an overview of a book, so today I will look briefly at what we know about the Gospel of Mark.
Tradition has it that some thirty years or more after the death of Christ, Mark wrote down the oral history about Jesus, as given by Peter. This "Gospel" consists of a series of energetic brief stories, called pericopes, that fit well with oral storytelling. One can imagine Peter -- an eyewitness of Jesus and one of three disciples in Jesus's inner circle -- later telling these stories in various sermons and in various synagogues. These pericopes include small descriptive details seen by an eyewitness account. John Mark would then have written these down later to preserve the oral teachings.
There are some good online references for a study in Mark. Here are a few I found.
A Jesus Creed blog post discusses the 30 year transition from oral history of Jesus to printed reports as given in the gospel of Mark.
Tradition has it that some thirty years or more after the death of Christ, Mark wrote down the oral history about Jesus, as given by Peter. This "Gospel" consists of a series of energetic brief stories, called pericopes, that fit well with oral storytelling. One can imagine Peter -- an eyewitness of Jesus and one of three disciples in Jesus's inner circle -- later telling these stories in various sermons and in various synagogues. These pericopes include small descriptive details seen by an eyewitness account. John Mark would then have written these down later to preserve the oral teachings.
There are some good online references for a study in Mark. Here are a few I found.
A Jesus Creed blog post discusses the 30 year transition from oral history of Jesus to printed reports as given in the gospel of Mark.
The Bible Project has a nice video survey of Mark. (I recommend the nice book summaries from the Bible Project!) As emphasized in this video, Mark's goal is to introduce Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.
Overview Bible has a simple introduction and synopsis of this book.
EasyEnglish (of Wycliffe translators) has a commentary on Mark intended for English as a Second Language (ESL) learners.
Here is another Jesus Creed blog post on the healing of the blind man in Mark 8 and the immediate question it raises, "Who is this man, Jesus?!"
Rummaging through online resources I found this 8 hour (!) youtube video study through the Gospel of Mark. (It is in a "King James only" viewpoint. No, I don't really recommend this....)
But I do recommend this commentary by William Barclay. I am trying to read through this book as I post the various chapters.
Make sure you know how to pronounce "pericopes" (purr -- rick -- cup-- pees) and then impress your friends with your Bible training! No. Sorry. Don't!
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Circumcision and Paul's argument in Romans 4
Paul's argument in Romans 4 revolves around the ancient Jewish ritual of circumcision of male babies. It is, to modern minds, a very strange (and sexist) practice, but deeply embedded in the Jewish understanding of God's promises to Abraham and Abraham's descendants.
God's covenant with Abraham, begun in Genesis 15, occupies all of chapter 17 of Genesis. In it God sets up the requirement of circumcision for male babies (verses 11-14.) Later (see Exodus 4:25) God continues that covenant in the time of Moses. Forty years later, as the Israelites, at the end of the Exodus, are about to enter the promised land, they are circumcised and then celebrate the Passover. (See Joshua 5:2-9.)
In the time of the prophets, circumcision becomes a metaphor; what happened "in the flesh" is also supposed to happen "in the heart." Jewish males are reminded that the mere fleshly ritual, practiced on them when they were just 8 days old, is merely a sign of the covenant. It is not the covenant itself. They are to have their hearts circumcised so that they follow God automatically! This argument begins in Deuteronomy 30:6, in the time of Moses, and continues throughout the nation of Israel. (See Jeremiah's call in Jeremiah 4:4 and Jeremiah 9:25-26.) Circumcision was a bloody and painful metaphor for a commitment of the heart!
In modern times, circumcision is practiced for both religious reasons or health reasons. It is a controversial topic at times, as people debate the apparent value versus the pain suffered by an 8-day-old baby. (See this story from 2012, where a German court tried to outlaw circumcision.) For the modern Christian, circumcision certainly appears to be sexist, as by definition, only boys got the "privilege" and pain of this initiation rite. Fortunately, Christian baptism is (1) offered to both genders and (2) much less painful!
As always, there is a good Wikipedia article on this topic.
God's covenant with Abraham, begun in Genesis 15, occupies all of chapter 17 of Genesis. In it God sets up the requirement of circumcision for male babies (verses 11-14.) Later (see Exodus 4:25) God continues that covenant in the time of Moses. Forty years later, as the Israelites, at the end of the Exodus, are about to enter the promised land, they are circumcised and then celebrate the Passover. (See Joshua 5:2-9.)
In the time of the prophets, circumcision becomes a metaphor; what happened "in the flesh" is also supposed to happen "in the heart." Jewish males are reminded that the mere fleshly ritual, practiced on them when they were just 8 days old, is merely a sign of the covenant. It is not the covenant itself. They are to have their hearts circumcised so that they follow God automatically! This argument begins in Deuteronomy 30:6, in the time of Moses, and continues throughout the nation of Israel. (See Jeremiah's call in Jeremiah 4:4 and Jeremiah 9:25-26.) Circumcision was a bloody and painful metaphor for a commitment of the heart!
In the same way, in Romans chapter 4, Paul argues that Abraham was made righteous before circumcision and so it is not circumcision that makes one righteous, but it was something prior to that. It was Abraham's "faith", that is, Abraham's trust and submission to God, that granted him righteousness.
In modern times, circumcision is practiced for both religious reasons or health reasons. It is a controversial topic at times, as people debate the apparent value versus the pain suffered by an 8-day-old baby. (See this story from 2012, where a German court tried to outlaw circumcision.) For the modern Christian, circumcision certainly appears to be sexist, as by definition, only boys got the "privilege" and pain of this initiation rite. Fortunately, Christian baptism is (1) offered to both genders and (2) much less painful!
As always, there is a good Wikipedia article on this topic.
Sunday, May 21, 2017
Paul's letter to the church in Rome
On Sundays we take a break from working our way through the New Testament and instead do some type of overview of a New Testament book or passage. Today I want to look at Paul's letter to the church (or churches) in Rome.
Of the letters of Paul that have survived, the letter to the churches in Galatia is probably the earliest. It has a raw, unorganized intensity that reflects Paul's personal involvement with the new believers in those churches. The letter to the church in Rome is very different. It is more objective and much less personal (with the exception of the last chapter.) At the time the letter was written, Paul has not yet gone to Rome and so the people of that assembly are unknown to him. His goal in the letter is to describe, in a more organized way, his earlier arguments about God, salvation, and this Jewish Messiah, Jesus. His letter follows a more systematic, logical form that the letter to the Galatians.
An underlying theme in Paul's letter to the Romans is that being a Christian is not about being "religious". Trying to "be good" to make God happy won’t get a person very far at all. Instead, God uses his great power to save those who are not--who cannot be--good by forgiving them and making them his children. We don’t become a Christian by being religious, and we don’t remain a Christian by being religious. We become and remain Christians by following Christ in faith. That is much different than being religious.
The very last portion of the letter (chapter 16) gives personal greetings from others in his party and from that we learn that Paul is surely writing from Corinth. The people mentioned are either leaders in the church in Corinth or the nearby port city of Cenchrea. The letter was most likely written about 56 CE when Paul was in Corinth (recorded by Luke at the beginning of Acts 20.) Possibly during that time, traveling with Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul had stayed at Gaius's home in Corinth; this is mentioned at the end of the letter to the Romans.
In Acts 20, Paul clearly expects to travel to Rome. The letter mentions Phoebe who was a deacon in the Cencheae, a port town near Corinth. Erastus, also mentioned, lived in Corinth.
At the beginning of Acts 20, Paul is collecting aid for the church in Jerusalem. He intends to deliver that aid to Jerusalem and then travel back through Asia Minor, Greece and Italy to Rome and then maybe eventually to Spain. How Paul actually gets to Rome is the subject of Acts 21-28.
There are some good internet sources on the epistle to the Romans. Here are some:
Tomorrow we will return to reading through Paul's letter to the Romans.
Of the letters of Paul that have survived, the letter to the churches in Galatia is probably the earliest. It has a raw, unorganized intensity that reflects Paul's personal involvement with the new believers in those churches. The letter to the church in Rome is very different. It is more objective and much less personal (with the exception of the last chapter.) At the time the letter was written, Paul has not yet gone to Rome and so the people of that assembly are unknown to him. His goal in the letter is to describe, in a more organized way, his earlier arguments about God, salvation, and this Jewish Messiah, Jesus. His letter follows a more systematic, logical form that the letter to the Galatians.
An underlying theme in Paul's letter to the Romans is that being a Christian is not about being "religious". Trying to "be good" to make God happy won’t get a person very far at all. Instead, God uses his great power to save those who are not--who cannot be--good by forgiving them and making them his children. We don’t become a Christian by being religious, and we don’t remain a Christian by being religious. We become and remain Christians by following Christ in faith. That is much different than being religious.
In Acts 20, Paul clearly expects to travel to Rome. The letter mentions Phoebe who was a deacon in the Cencheae, a port town near Corinth. Erastus, also mentioned, lived in Corinth.
At the beginning of Acts 20, Paul is collecting aid for the church in Jerusalem. He intends to deliver that aid to Jerusalem and then travel back through Asia Minor, Greece and Italy to Rome and then maybe eventually to Spain. How Paul actually gets to Rome is the subject of Acts 21-28.
There are some good internet sources on the epistle to the Romans. Here are some:
- As always, there is a Wikipedia article on Romans.
- I recommend the Blue Letter Bible article on Romans.
- Wycliffe Bible Translators has an Easy English commentary, aimed for those with English as a second language.
- There is a nice Catholic commentary on Romans.
- And a thorough view from Theopedia (a Protestant site).
Sunday, May 14, 2017
Suffering (Paul, Jesus, Us)
I heard a good sermon this morning at West End Presbyterian Church (while visiting Richmond, Virginia.) The sermon was out of II Corinthians, chapter 6, focusing on the first twelve verses, and fits nicely into our study of this letter.
The sermon was essentially on Christian suffering -- following Paul's long list of sufferings he experienced as a Christian. An underlying theme was that it is unrealistic, indeed wrong, to expect that good moral spiritual growth leads to comfort and ease. The pastor, Steve Shelby (whom I've heard before and who has experience in these matters) listed Paul's sufferings from II Corinthians 6 ("... in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left; through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as impostors; known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything...") and emphasized the contradictions in terms that occur in this passage. The contradictions (deliberate by Paul) make it clear that he experienced events that were both painful and joyful, both harmful and glorious, involving honor and dishonor, and so on.
The passage emphasizes Paul's honesty and his desire not to create a barrier of dishonesty in the presentation of the gospel. We should leave room for lament in our Christian walk, leave room for sadness, frustration and doubt.
At times we (in the USA) act as if the decision to follow Jesus, embracing his death and resurrection, leads to a painfree, joyous life. It does not. Surely there is joy. But some types of suffering are replaced by a different set of sufferings, stresses and pain. That is the way it is and we should not hide that or shrink from that reality.
Although Steve Shelby did not say much directly related to Mother's Day -- Yes, today is Mother's Day -- it was easy to draw some analogies out of motherhood and parenting in general. Jesus mentioned the pain of childbirth as an example of suffering and pain that later brings great joy. I think Shelby's message was to embrace this and rejoice that we are called to "suffer" and that a time will come when all suffering ends. But that time is not yet.
A secondary theme which I heard is that some suffering is good. We may come away pleased, proud. At the end of a long hike, we are sore and aching and we say, looking back, "Yes, that was worth it!" When I became a Christian I traded away superficial and vain suffering for a life of purpose and meaning. Some of the suffering has purpose. Paul recognized that much of his past suffering led eventually to great good.
The sermon was essentially on Christian suffering -- following Paul's long list of sufferings he experienced as a Christian. An underlying theme was that it is unrealistic, indeed wrong, to expect that good moral spiritual growth leads to comfort and ease. The pastor, Steve Shelby (whom I've heard before and who has experience in these matters) listed Paul's sufferings from II Corinthians 6 ("... in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left; through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as impostors; known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything...") and emphasized the contradictions in terms that occur in this passage. The contradictions (deliberate by Paul) make it clear that he experienced events that were both painful and joyful, both harmful and glorious, involving honor and dishonor, and so on.
The passage emphasizes Paul's honesty and his desire not to create a barrier of dishonesty in the presentation of the gospel. We should leave room for lament in our Christian walk, leave room for sadness, frustration and doubt.
At times we (in the USA) act as if the decision to follow Jesus, embracing his death and resurrection, leads to a painfree, joyous life. It does not. Surely there is joy. But some types of suffering are replaced by a different set of sufferings, stresses and pain. That is the way it is and we should not hide that or shrink from that reality.
Although Steve Shelby did not say much directly related to Mother's Day -- Yes, today is Mother's Day -- it was easy to draw some analogies out of motherhood and parenting in general. Jesus mentioned the pain of childbirth as an example of suffering and pain that later brings great joy. I think Shelby's message was to embrace this and rejoice that we are called to "suffer" and that a time will come when all suffering ends. But that time is not yet.
A secondary theme which I heard is that some suffering is good. We may come away pleased, proud. At the end of a long hike, we are sore and aching and we say, looking back, "Yes, that was worth it!" When I became a Christian I traded away superficial and vain suffering for a life of purpose and meaning. Some of the suffering has purpose. Paul recognized that much of his past suffering led eventually to great good.
Sunday, May 7, 2017
Paul's "Second" Letter to Corinth
Paul's first letter to Corinth (I Corinthians) addresses divisiveness in that church and a variety of moral failures one might expect from a new church built out of Gentiles who had no strong understanding of the law of Moses. That letter was written while Paul was in Ephesus for three years.
Apparently a later letter was sent to Corinth, an angry "letter of tears" dealing with the continued fractions and issues within the church. As far as we know, that letter has not survived.
Then, at a later date, Paul wrote an additional letter describing his deep love for the people of that church and his continued concerns. This letter, now called II Corinthians, is much more positive than the prior unknown letter. Still Paul feels a need to defend his ministry, including his change of plans regarding a visit to Corinth.
In addition to expressing his concern for the people of Corinth, Paul is also active in raising donations for the church in Jerusalem where there has been a devastating famine.
This letter, II Corinthians, is an emotional personal letter. Reading it, we have insight into Paul's character, including his concerns and frustrations. Although the letter has significant theological statements, it is primarily a compassionate pastoral letter written to a struggling congregation.
The tone of the letter changes at chapter 10, when Paul becomes more defensive and a little angry. Some have suggested that these last four chapters (10-13) contain the earlier "letter of tears" and have been tacked on to the rest of the letter later. If that is true, then the chronology would put II Corinthians 10-13 as a separate letter, before the rest of II Corinthians. The most obvious problem with this viewpoint (in my opinion) is that any standard greetings or conclusions separating that letter has been stripped away; if the last four chapters were a separate letter, we would expect a greeting similar to that at the top of chapter 1. I find it easier to believe that Paul, writing a personal emotional letter, returns to his previous frustrations and "clears the air" by making it plain that the previous accusations against him were slanderous and unfair.
Resources on this letter may be found in Wikipedia and also in the additional resources at the end of that article. There is also a nice summary at OverBible.
Apparently a later letter was sent to Corinth, an angry "letter of tears" dealing with the continued fractions and issues within the church. As far as we know, that letter has not survived.
Then, at a later date, Paul wrote an additional letter describing his deep love for the people of that church and his continued concerns. This letter, now called II Corinthians, is much more positive than the prior unknown letter. Still Paul feels a need to defend his ministry, including his change of plans regarding a visit to Corinth.
In addition to expressing his concern for the people of Corinth, Paul is also active in raising donations for the church in Jerusalem where there has been a devastating famine.
This letter, II Corinthians, is an emotional personal letter. Reading it, we have insight into Paul's character, including his concerns and frustrations. Although the letter has significant theological statements, it is primarily a compassionate pastoral letter written to a struggling congregation.
The tone of the letter changes at chapter 10, when Paul becomes more defensive and a little angry. Some have suggested that these last four chapters (10-13) contain the earlier "letter of tears" and have been tacked on to the rest of the letter later. If that is true, then the chronology would put II Corinthians 10-13 as a separate letter, before the rest of II Corinthians. The most obvious problem with this viewpoint (in my opinion) is that any standard greetings or conclusions separating that letter has been stripped away; if the last four chapters were a separate letter, we would expect a greeting similar to that at the top of chapter 1. I find it easier to believe that Paul, writing a personal emotional letter, returns to his previous frustrations and "clears the air" by making it plain that the previous accusations against him were slanderous and unfair.
Resources on this letter may be found in Wikipedia and also in the additional resources at the end of that article. There is also a nice summary at OverBible.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Divisions in the Church
On Sundays I deviate from our chapter studies to look at special topics stimulated by recent texts. Given that I Corinthians was written to confront divisions occurring in the church in Corinth, it is appropriate that we look at divisions within "the Church", that is, within Christianity.
The first division in the church occurred fairly early, as the young church welcomed Gentiles into their Messianic branch of Judaism.
In Acts 6:1-7, we see that the Jerusalem church is mistreating the new "Greek" believers. In Acts 10, Peter learns that God accepts the Gentiles and this epiphany culminates in a meeting in Jerusalem described in Acts 15. This welcoming of the Gentiles is fleshed out in Paul's letter to the Galatians and the Romans, but it is a significant issue during the first three decades of the young church. Claims that Paul is abandoning Judaism eventually lead to his arrest in Jerusalem and his transfer to Rome, described in the last quarter of the book of Acts.
This division, the acceptance of Gentiles and the rejection of Judaizers, eventually leads, over a century, to the Gentiles dominating this Jewish sect and so (sadly) Christianity and Judaism move apart.
In Corinth it was petty divisions about who to follow. In other places, there would, of course, have been more cultural conflicts, just as there are today. Those trained in Greek philosophy wished to impose Platonic views on the church, while those with more Judaic or eastern view world view often had a different perspective. Some of the early disputes in the first few centuries dealt with the influence and eventual rejection of gnosticism. There were persistent questions about the deity of Jesus and its meaning. (If, as the Jews firmly believe, there is only one God, what does it mean for Jesus to be God?)
Some of these early controversies are even visible in the New Testament writings. In the letter to the Hebrews, Jesus is described (in Hebrews 1:3) as the "exact representation" of God. (As a mathematician who studies representation theory, I find this an impressive phrasing!) The first letter of John (I John) is likely written to confront gnostic claims (see docetism) that Jesus was just spiritual, not physical.
Once Christianity became entwined within the politics and power of the Roman empire (ca 380 CE, with Constantine's conversion), religious beliefs and accompanying disputes were much trickier, as they often reflected political machinations instead of spiritual concerns. I have little to say here regarding the politico-religious machinations of medieval Europe -- or of modern America....
Spiritual divisions, when the occurred, were often driven (originally) by one group's belief that the other group was not truly Christian. It was one thing to suggest a division within the Church; it is quite another to suggest renewal (reform) away from those perceived to no longer be in the Church. This explains (partially) the Protestant Reformation and even earlier divisions. It explains, partially, the various divisions within Protestant Christianity today.
However, today, there are a variety of divisive Protestant groups, proud of their separation from other believers. These divisions, done with arrogance and human pride, are excessive and contrary to the unity of Christ. I have been a member and leader in a variety of churches, Disciples of Christ, Baptist, Evangelical Free and Presbyterian. I was confirmed in the Episcopalian Church and I have devout family members who are Catholic. It has been my experience that the Holy Spirit is at work in believers and disciples in all of these churches and I will be happy to hug, support and pray with anyone who says, in sincerity, "I seek to follow Jesus." In that manner, I think I can say (with Paul) "I have the mind of Christ."
Tomorrow we return to our study in First Corinthians.
The first division in the church occurred fairly early, as the young church welcomed Gentiles into their Messianic branch of Judaism.
In Acts 6:1-7, we see that the Jerusalem church is mistreating the new "Greek" believers. In Acts 10, Peter learns that God accepts the Gentiles and this epiphany culminates in a meeting in Jerusalem described in Acts 15. This welcoming of the Gentiles is fleshed out in Paul's letter to the Galatians and the Romans, but it is a significant issue during the first three decades of the young church. Claims that Paul is abandoning Judaism eventually lead to his arrest in Jerusalem and his transfer to Rome, described in the last quarter of the book of Acts.
This division, the acceptance of Gentiles and the rejection of Judaizers, eventually leads, over a century, to the Gentiles dominating this Jewish sect and so (sadly) Christianity and Judaism move apart.
In Corinth it was petty divisions about who to follow. In other places, there would, of course, have been more cultural conflicts, just as there are today. Those trained in Greek philosophy wished to impose Platonic views on the church, while those with more Judaic or eastern view world view often had a different perspective. Some of the early disputes in the first few centuries dealt with the influence and eventual rejection of gnosticism. There were persistent questions about the deity of Jesus and its meaning. (If, as the Jews firmly believe, there is only one God, what does it mean for Jesus to be God?)
Some of these early controversies are even visible in the New Testament writings. In the letter to the Hebrews, Jesus is described (in Hebrews 1:3) as the "exact representation" of God. (As a mathematician who studies representation theory, I find this an impressive phrasing!) The first letter of John (I John) is likely written to confront gnostic claims (see docetism) that Jesus was just spiritual, not physical.
Once Christianity became entwined within the politics and power of the Roman empire (ca 380 CE, with Constantine's conversion), religious beliefs and accompanying disputes were much trickier, as they often reflected political machinations instead of spiritual concerns. I have little to say here regarding the politico-religious machinations of medieval Europe -- or of modern America....
Spiritual divisions, when the occurred, were often driven (originally) by one group's belief that the other group was not truly Christian. It was one thing to suggest a division within the Church; it is quite another to suggest renewal (reform) away from those perceived to no longer be in the Church. This explains (partially) the Protestant Reformation and even earlier divisions. It explains, partially, the various divisions within Protestant Christianity today.
However, today, there are a variety of divisive Protestant groups, proud of their separation from other believers. These divisions, done with arrogance and human pride, are excessive and contrary to the unity of Christ. I have been a member and leader in a variety of churches, Disciples of Christ, Baptist, Evangelical Free and Presbyterian. I was confirmed in the Episcopalian Church and I have devout family members who are Catholic. It has been my experience that the Holy Spirit is at work in believers and disciples in all of these churches and I will be happy to hug, support and pray with anyone who says, in sincerity, "I seek to follow Jesus." In that manner, I think I can say (with Paul) "I have the mind of Christ."
Tomorrow we return to our study in First Corinthians.
Sunday, April 23, 2017
Disputing baptism
In the opening chapter of Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth, we see a dispute in the Corinthian church about baptism. Although the details of the dispute have changed, disputing baptism continues to be a Christian "hobby" even today. This is regretful.
The dispute in Corinth was over which leaders to follow and this was marked by one's choice of baptism. One person says, "I was baptized by Apollos" and another says, "I was baptized by Peter!" Paul confronts this by emphasizing that each of these individuals, including himself, are working together, ministering in various ways. One apostle "plants the seeds", another "waters the crops". How then can any one individual claim full responsibility for the bountiful crops?
In recent centuries the dispute has not been over WHO did the baptism, but HOW it was done. The dispute has been over the mode of baptism. I was a member of one church where one MUST be baptized, by immersion, as a believing adult. If one had been baptized as a child (as I was) then one MUST be rebaptized.
I was also a member of another church where baptism of infants was the norm and the baptism was "sprinkling", that is, placing water on the infant's forehead. Adult believers who had been baptized as children could make a commit of renewal in a certain manner, but one was NEVER baptized a second time.
In the first church (a Baptist church), the pastor told a Sunday School class, "I have never met a sincere Bible scholar who believes in infant baptism." A year later I (while on a sabbatical visit) I was in another church (a Presbyterian church) in which the pastor said essentially the exact opposite, "Serious students of the Bible recognize that baptism is a sign of the covenant, like Jewish circumcision, and has always been practiced with infants."
What would happen if we put those two pastors in the same room together and locked the door? Would it lead to some type of reconciliation? A friend, upon hearing this tale, said wisely, "Those statements say more about the social circles of the two pastors than it does about theology."
Although the dispute has changed, the application of I Corinthians is straightforward. Paul is almost dismissive of baptism. Yes, it is important, but he is happy that he did not baptize anyone! Then he pauses and says, "Well, except for Crispus and Gaius. Oh, wait, also the family of Stephanos. Hmm, after that, I don't recall if I baptized others." He downplays the rite, as it has become divisive. He certainly does not bother to give any instructions on how baptism should be done!
We should follow Paul's example. Baptism is an important public statement of membership in the Kingdom of God. Practice it in that manner. Let us be welcoming of all others who attest to this membership, regardless of the form of that initiation ceremony!
Wikipedia, of course, has a good article on baptism. If you read that, note the discussion on the mode of baptism in the early centuries of the young church.
The letter to the church in Corinth does describe the mode of another "sacrament", that of communion. (See I Corinthians 11: 23-26.) This too we need to practice regularly and in common with other Christians.
We will return to our study of I Corinthians tomorrow.
The dispute in Corinth was over which leaders to follow and this was marked by one's choice of baptism. One person says, "I was baptized by Apollos" and another says, "I was baptized by Peter!" Paul confronts this by emphasizing that each of these individuals, including himself, are working together, ministering in various ways. One apostle "plants the seeds", another "waters the crops". How then can any one individual claim full responsibility for the bountiful crops?
In recent centuries the dispute has not been over WHO did the baptism, but HOW it was done. The dispute has been over the mode of baptism. I was a member of one church where one MUST be baptized, by immersion, as a believing adult. If one had been baptized as a child (as I was) then one MUST be rebaptized.
I was also a member of another church where baptism of infants was the norm and the baptism was "sprinkling", that is, placing water on the infant's forehead. Adult believers who had been baptized as children could make a commit of renewal in a certain manner, but one was NEVER baptized a second time.
In the first church (a Baptist church), the pastor told a Sunday School class, "I have never met a sincere Bible scholar who believes in infant baptism." A year later I (while on a sabbatical visit) I was in another church (a Presbyterian church) in which the pastor said essentially the exact opposite, "Serious students of the Bible recognize that baptism is a sign of the covenant, like Jewish circumcision, and has always been practiced with infants."
What would happen if we put those two pastors in the same room together and locked the door? Would it lead to some type of reconciliation? A friend, upon hearing this tale, said wisely, "Those statements say more about the social circles of the two pastors than it does about theology."
Although the dispute has changed, the application of I Corinthians is straightforward. Paul is almost dismissive of baptism. Yes, it is important, but he is happy that he did not baptize anyone! Then he pauses and says, "Well, except for Crispus and Gaius. Oh, wait, also the family of Stephanos. Hmm, after that, I don't recall if I baptized others." He downplays the rite, as it has become divisive. He certainly does not bother to give any instructions on how baptism should be done!
We should follow Paul's example. Baptism is an important public statement of membership in the Kingdom of God. Practice it in that manner. Let us be welcoming of all others who attest to this membership, regardless of the form of that initiation ceremony!
Wikipedia, of course, has a good article on baptism. If you read that, note the discussion on the mode of baptism in the early centuries of the young church.
The letter to the church in Corinth does describe the mode of another "sacrament", that of communion. (See I Corinthians 11: 23-26.) This too we need to practice regularly and in common with other Christians.
We will return to our study of I Corinthians tomorrow.
Sunday, April 16, 2017
Paul's letters to Corinth
After reading some of Paul's earliest letters, those to Galatia (Asia Minor) and Thessalonica (in Greece) we continue on to look at Paul's "first letter" to the church in Corinth. Paul wrote at least four letters to the church(es) in Corinth but only two survive. There is an early letter that is alluded to in I Corinthians 5:9, then the letter we now call 1 Corinthians, the "first letter" to the Corinthians in our New Testament. A third letter (a "painful letter") was apparently sent later and then a more moderate response that we record as 2 Corinthians.
The "first letter" (I Corinthians) was written from Ephesus, probably around 54-7 CE, about the time of Acts 19. In this letter Paul expresses concerns about the divisions and practices of the church in Corinth and gives strong practical admonition on living as a Christian in a pagan society. His advice is especially poignant, as the church in Corinth consisted mostly of pagan converts in a society that had little connection with the Jewish moral code. Worship of Aphrodite was an excuse to engage in prostitution; sex and pornography were widely available on the internet (whoops, wrong millenium!) and the church struggled with the grace that Jesus offered. Paul's advice oscillates between concern (morality is important!) and recognition that human beings are quick to rationalize their harmful behavior. He tells the young church to not judge those "outside the church" but to have genuine moral standards within the church -- advice that is still good today.
A video summary on this "First Letter to the Church in Corinth", well done by Read Scripture Series is available here. (I highly recommend this series! It has a nice, simple introduction to almost every book of the Bible.)
There are a variety of study helps for reading Corinthians. There is a nice introduction to the Corinthian letters at Blue Letter Bible and an introduction from Easton's Bible Dictionary is available here. A full commentary (Catholic) is available here. A commentary in "easy English" (for those with English as a second language, made available by a ministry of Wycliffe Associates UK) is available here. See also a commentary here and a nice overview from Overview Bible.
"Google" search brings a lot of good resources to us (and a few bad ones.) And, of course, there is always a Wikipedia article on I Corinthians....
We will look carefully at I Corinthians over the next two weeks before moving on to the second letter and then back to a gospel.
The "first letter" (I Corinthians) was written from Ephesus, probably around 54-7 CE, about the time of Acts 19. In this letter Paul expresses concerns about the divisions and practices of the church in Corinth and gives strong practical admonition on living as a Christian in a pagan society. His advice is especially poignant, as the church in Corinth consisted mostly of pagan converts in a society that had little connection with the Jewish moral code. Worship of Aphrodite was an excuse to engage in prostitution; sex and pornography were widely available on the internet (whoops, wrong millenium!) and the church struggled with the grace that Jesus offered. Paul's advice oscillates between concern (morality is important!) and recognition that human beings are quick to rationalize their harmful behavior. He tells the young church to not judge those "outside the church" but to have genuine moral standards within the church -- advice that is still good today.
A video summary on this "First Letter to the Church in Corinth", well done by Read Scripture Series is available here. (I highly recommend this series! It has a nice, simple introduction to almost every book of the Bible.)
There are a variety of study helps for reading Corinthians. There is a nice introduction to the Corinthian letters at Blue Letter Bible and an introduction from Easton's Bible Dictionary is available here. A full commentary (Catholic) is available here. A commentary in "easy English" (for those with English as a second language, made available by a ministry of Wycliffe Associates UK) is available here. See also a commentary here and a nice overview from Overview Bible.
"Google" search brings a lot of good resources to us (and a few bad ones.) And, of course, there is always a Wikipedia article on I Corinthians....
We will look carefully at I Corinthians over the next two weeks before moving on to the second letter and then back to a gospel.
Sunday, April 2, 2017
Paul's Letter to the Galatians
As Paul traveled on a series of missionary journeys (covered in Acts 13-20), he wrote letters to the various synagogue-churches he found. One of the earliest letters was to the churches in southern Turkey, in the province of Galatia. As we finish up our study of Acts, we will go on to look at that early letter.
In the second part (chapters 3 & 4), Paul's argument becomes more theoretical, more philosophical, reviewing the Jewish understanding of God's relationship with them and arguing that this is completed by the Messiah, Jesus.
In the last third of the letter, Paul's argument become practical and down-to-earth; if they understand his message so far, his readers' lives will take on a certain practical nature of joy, love and freedom guided, indeed driven, by the Holy Spirit.
If we were to then outline this book (conveniently choosing words that begin with 'P'!) we might say that the three parts of the book are
For this reason, I encourage others to sit down with a New Testament book and read it through in one reading. Read it fast! Most of the New Testament books are quite short; none are more than 25 pages! Read them easily, casually, in a comfortable translation that reflects the language (English?) that you are most comfortable with. In this way, you will get a general idea of the original reading of the letter.
Furthermore, if we assume that God was using these writings to speak to us (across many centuries) we should seek to first understand the statements of the text. Our modern tendency is, in fact, to skip this understanding of the text and jump to a modern interpretation or modern application of the text. Our modern (hurried) tendency is to try to immediately apply the text to today's personal activities, to classes and meetings and family emergencies. In our hurry, we often neglect to really read the text and understand what is says (said.) So here, I encourage patience. Be very slow to interpret or apply the text to daily life. First, take time to understand it, as it was originally written, with its original message.
If one wonders about the writing materials Paul might have used in his letter to the Galatians, take a look at this video on the letters of Paul and examples of old papyrii.
An introduction to Paul epistle (letter) to the Galatians
Paul’s ancient letter to the Galatians (probably written around 49 AD) answered a hot topic of the early Christian church, “Must a new Christian become a Jew?” But in dealing with that ancient question, Paul addressed higher, more eternal issues about grace, Christian life, the Holy Spirit and Christian community.
As we have studied this text, it is my hope that we better understand Paul’s message to the first century church and then use that understanding to hear God’s message to us in the 21st century. In this study of Galatians, I make some basic (possibly simplistic) assumptions about the text. You need not agree with me, but we need to start somewhere. I uaws a fairly standard English translation of the Koine Greek, such as the NIV translation of the Bible. I am assuming that the letter has a divine purpose, that in some way, the Creator of the universe, acting through the Jewish Messiah, Jesus, and through the very human individual, Paul, is communicating with humanity today.
A rough outline of the letter
If you sit down and reads through the letter in one sitting – which you should do! ... maybe several times! – the letter breaks into three basic parts. The first part (chapters 1 & 2) is biographical; it involves a very personal and passionate plea from the man Paul to people he knows in the Galatian region. In his appeal, he describes in some detail his conversion and divine appointment to minister to the Galatian synagogues and communities.In the second part (chapters 3 & 4), Paul's argument becomes more theoretical, more philosophical, reviewing the Jewish understanding of God's relationship with them and arguing that this is completed by the Messiah, Jesus.
In the last third of the letter, Paul's argument become practical and down-to-earth; if they understand his message so far, his readers' lives will take on a certain practical nature of joy, love and freedom guided, indeed driven, by the Holy Spirit.
If we were to then outline this book (conveniently choosing words that begin with 'P'!) we might say that the three parts of the book are
- Personal (1-2)
- Philosophical (3-4)
- Practical (5-6)
A comment on Bible reading (read fast/read slow)
In many Christian churches, there is a tendency to read the Bible a verse or two at a time, meditating on the text and then seeking some devotional insight, some five-minute, brief "encouragement" of the day. Although this is a possibly useful practice for a busy Christian, this is not the original intent of the New Testament writings. The New Testament writings were letters or essays, in the common language of the day, and were meant to be read in one setting. They did not have chapter or verse markers (these were added much later!)For this reason, I encourage others to sit down with a New Testament book and read it through in one reading. Read it fast! Most of the New Testament books are quite short; none are more than 25 pages! Read them easily, casually, in a comfortable translation that reflects the language (English?) that you are most comfortable with. In this way, you will get a general idea of the original reading of the letter.
Furthermore, if we assume that God was using these writings to speak to us (across many centuries) we should seek to first understand the statements of the text. Our modern tendency is, in fact, to skip this understanding of the text and jump to a modern interpretation or modern application of the text. Our modern (hurried) tendency is to try to immediately apply the text to today's personal activities, to classes and meetings and family emergencies. In our hurry, we often neglect to really read the text and understand what is says (said.) So here, I encourage patience. Be very slow to interpret or apply the text to daily life. First, take time to understand it, as it was originally written, with its original message.
An aside ...
Sunday, March 26, 2017
The People of Galatia
Paul, in his first missionary journey (Act 13-14) traveled to the people of Galatia. One of his first recorded letters was written to the people there.
Apparently the entire region of central Turkey was sometimes loosely called "Galatia" and this leads us to a problem regarding the recipients of Paul's letter "to the Galatians". In Luke's letter, the book of Acts, we are told of Paul's first missionary journey. This account is in Acts 13 & 14 and is then followed (Acts 15) by a description of a meeting in Jerusalem to decide what it meant to be a Gentile Christian.
Paul's first missionary trip was an important time in the growth of the new Jewish sect of Jesus followers. It led to an important dispute and decision in Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem (about 49 CE.)
Acts 13:49-14:1 says,
"The word of the Lord spread through the whole region. But the Jewish leaders incited the God-fearing women of high standing and the leading men of the city. They stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region. So they shook the dust off their feet as a warning to them and went to Iconium. At Iconium Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue. There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Greeks believed." (NIV)
Iconium (now the city of Konya in Turkey) was in the Lycaonia province. (Iconium was apparently the home of Tertius, a convert who would be Paul's scribe for his letter to the Romans.)
Note Paul's practice of always going to Jewish synagogues, reaching out to his fellow Jewish. Occasionally there are Gentile converts (loosely called "Greeks") but most of the converts are Jews and all of the worship and speaking occurred in the synagogues established by Jews in this portion of the Roman empire.
In Iconium, some Jews resisted Paul's message. Threatened by violence, Paul and Barnabas fled to Lycaonian cities of Lystra and Derbe and "to the surrounding country, where they continued to preach the gospel" (Acts 14:6-7.) There in Lystra, after Paul is seen healing a man, there is an attempt to proclaim Paul and Barnabas as Hermes and Zeus, an act of idolatry that was frightening to devout Jews like these two apostles.
Eventually Jews opposed to Paul's message arrive in Lystra. Paul and Barnabas were attacked and so left Lystra, retracing their travels back through the churches they had started, returning eventually to Antioch.
This trip is usually called "Paul's first missionary journey" and concludes (Acts 14:27-28) with the arrival back in Antioch. There Paul and Barnabas report on God's work in Cyprus and Asia Minor and mention, especially, God's work among the Gentiles.
Because of this trip, the church in Jerusalem is faced with the question, "How Jewish is a Gentile (Greek) convert?" This is resolved in Acts 15, at least for the time being, with the general decision that Gentile converts need not become Jews but should be sensitive to Jewish beliefs. (I've greatly summarized the decision of Acts 15.)
The one problem with this view is that we don't have a record of Paul visiting the Roman province of Galatia. He visits the provinces just south of Galatia. There are several ways to reconcile this issue.
The "Southern Galatia" hypothesis says, "Well, at times this area was loosely called Galatia" and we need not require that Paul use the term "Galatian" in the Roman technical sense. The term "Galatian" (or "Galatia") could refer to the general region of central Turkey (Anatolia). People also point out that in a number of places the Acts account says that Paul and Barnabas went into "nearby regions" and so they may have, in fact, also visited (administrative) Galatia in those travels.
The "Northern Galatia" hypothesis assumes that Paul is using the term "Galatian" in the Roman technical sense (else he might have also listed the other regions) and that Paul's visit to (administrative) Galatia probably occurred during a later missionary trip.
We may debate these two viewpoints (I've grossly simplified them!) but the assumptions as to the audience also tend to lead to different dates of the epistle. In the first case, if Paul is writing this letter enroute to Jerusalem in Acts 15, then the letter was probably written around 48 CE. In the second case, it was written later, maybe around 52 CE?
Regardless, the letter to the Galatians is clearly one of Paul's earliest letters. We will read through that book next week, after we are finished with the book of Acts.
North Galatia, South Galatia
Galatia appears to have been a general area in what is now central Turkey. Tribes of Celts (Gauls) moved into the area around 278 BCE, after the death of Alexander the Great. Later, a Roman administrative colony was named after the Gauls and was called Galatia by the Romans. South of Galatia were the administrative districts of Phrygia, Cappadocia, Pisidia and Laycaonia. (Here is a map from a Wikipedia article. Another good article, from Wikipedia, of course, is on "Celtic Galatia", here.)
Apparently the entire region of central Turkey was sometimes loosely called "Galatia" and this leads us to a problem regarding the recipients of Paul's letter "to the Galatians". In Luke's letter, the book of Acts, we are told of Paul's first missionary journey. This account is in Acts 13 & 14 and is then followed (Acts 15) by a description of a meeting in Jerusalem to decide what it meant to be a Gentile Christian.
Paul's first missionary trip was an important time in the growth of the new Jewish sect of Jesus followers. It led to an important dispute and decision in Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem (about 49 CE.)
Paul's first missionary trip
I'll summarize here chapters 13 &14 from the New Testament book of Acts. During a time of worship and fasting in Antioch, the Holy Spirit told the church there to set aside Saul (Paul) and Barnabas for a special work. With that appointment, they were sent to Cyprus, and then to Perga in the region of Pamphylia (see the map above) and then on to Pisidian Antioch where they spoke in a Jewish synagogue, describing how Jewish history had culminated in the Messiah, Jesus, and had been demonstrated by Jesus's resurrection. The two were generally well received, with many converts.Acts 13:49-14:1 says,
"The word of the Lord spread through the whole region. But the Jewish leaders incited the God-fearing women of high standing and the leading men of the city. They stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region. So they shook the dust off their feet as a warning to them and went to Iconium. At Iconium Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue. There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Greeks believed." (NIV)
Iconium (now the city of Konya in Turkey) was in the Lycaonia province. (Iconium was apparently the home of Tertius, a convert who would be Paul's scribe for his letter to the Romans.)
Note Paul's practice of always going to Jewish synagogues, reaching out to his fellow Jewish. Occasionally there are Gentile converts (loosely called "Greeks") but most of the converts are Jews and all of the worship and speaking occurred in the synagogues established by Jews in this portion of the Roman empire.
In Iconium, some Jews resisted Paul's message. Threatened by violence, Paul and Barnabas fled to Lycaonian cities of Lystra and Derbe and "to the surrounding country, where they continued to preach the gospel" (Acts 14:6-7.) There in Lystra, after Paul is seen healing a man, there is an attempt to proclaim Paul and Barnabas as Hermes and Zeus, an act of idolatry that was frightening to devout Jews like these two apostles.
Eventually Jews opposed to Paul's message arrive in Lystra. Paul and Barnabas were attacked and so left Lystra, retracing their travels back through the churches they had started, returning eventually to Antioch.
This trip is usually called "Paul's first missionary journey" and concludes (Acts 14:27-28) with the arrival back in Antioch. There Paul and Barnabas report on God's work in Cyprus and Asia Minor and mention, especially, God's work among the Gentiles.
Because of this trip, the church in Jerusalem is faced with the question, "How Jewish is a Gentile (Greek) convert?" This is resolved in Acts 15, at least for the time being, with the general decision that Gentile converts need not become Jews but should be sensitive to Jewish beliefs. (I've greatly summarized the decision of Acts 15.)
Who were the recipients of Paul's letter to the Galatians?
Who were the recipients of Paul's letter to the Galatians? One view is that Paul's letter easily fits into the seam between Acts 14 and Acts 15. At the end of Acts 14 the churches in Asia Minor are growing and everyone is excited about Paul's trip; at the beginning of Acts 15 we see "Judaizers" going to churches and telling converts, "You must become full Jews and practice all of the Jewish Law". Paul's letter could have been written as a response to those visits, in prelude to the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.The one problem with this view is that we don't have a record of Paul visiting the Roman province of Galatia. He visits the provinces just south of Galatia. There are several ways to reconcile this issue.
The "Southern Galatia" hypothesis says, "Well, at times this area was loosely called Galatia" and we need not require that Paul use the term "Galatian" in the Roman technical sense. The term "Galatian" (or "Galatia") could refer to the general region of central Turkey (Anatolia). People also point out that in a number of places the Acts account says that Paul and Barnabas went into "nearby regions" and so they may have, in fact, also visited (administrative) Galatia in those travels.
The "Northern Galatia" hypothesis assumes that Paul is using the term "Galatian" in the Roman technical sense (else he might have also listed the other regions) and that Paul's visit to (administrative) Galatia probably occurred during a later missionary trip.
We may debate these two viewpoints (I've grossly simplified them!) but the assumptions as to the audience also tend to lead to different dates of the epistle. In the first case, if Paul is writing this letter enroute to Jerusalem in Acts 15, then the letter was probably written around 48 CE. In the second case, it was written later, maybe around 52 CE?
Regardless, the letter to the Galatians is clearly one of Paul's earliest letters. We will read through that book next week, after we are finished with the book of Acts.
Sunday, March 19, 2017
On Paul's Letters
In Acts 13 and 14 we see the first missionary journey of Paul, traveling to Galatia (southern Turkey) and speaking to both Jews and Gentiles. The results of that journey lead to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 and an endorsement of ministry to the non-Jews. Paul then returns to Turkey before moving on into Greece.
When Paul entered a new community, he usually went to the local synagogue to begin his preaching about the Jewish Messiah. The small assemblies (ekklesia) that developed in those communities grew out of the local synagogue and were, in many aspects, similar to the Jewish synagogues.
After Paul left a region, he stayed in contact with these assemblies, sometimes returning to visit, often writing letters to them about both administrative and theological matters.
In modern English terminology, we say "church" instead of "assembly" and Paul's letters to these churches are often called "epistles", a term which somehow sounds more formal to me. We should not forget that they were letters to small congregations, small "assemblies" of mixed Jew and Gentile believers.
One of Paul's earliest letters is his Epistle to the Galatians, a letter sent to numerous churches throughout southern Turkey. Other early letters, probably written within the timeline of Acts, include his two letters to Thessalonica and his two letters to the church in Corinth. We will look at those five early letters (I & II Thessalonians, Galatians and I & II Corinthians) after we finish the book of Acts.
Other letters by Paul include a letter to the church in Rome, written to believers Paul had not yet met.
That letter carefully lays out Paul's view of the global importance of the Jewish Messiah, Jesus. Other letters by Paul include letters to churches in Colossae, Philippi, and Ephesus. Additional letters preserved in the New Testament went to friends and fellow-ministers such as Titus and Timothy. (There is, of course, a good Wikipedia article on the letters of Paul.)
We will look at several of those letters after we conclude our study in Acts, beginning with I Thessalonians.
When Paul entered a new community, he usually went to the local synagogue to begin his preaching about the Jewish Messiah. The small assemblies (ekklesia) that developed in those communities grew out of the local synagogue and were, in many aspects, similar to the Jewish synagogues.
After Paul left a region, he stayed in contact with these assemblies, sometimes returning to visit, often writing letters to them about both administrative and theological matters.
In modern English terminology, we say "church" instead of "assembly" and Paul's letters to these churches are often called "epistles", a term which somehow sounds more formal to me. We should not forget that they were letters to small congregations, small "assemblies" of mixed Jew and Gentile believers.
One of Paul's earliest letters is his Epistle to the Galatians, a letter sent to numerous churches throughout southern Turkey. Other early letters, probably written within the timeline of Acts, include his two letters to Thessalonica and his two letters to the church in Corinth. We will look at those five early letters (I & II Thessalonians, Galatians and I & II Corinthians) after we finish the book of Acts.
Other letters by Paul include a letter to the church in Rome, written to believers Paul had not yet met.
That letter carefully lays out Paul's view of the global importance of the Jewish Messiah, Jesus. Other letters by Paul include letters to churches in Colossae, Philippi, and Ephesus. Additional letters preserved in the New Testament went to friends and fellow-ministers such as Titus and Timothy. (There is, of course, a good Wikipedia article on the letters of Paul.)
We will look at several of those letters after we conclude our study in Acts, beginning with I Thessalonians.
Sunday, March 12, 2017
The Three Missionary Journeys of Paul
An understanding of the New Testament letters of Paul ("St. Paul", "Paul the apostle") requires a summary of the travels that Paul took over about a dozen years (from 46-58 CE?) These journeys are described in chapters 13-21 of the book of Acts and represent the very earliest history of the Christian church.
The missionary journeys of Paul
According to Acts 13, the Holy Spirit tells the church in Antioch to "set apart Barnabas and Saul for the ministry I have planned for them." And so this early church ordains two missionaries and sends them off, first to the island of Cyprus, and then on to Asia Minor (now Turkey) to tell the Jewish people in those locations about their recently revealed Messiah. The book of Acts eventually describes three missionary journey and ends with a fourth journey, a forced journey in which Paul, as prisoner, travels to Rome.It is on one of those missionary journeys that the author of Acts, Luke, becomes a convert and travels with Paul.
The first missionary journey
In this first journey, described in Acts chapters 13 & 14, Barnabas is the presumed leader; he has been a disciple much longer than Saul and is more experienced. But Saul is the "talker" and seems to draw much of the attention.The first missionary journey (Acts 13:4-14:28, about CE 46-48) begins with Paul and Barnabas visiting the island of Cyprus. They then visit southern Galatia (Perga, Pisidian Antioch) where they stay awhile before going on to Iconium. After conflict in Iconium, Paul and friends flee to Lystra and Derbe (and the surrounding region of Lycaonia, south of the province of Galatia.) In Lystra, after they heal a lame man, Barnabas is identified by the people as Zeus and Paul is called Hermes (Acts 14:11-13)
The map below (taken from Gracepoint notes, which took them, in turn, from the Holman Bible Atlas) displays Paul's first missionary journey.
Interlude
In Acts 15 we see the important meeting in Jerusalem, in which an official decision is made regarding Gentile Christians. This meeting is stimulated by the great success in the first missionary journey and by the obvious openness of the Gentiles (non Jews) to the message about Jesus the Messiah.The second missionary journey
The second missionary journey is reported in Acts 15:40-18:23 (49-52 CE?) It is possible that Paul visited north Galatia (administrative Galatia) at this time. This second journey is caused by a desire of Paul and Barnabas to revisit the synagogues and converts from the first journey. But at the very beginning, Barnabas wants to take John Mark and Paul does not, so the dynamic missionary duo split up, Barnabas with John Mark heading back to Cyprus while Paul take Silas and travels north through Syria into Asia Minor. In Lystra, a young disciple named Timothy joins Paul. Since Timothy is uncircumcised (his father is Gentile), to please the Jews in the area, Paul has Timothy circumcised.
The transition from third person to first person in Acts 16:11 most likely means that Luke, the author of the book of Acts, joins Paul at Troas and then for a time can tell the story in first person.
In Philippi after speaking in a small synagogue and baptizing new believer, Lydia, Paul and Silas are then thrown in prison. During the night an earthquake opens the prison doors and Paul and Silas are freed and their jailer becomes a believer. Paul frightens the local authorities by explaining that he is a Roman citizen. From Philippi the two travel on to Thessalonica where, as is their practice, they speak in the local synagogue. On to Berea and Athens, where Paul speaks at Mars Hill, to both open ears and skeptics. Luke lists by name several converts but also points out the Greek skepticism of someone claiming that a man was resurrected.
In Corinth, Paul meets a Jewish couple, Aquila and Priscilla, who, as believers, join Paul's ministry team. Silas and Timothy join Paul in Corinth but due to strong opposition from Jewish leaders, Paul leaves the synagogue and begins to speak and minister from the house of Titius Justus, presumably a Gentile. Luke records that a number of Jewish believers, including the synagogue leader, join Paul.
The third missionary journey
The third missionary journey (CE 53-58?) begins in Act 18:23, after the conclusion of the second journey and after "some time" at Antioch. In the third journey, Paul again returns to visit the various churches across Asia Minor. Galatia is explicitly mentioned in that verse, with Asia Minor presumably mentioned in two parts, as "Galatia and Phrygia."
Paul visits Ephesus (on the western coast of Asia Minor) in Acts 19 and there many followers of the goddess Artemus turn to the Jewish Messiah, to the point that those making money off of Artemis are infuriated and cause a riot. After that, Paul moves west across the Aegean to Macedonia and Greece, ministering in the places he had been before, including Philippi. Eventually he returns east to Troas (where he had picked up Luke) and there we have the story of Paul preaching very long (possibly all day) and a young man (with whom I have considerable sympathy) falling asleep during Paul's message. Young Eutychus pitches out a second story window and is picked up below as dead, but Paul's stretches over him, prays and revives him.
Paul visits Ephesus (on the western coast of Asia Minor) in Acts 19 and there many followers of the goddess Artemus turn to the Jewish Messiah, to the point that those making money off of Artemis are infuriated and cause a riot. After that, Paul moves west across the Aegean to Macedonia and Greece, ministering in the places he had been before, including Philippi. Eventually he returns east to Troas (where he had picked up Luke) and there we have the story of Paul preaching very long (possibly all day) and a young man (with whom I have considerable sympathy) falling asleep during Paul's message. Young Eutychus pitches out a second story window and is picked up below as dead, but Paul's stretches over him, prays and revives him.
Paul continues on to Miletus, near Ephesus, where a prophet warns that if Paul continues, as planned, to Jerusalem, he will end up in chains. But Paul must go .... The last half of chapter 20 of Acts is a moving goodbye from Paul, given to the elders from Ephesus, expressing his care and concerns for them.
From Miletus, Paul's entourage move on past Cyprus to Syria and then down to Caesarea. In Caesarea Paul is warned (a third time!) of the chains that wait for him in his Jerusalem trip. In this case, the warning is acted out; a prophet named Agabus takes Paul's belt and then ties up his own hands and feet to show what will happen "to the owner of this belt."
But Paul must go on, and the third missionary journey ends in Jerusalem with Paul's arrest there, at the end of Acts 21.
From Miletus, Paul's entourage move on past Cyprus to Syria and then down to Caesarea. In Caesarea Paul is warned (a third time!) of the chains that wait for him in his Jerusalem trip. In this case, the warning is acted out; a prophet named Agabus takes Paul's belt and then ties up his own hands and feet to show what will happen "to the owner of this belt."
But Paul must go on, and the third missionary journey ends in Jerusalem with Paul's arrest there, at the end of Acts 21.
Some resources and notes
Wikipedia, of course, has some good stuff. Check out the article on St. Paul.
The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, based at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI, has lots of excellent resources.
There is a summary of the missionary journeys from a webpage sponsored by Gracepoint church in Berkeley CA. The maps I used are taken from the Gracepoint notes, which took them, in turn, from the Holman Bible Atlas.
Sunday, March 5, 2017
Jewish Dietary Customs
In Acts 10, Peter has a vision in which he is instructed to dine on "unclean" food. What food did Peter and the Jews view as unclean? The teachings on unclean foods were part of the Torah, appearing in Leviticus 11 and repeated in Deuteronomy 14.
The Israelites could eat any animal that "had a divided hoof and chewed its cud." It had to have both of those properties, as chapter 11 of Leviticus goes on to describe animals that have one property but not the other, forbidding them.
Seafood was acceptable as long as it had scales and fins, that is, was fish. (Slimy things like oysters would have been unacceptable!)
Some birds were not acceptable. Those unacceptable were primarily birds of prey (like eagles or owls) or scavengers (like vultures.) Chicken were acceptable, as were ducks and geese.
Many insects and bugs were not acceptable, but some like grasshoppers and locusts were explicitly allowed.
It is not clear why these various animals were prohibited. Some have attempted to argue that the prohibitions were hygienic; that the unclean animals were more likely to carry diseases, particularly in a hot middle eastern environment, long before the advent of air-conditioning.
A discussion on clean and unclean foods, from a Jewish perspective, is available here at
http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm. Several different opinions on unclean foods and Leviticus 11, from various Christian perspectives, are available here and here. Regardless of one's understanding of the Jewish dietary laws, it is clear that in Acts 10, Peter is being told that the salvation available to the Jews has been opened up the all the world, independent of their understanding and history of the Torah.
A more general discussion on Leviticus 11 and the Torah's emphasis on "clean" and "unclean" is available at this bible.org page.
Tomorrow we will return to Acts and this radical concept of inviting the Gentiles to partake of the Jewish salvation.
The Israelites could eat any animal that "had a divided hoof and chewed its cud." It had to have both of those properties, as chapter 11 of Leviticus goes on to describe animals that have one property but not the other, forbidding them.
Seafood was acceptable as long as it had scales and fins, that is, was fish. (Slimy things like oysters would have been unacceptable!)
Some birds were not acceptable. Those unacceptable were primarily birds of prey (like eagles or owls) or scavengers (like vultures.) Chicken were acceptable, as were ducks and geese.
Many insects and bugs were not acceptable, but some like grasshoppers and locusts were explicitly allowed.
It is not clear why these various animals were prohibited. Some have attempted to argue that the prohibitions were hygienic; that the unclean animals were more likely to carry diseases, particularly in a hot middle eastern environment, long before the advent of air-conditioning.
A discussion on clean and unclean foods, from a Jewish perspective, is available here at
http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm. Several different opinions on unclean foods and Leviticus 11, from various Christian perspectives, are available here and here. Regardless of one's understanding of the Jewish dietary laws, it is clear that in Acts 10, Peter is being told that the salvation available to the Jews has been opened up the all the world, independent of their understanding and history of the Torah.
A more general discussion on Leviticus 11 and the Torah's emphasis on "clean" and "unclean" is available at this bible.org page.
Tomorrow we will return to Acts and this radical concept of inviting the Gentiles to partake of the Jewish salvation.
Sunday, February 26, 2017
A Timeline for Acts
Sunday is a day to relax, honor God, focus on renewal and rest. So in this "a chapter a day" study, we pause to look at summaries and overviews of past reading or future readings.
One natural question facing a reader of the book of Acts is, "When did this all take place?" and, as a follow-up, how close are some of the events? Although Luke's writing places one event after another, in some places there is clear evidence that years pass between events. In some places Luke himself provides the evidence, using phrases like, "they stayed there for some time."
Historians date the crucifixion to about 31 CE, give or take a couple of years. (Some of this is based on historical events described in Luke's gospel.) The book of Acts then covers at least another 30 years, past 60 CE. In the book of Acts we have a number of historical events (such as the death of Herod Agrippa in chapter 12) which have an external date (about 44 CE.) In addition, in other letters, notably Paul's letter to the Galatians, we have some guide to the timeline; Paul describes his travels and in two places, Galatians 1:18 and Galatians 2:1, gives a length of time between events.
With these as a guide, there have been numerous attempts to date the events in the book of Acts, as they spread across thirty years. Here is one timeline at biblehub.com. And here is a more detailed timeline, attempting to date some external events in the Roman empire and also date some of Paul's letters. A similar timeline is here at morethancake.org.
One more link -- in the spirit of xkcd.com, we have the story and structure of Acts.
Tomorrow we return to Act 7, as the young church has its first martyr and first devoted enemy.
One natural question facing a reader of the book of Acts is, "When did this all take place?" and, as a follow-up, how close are some of the events? Although Luke's writing places one event after another, in some places there is clear evidence that years pass between events. In some places Luke himself provides the evidence, using phrases like, "they stayed there for some time."
Historians date the crucifixion to about 31 CE, give or take a couple of years. (Some of this is based on historical events described in Luke's gospel.) The book of Acts then covers at least another 30 years, past 60 CE. In the book of Acts we have a number of historical events (such as the death of Herod Agrippa in chapter 12) which have an external date (about 44 CE.) In addition, in other letters, notably Paul's letter to the Galatians, we have some guide to the timeline; Paul describes his travels and in two places, Galatians 1:18 and Galatians 2:1, gives a length of time between events.
With these as a guide, there have been numerous attempts to date the events in the book of Acts, as they spread across thirty years. Here is one timeline at biblehub.com. And here is a more detailed timeline, attempting to date some external events in the Roman empire and also date some of Paul's letters. A similar timeline is here at morethancake.org.
One more link -- in the spirit of xkcd.com, we have the story and structure of Acts.
Tomorrow we return to Act 7, as the young church has its first martyr and first devoted enemy.
Sunday, February 19, 2017
An Introduction to the Book of Acts
As we have just finished reading through Luke's account of Jesus's life, it is appropriate that we move on to the one New Testament book that tracks the history of the church after the death and resurrection of Jesus.
The "Book of Acts" was written as a sequel to an account of the life of Jesus, apparently by Luke, a physician who traveled with Paul at one point. The book begins in Jerusalem, shortly after the resurrection of Jesus, and chronicles the early church in Jerusalem, its breakout into the surrounding area (mainly northward into Syria and towards Turkey) and eventually the church's recognition of the non-Jews, those confused, irreligious "Gentiles". The last half of the book describes the journeys of the individual Saul/Paul as he increasingly focuses on the Gentiles. The narrator, Luke, enters the story several times, switching his narration from third person to first person as he describes events that he witnessed.
We will spend five weeks working our way through the 28 chapters of Acts. But if you'd like a much shorter study, here is Acts in 3 minutes. Or, for the one in a hurry, here are 28 tweets which summarize the chapters!
There are, of course, more serious resources. A brief summary of Acts is available here at biblestudytools.com (click on "Summary") and also here. A summary of the book, followed by studies of individual chapters, is here at GotQuestions.org. And, of course, the Wikipedia page on Acts is good.
We will examine (slowly!) 28 chapters in 31 days, just over five weeks. Join me!
The "Book of Acts" was written as a sequel to an account of the life of Jesus, apparently by Luke, a physician who traveled with Paul at one point. The book begins in Jerusalem, shortly after the resurrection of Jesus, and chronicles the early church in Jerusalem, its breakout into the surrounding area (mainly northward into Syria and towards Turkey) and eventually the church's recognition of the non-Jews, those confused, irreligious "Gentiles". The last half of the book describes the journeys of the individual Saul/Paul as he increasingly focuses on the Gentiles. The narrator, Luke, enters the story several times, switching his narration from third person to first person as he describes events that he witnessed.
We will spend five weeks working our way through the 28 chapters of Acts. But if you'd like a much shorter study, here is Acts in 3 minutes. Or, for the one in a hurry, here are 28 tweets which summarize the chapters!
There are, of course, more serious resources. A brief summary of Acts is available here at biblestudytools.com (click on "Summary") and also here. A summary of the book, followed by studies of individual chapters, is here at GotQuestions.org. And, of course, the Wikipedia page on Acts is good.
We will examine (slowly!) 28 chapters in 31 days, just over five weeks. Join me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)