The link to Tony Payne’s article explaining his positionon 1 Peter 3 is at http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/IBS_notes/HomewardBound.html

My personal translation of the key verses is:

For Christ also suffered, once for sins, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, in order that he might bring us to God, on the one hand being put to death in [the] flesh, on the other hand being made alive in [the] spirit, in which also to the spirits in prison he went and preached – to the formerly disobedient, while the patience of God waited.  In the days of Noah, while the ark was being built – into which a few (that is eight souls) were saved through water – which also [as] an antitype now saves you: baptism – not of the flesh (the removal of dirt) but the pledge of a good conscience to God through the resurrection of Jesus, who is at the right [hand] of God, proceeded to heaven, angels and authorities and powers being put in subjection to him.

Last night, there were some questions I wasn’t sure what to say.  Well I had a think and read, and this is what I’ve come up with…

Q. Why is Jezreel suddenly positive in 1:11?

The answer to this one is a little tricky.  In 1:11, there isn’t enough data to say, for sure.  There’s a clear reversal to ALL THREE of the children’s names, but how the Jezreel one works doesn’t actually get explained until 2:21-22.

In 2:22, we meet Jezreel again, but there, we’re given more info.  The trouble is that there’s a Hebrew pun going on!!

Jezreel in Hebrew means “God will sow”, and so the idea is that on the day of Jezreel, God will do the sowing, not the so-called fertility baals.  Have a read of the sections and see if you can spot it.  Whereas the reversal for the other two kids is fairly straightforward, the reversal for Jezreel is subtler, because it involves the Hebrew etymology.

So there you go.  I wish I’d known that on Sunday, but it was one of those things I’d meant to look up and hadn’t.

Q. Is there any particular significance to the ‘betrothed’ language in 2:19-20?

I’m not sure that there’s much to say here except that this is the only place in Hosea that the language of “marry” is actually used.  In other places, it’s things like “go and take a wife” and so on.  I don’t think there’s necessarily anything significant about that…but there might be.  That the ‘betrothal’ language only appears in this very positive context may not be an accident, but it’s hard to make a strong point from it.

Hope that helps…

It’s been a couple of weeks since we dealt with this section, but here’s some answers to a couple of good questions.

Personal info has been removed, so we can focus on the questions themselves.

******************************************************

You asked a couple of questions.

First, What do we do about 1 Cor 11:7?! “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.”

It’s interesting that Paul DOESN’T say, “woman is the image and glory of man”. Presumably, Paul considers that man and woman are in the image of God (from Gen 1). However, I don’t know why he included “image” at all (perhaps the idea is like that in Gen 1: ‘God created man in his own image… male and female he created them’ – ie. you can express it either way). It would have seemed simpler and clearer if he had left the word out. However, the language of ‘glory’, here, would seem to mean something along the lines of “intended to bring honour to”. This is consistent with the Gen 2 picture of the wife as the helper, and also with such imagery as 1 Thess 2:19-20 “What is our crown of boasting…is it not you? For you are our glory and joy.”

I know more could be said, but that’s enough to keep the conversation going!

Second, you asked:

you talked about the order between husbands and wives not being a matter of superiority, and compared it to Christ’s relationship to God. I’m just wondering how verses 8 and 9 fit in with that – Paul seems to be making an effort to show the husband’s superiority…? And it would be wrong to say that Christ was made from God, or for Him.

So my question is: if he’s not saying that husbands are superior, what’s Paul actually trying to say in these verses?

Verses 8 and 9 relate closely to verse 7 (notice the ‘for’). Paul’s point in verses 8 and 9 seems to be that of ‘order’. We hear ‘created for’ and find it hard to think in terms beyond superiority, but Genesis 2 makes the point (eg. around Gen 2:20) that woman is to be the helper, to enable the man to fulfil his God-given task. And as Paul goes on (1 Cor 11:11-12), they NEED each other. If ‘woman/wife’ is to complement the man, so that together they can fulfil God’s intended plans (according to the order he has established), then the question of superiority is a moot question – it’s just not in view or relevant.

The image of vv9-10 (‘created for’) seems to revolve around a slightly different axis to that of verse 3, which is about headship – they are not necessarily connected, and so there’s no suggestion that Christ was created from or for God – that category just isn’t biblical.

I hope that this makes some sense – I think that Paul is NOT at pains in vv8-9 to show the husband’s superiority, but when we hear the language we can assume he is.

In case I’m not making all that much sense, you may want to have a look at a small section of ‘Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’, which is available for free online, pages 123-126 (in printed book it’s pages 131-136). The link is:

http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_bbmw/bbmw.pdf

I hope this helps somewhat, and feel very free to keep the conversation going. It is, as you say, important!

Your brother in Christ,

Ben.

I mentioned last night that there was something I wanted to put in the sermon, but it just couldn’t fit. It was the intriguing connection below.

Two weeks ago, I mentioned the English reformer Tyndale, who was killed for his efforts to see the Bible translated into English. Not long before Tyndale died, he wrote a letter – probably his last – while he was imprisoned in Germany (or was it Belgium…?). It is a striking letter by any view, but all the more so, when you remember 2 Timothy 4.

Tyndale’s Letter from Prison

The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. – 2 Timothy 4.13

Tyndale wrote the following letter in 1535 from his cell in the Vilvorde Prison, presumably to the Governor of Vilvorde, the Marquis of Bergen-op-Zoom. The text (originally written in Latin by Tyndale) is taken from Jacob Isidor Mombert, William Tyndale’s Five Books of Moses Called the Pentateuch: Being a Verbatim Reprint of the Edition of M.CCCCC.XXX. (New York and London, 1884), pp. li-lii.

I believe, most excellent Sir, that you are not unacquainted with the decision reached concerning me. On which account, I beseech your lordship, even by the Lord Jesus, that if I am to pass the winter here, to urge upon the lord commissary, if he will deign, to send me from my goods in his keeping a warmer cap, for I suffer greatly from cold in the head, being troubled with a continual catarrh, which is aggravated in this prison vault. A warmer coat also, for that which I have is very thin. Also cloth for repairing my leggings. My overcoat is worn out; the shirts also are worn out. He has a woolen shirt of mine, if he will please send it. I have also with him leggings of heavier cloth for overwear. He likewise has warmer nightcaps: I also ask for leave to use a lamp in the evening, for it is tiresome to sit alone in the dark.

But above all, I beg and entreat your clemency earnestly to intercede with the lord commissary, that he would deign to allow me the use of my Hebrew Bible, Hebrew Grammar, and Hebrew Lexicon, and that I might employ my time with that study. Thus likewise may you obtain what you most desire, saving that it further the salvation of your soul. But if, before the end of winter, a different decision be reached concerning me, I shall be patient, and submit to the will of God to the glory of the grace of Jesus Christ my Lord, whose spirit may ever direct your heart. Amen.
W. Tyndale

Tyndale and Paul were both men who were desperate to see the work go forward, so that even imprisoned, they sought ways they might be able to continue to labour and serve. We owe them both a great debt for their godly service, the impact of which continues to be felt (albeit indirectly, for Tyndale) through the ages.

Here are some of the questions asked in response to the sermon on 2 Timothy 3.

Question: John Dickson’s Christ Files talks of Paul not having read the Gospels, and so we can treat them as separate primary sources of the events. Does 1 Tim 5:18c say that he probably would have?

It’s a great question. Without doing any actual research, here’s my gut feeling…

There’s two options it would seem.

1. 1. It’s possible that Paul had no knowledge of any of the gospels, in which case he may have only heard the saying as oral tradition (possibly from Luke?). This would weaken the “Paul quotes Luke as Scripture” argument – although the “Peter calls Paul Scripture” argument stands regardless. Or…

2. 2. I think that Paul plausibly DID have knowledge of Luke’s gospel, but not necessarily the others (at the time of writing 2 Timothy).

We don’t know the timeframe between 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy, but they may have been fairly close…I think…

In any case, we know that Luke was a close associate of Paul’s (from Acts), and we also know that Luke was with Paul as when Paul wrote 2 Timothy (2 Tim 4:11). I wonder whether at Paul, in thinkingabout his immanent death, was particularly concerned to ensure the preservation of the message, and so began setting about to preserve the message in Scriptural form. 2 Tim 4:11-13 is intriguing…”Luke is with me…bring Mark with you…and especially bring the parchments…”.

To me, that sounds like a “hotbed of who’s who” for Gospel composition, or Gospel consolidation.

That is, if the Scriptures weren’t written yet (which they may have been), then Paul was keen to make sure an authoritative version/versions were gathered and preserved.

I find this second option very intriguing. It doesn’t quite answer your question, I realise, but I think that everyone is trying to fill in some large-ish blanks. It would seem that Paul either knew of Luke’s gospel, or else knew of the ‘form’ that became Luke’s gospel (Luke 10:7) and perhaps had some role personally, in marshalling it.

Of course, this is “first impressions” and “musings”…I haven’t specifically researched this question, so the whole theory might well come crumbling down very quickly. I know some suggest that 2 Cor 8:18 says that Luke’s gospel had to have been written prior to 2 Cor (c 55AD), but I’m not sure if that’s valid or not. If you find out anything to knock down my suggestions, I’d be glad to hear them, and learn more.

Anyway…hope that’s helpful in some way. You could always try asking John D. if you ever see him, why he argues that Paul had no knowledge of any of the gospels, given 1 Tim 5:18 etc…

In Christ,

Ben.

Question: Just a small question: v17 ‘the man of God’. Just a question from the perspective of a Christian woman, why does the Bible use ‘man’ for ‘mankind’? Sometimes I feel that God in his word could have trumped cultural context and included women in these types of descriptions of blessing and relating to him!! Is it related to translation?

I’ll make a few quick comments and hope they are helpful…please grab me to talk more at church if I’ve misunderstood the question or you’d like to clarify anything.

First, “the man of God” is a semi technical term referring to the leader of God’s people. In that sense, there is a reality that the leaders/overseers of the congregation ARE to be men. However, the idea in 2 Tim 3 does not seem contained to this. It’s not as though the Scriptures are only useful for the leaders of God’s people (though you can understand why Paul, in speaking to Timothy might emphasise this angle!).

More generally, though, the problem is partly in English, and partly in Greek/Hebrew, and partly in us.

In English: There has been a transition in meaning in recent years. Ppreviously, “man”, had been a perfectly intelligible translation for “humanity” OR “male adults”, and context was used to determine meaning. This was no more intending to be oppressive of women than the use of “right” as meaning “correct” is intended to be oppressive the left-handers (though as a left hander, I do regret the language at times, and feel marginalised…only in a very small way, but still…J). Recently however, such ambiguity has been seen as unacceptable, since it assumes male as the ‘default’. Bible translations (and common speech) is still catching up with this change.

In Greek/Hebrew: there were similar but different issues. I won’t go into the details here, but suffice it to say that there were different words that could be used if you NEEDED to specify maleness, or a more general word that could mean ‘adult male’ OR ‘humanity’ (by context). In many places, it is perfectly clear what is intended, but occasionally ambiguity does remains, and care needs to be taken in working out the context clearly.

In us: We, of course, are deeply culturally conditioned. This is nothing to be ashamed of , but it is inevitable, and we need to recognise it. Because we live in a period of transition (linguistically and socially), these things can sting particularly acutely. However, I think it would be unwise to assume that our cultural sensitivities mean that God has been remiss in the formation of the Canon. The Scriptures have served God’s people wonderfully over many centuries, and (God willing) will continue to do so. I can’t say precisely why God chose to utilise the Greek and Hebrew languages in the way that he did, but that he has spoken for us the words of life at all is remarkable and praiseworthy!

Conclusion: In short, it is a matter of translation in many ways. If you read some translations, they very consciously ALWAYS go to gender neutral phrases, but this can sometimes weaken the sense, and in some cases leads to major heresy. God is NOT our ‘parent’ – he is our FATHER. Jesus is not the ‘child’ of God – he is the eternal SON. There are ideas caught up in ‘fatherhood’ that are different from ‘parenthood’, and we miss out to blur these. That’s why the ESV generally uses gender-neutral language where it clearly DOESN’T matter, but retains the gender where it does or where it might matter (often with a footnote to clarify) – and we are basically asked to ‘get over’ our cultural position. Whether this is the right way to do it or not is up for much debate, but hopefully that helps explain things for you a little more. God bless,

Ben.

In this post, I’m just trasnferring across the few ’sermon extras’ that he had last year, so that everything is gathered in one place.

Here they are:

Below are some extra bits and pieces mentioned in Sermons. There won’t be something new every week, but if a mention of something is made in a sermon, you should be able to find it here.

Mission Resource – Praying for Muslims during Ramadan:  The two main links that Klaus mentioned on Sunday are the two below…

http://www.30-days.net

http://www.30days.com.au

Questions and Answers from week 1 (Marriage Matters, Part 1)

Hey Grimmo, Just wondering about verse 5 and the idea of ‘prayer on a par’. Since the marriage relationship is put ‘on hold’ to pray (as appropriate), I wonder if it is indicative of there being one relationship which takes priority – the one with God – and hence prayer & relating to Him is not ‘on par’, but rather the only higher priority.

· Yes, that is basically true, the bible does say that our relationship with God is paramount. BUT that is why what Paul says is so surprising. Paul says in (v6) – “this is not a command but a concession”, in other words, you might choose not to have sex in order to pray. BUT whatever you do, even if you do choose this option, make sure that you get back to sex soon. God is certainly the higher priority, but the fact that it is even possible that you wouldn’t give up sex for prayer makes it very significant.

Can I ask…What about masturbation in marriage when your spouse is away or sick etc Is it OK? A good idea? etc

· Again – I want to use the word – “sub-optimal” – I think that you should discuss it with your spouse. You need to be self-controlled while apart and so it may be useful for a short term dealing with the issue. BUT – we need to be incredibly careful that there is no pornography OR fantasizing about other people etc.

Could you please cite a verse where the Bible says ‘All of who we are has been given to us by God’? Would this argument refute that homosexuality is a choice and not inborn?

· This is an excellent point. And I need to be careful what I say. For example the bible would say to me – I cannot claim that God has made me want sin – and you can name anything (covetousness for example) – so therefore I should covet. SO – I want to be careful to say what the bible has to say. However, I also want to say that our circumstances, our personality etc. are part of the way that God has made us. So the joys, the struggles, the gifts they are all given to us by the sovereign God.

Paul, one question about translations. 1 Cor 7:4 ESV says that the wife/husband does not have ‘authority’ over their body, the other does. The NIV uses the phrase ‘belong to them alone’. These seem very different to me. The NIV seems to suggest more of a mutual ‘ownership’ rather than totally being at the service of your partner. Just wondering what your thoughts are and are these really different?

· ESV is closer to what the original said – the NIV is trying to tell you what they think that that actually means. The word might be authority or maybe power or even “the right” -> I think the point here is that each partner is not to think of their body as their own but belonging to the other – and that is entirely mutual. Any mutuality is going to need to be worked out with wisdom and prayer over time -> and the point of the passage is not so much – hey you husband, she’s all yours OR hey you wife, he’s all yours BUT hey you husband – your body is for her not for you and vice versa. It is looking for a mutual giving!

Grimmo, I think you said tonight that v6 was related to v5 rather than v7 -> just wondering how you came to that conclusion, especially with the footnote that adds a colon. Thanks!!

· Two reasons – Greek has a verb form called an imperative (which is what you use to give a command) – (v5) do not deprive one another is imperative – there is no imperative in (v7).

· BUT I also think it makes more sense. When Paul says – “I wish that everyone was as I am but everyone has their own gift from God” – I am not sure how that could be interpreted as a command?

From Mark 4 “God’s Inner Ring”:
The Inner Ring, by CS Lewis, should be easy enough to find with a Google search, or you could just click here.

Welcome to the Unichurch blog. Thanks for stopping by! This is intended to be a place to put various bits and pieces that are of interest to the Unichurch family.

It’s my first blog, so bear with me…and if you’ve got any suggestions, let me know.

I’m planning on including things like:

* extra info related to a sermon, that I couldn’t fit in that should be of general interest

* answers to questions from slips (only where they are of general interest and there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY of identifying the question-asker)

* occasionally thoughts on various topics of interest to Unichurch and Christians generally

* I might try and slip in a photo of the kids from time to time……

Hope you enjoy it!

Ben.