Titus concludes with instructions for the Cretans. They need to be reminded of the following:
1. Obey rulers (v. 1)
2. Do what is good (v. 1)
3. Do not slander people (v. 2)
4. Be peaceful and considerate (v. 2)
5. Show humility (v. 2)
6. Avoid foolish controversies of the law and the genealogies (v. 9).
The fact that Paul feels he must remind the Cretans (via Titus) underscores the situation of Crete at the time.
One thing that came to mind about obeying rulers and authorities is that it is an interesting contrast to anti-government paranoia I have seen among some Christians in America. Taken to the extreme, it can get ugly. Just recently someone sent ricin to various government officials. Of course, as of now, there is no evidence whoever did this was Christian or not.
But that said, we live in a time of vehement political discourse in America. Extrapolating from this letter to Titus, I think it is not only a Christian duty to obey the rulers, not slander, and be peaceful and considerate, but ensure the political dialogue adheres these principles. Likewise, Christians should teach others to be peaceful and considerate and foment vehement political dialogue. It does not matter what the issue is - gun control, abortion, taxes - Christians have a duty to ensure a safe, respectable, political dialogue.
With regard to foolish controversies of the law, we can infer that Paul is referring to the circumcision debate since he refers to it earlier in Titus 1:10. But that said, the emphasis of the letter is on peace and ending the division. We know where Paul stands on circumcision from other letters. He does not address the substantive issues now, other than to say that the division is more problematic.
The Epistle of Titus ends with Paul expecting to come visit Titus. This indicates that Paul probably has not been imprisoned yet. Likewise, there is no mention of Titus abandoning Paul in Rome, which is alluded to in 2 Timothy 4:10.
Friday, May 31, 2013
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Instructions for various groups (Titus 2)
Paul gives instructions for Titus to pass on to his congregation. The common theme among all of them is self-control, temperance, honesty, respect, and the like.
The older men are to be examples for the younger men while the older women are to be examples to the younger women.
He also mentions slaves. In similar instruction elsewhere, they are to not only obey their masters, but be polite. (v. 9-10). He specifically mentions slaves should not steal from their masters, calling to mind the situation of Philemon and Onesimus. (v. 10; Philemon: 18)
The rationale is to make the Gospel attractive to their masters. This is an interesting aspect that we have encountered before in Paul's discussions about slavery. Here, it seems the slaves will be missionaries to their own masters, which presumes that the masters are not Christian. This contrasts other situations where Paul had instructions for slave owners, which presumes that there were Christian slave owners. For instance, in 1 Timothy 6:2, Paul addresses situations where both the slave and master are Christian.
One way to apply this is to carefully consider how good of an example each of us are. Am I a good example to younger people, both inside and outside of church? I am getting better.
The older men are to be examples for the younger men while the older women are to be examples to the younger women.
He also mentions slaves. In similar instruction elsewhere, they are to not only obey their masters, but be polite. (v. 9-10). He specifically mentions slaves should not steal from their masters, calling to mind the situation of Philemon and Onesimus. (v. 10; Philemon: 18)
The rationale is to make the Gospel attractive to their masters. This is an interesting aspect that we have encountered before in Paul's discussions about slavery. Here, it seems the slaves will be missionaries to their own masters, which presumes that the masters are not Christian. This contrasts other situations where Paul had instructions for slave owners, which presumes that there were Christian slave owners. For instance, in 1 Timothy 6:2, Paul addresses situations where both the slave and master are Christian.
One way to apply this is to carefully consider how good of an example each of us are. Am I a good example to younger people, both inside and outside of church? I am getting better.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Paul to Titus (Titus 1)
Paul left Titus in Crete to manage the church. In this epistle, Paul gives advice of what he wants done.
Paul gives guidelines of the characters of the elders. They should be even-tempered and the husband of one wife. This is similar to the instructions that Paul sent Timothy in 1 Timothy 3.
Here, Paul also adds that they should have believing children. (v. 6). This is an interesting thing to say because I have seen a number of church leaders who had children grow up and then leave their particular faith. If we read this portion of Titus to mean that all church leaders of all time should follow these instructions as rules and not guidelines, then church leaders should have to withdraw from leadership if their children are not Christian.
Paul explains why these guidelines are necessary for Crete. In verses 12-13, he affirms that the reputation of Cretans that they are liars, evil, and lazy gluttons is actually true.
A few other things we learn about Titus from other books:
2 Timothy 4:10 - Paul felt abandoned by Titus at his hearing in Rome. Titus did not come to defend Paul.
2 Corinthians 8:17 and 12:18 - Paul also sent Titus to Corinth, but Titus wanted to go.
Note, an electronic search does not show Titus appearing in 1 Corinthians. So, we can presume that Titus went to Corinth during the interlude between the two letters.
Galatians 2:3 - Titus was Greek and became circumcised anyway
Paul gives guidelines of the characters of the elders. They should be even-tempered and the husband of one wife. This is similar to the instructions that Paul sent Timothy in 1 Timothy 3.
Here, Paul also adds that they should have believing children. (v. 6). This is an interesting thing to say because I have seen a number of church leaders who had children grow up and then leave their particular faith. If we read this portion of Titus to mean that all church leaders of all time should follow these instructions as rules and not guidelines, then church leaders should have to withdraw from leadership if their children are not Christian.
Paul explains why these guidelines are necessary for Crete. In verses 12-13, he affirms that the reputation of Cretans that they are liars, evil, and lazy gluttons is actually true.
A few other things we learn about Titus from other books:
2 Timothy 4:10 - Paul felt abandoned by Titus at his hearing in Rome. Titus did not come to defend Paul.
2 Corinthians 8:17 and 12:18 - Paul also sent Titus to Corinth, but Titus wanted to go.
Note, an electronic search does not show Titus appearing in 1 Corinthians. So, we can presume that Titus went to Corinth during the interlude between the two letters.
Galatians 2:3 - Titus was Greek and became circumcised anyway
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
What's left?
It looks like Titus and 1 Peter.
I am almost done with my first draft of the commentary.
I am almost done with my first draft of the commentary.
The Epistle of Jude
The author identifies himself as "Jude, brother of James". (v. 1).
Who are these people?
In the list of the apostles in Acts 1:13, there is a "Judas", but he is the "son of James.". From the list of Jesus' half-brothers, both James and Judas appears. (Mark 6:3). Based on this, we can infer that this means he is a half-brother of Jesus.
Interestingly, in the Epistle of James, the other half-brother of Jesus who writes in the New Testament does not identify himself as the half-brother of Jesus. (contrast James 1:1) Both James and Jude downplay that they were all raised together as brothers with Jesus.
I draw out two main principles from this very short book.
First, Jude is concerned about false teachers intermingling among the flock. Specifically, these false teachers are (1) denying that Jesus is the one and only Sovereign Lord and (2) state that grace is a license for immorality.
Second, these people will be punished.
The Epistle of Jude contains some random and unexpected anecdotes.
First, in verses 14-15, it cites a non-canonical book, the Book of Enoch. Why? Who knows, it is strange. Jesus cited a non-canonical book as well, the Wisdom of Solomon.
It also states that the archangel Michael disputed with the devil about what to do with Moses' body. In Deuteronomy 34:6, it states that God buried Moses at a place where no Israelites knew. Here in Jude, we find that the devil had other ideas. Considering that the Israelites ended up worshiping the bronze snake that Moses had them make, they probably would have worshipped Moses' body.
Lastly, Jude says that we should be merciful to those who doubt. (v. 22). So, what is the difference between a person who doubts and a "false teacher"? On one level, the difference is active teaching versus passive disagreeing. But really, I don't think there really is an effective difference. Either way, we should be merciful to them.
My prior text of August 2, 2011
Hey Jude
My reaction to the book of Jude:
The book seems to come of nowhere. I don't think Jude wrote any other books, plus this is one of the shortest at only 1 chapter. Yet, it is short and intense, dealing with eschatology and the ultimate victory of God over evil. It almost seems likes its primary focus is provide a prelude and segue from the rest of the Epistles to Revelations.
Who are these people?
In the list of the apostles in Acts 1:13, there is a "Judas", but he is the "son of James.". From the list of Jesus' half-brothers, both James and Judas appears. (Mark 6:3). Based on this, we can infer that this means he is a half-brother of Jesus.
Interestingly, in the Epistle of James, the other half-brother of Jesus who writes in the New Testament does not identify himself as the half-brother of Jesus. (contrast James 1:1) Both James and Jude downplay that they were all raised together as brothers with Jesus.
I draw out two main principles from this very short book.
First, Jude is concerned about false teachers intermingling among the flock. Specifically, these false teachers are (1) denying that Jesus is the one and only Sovereign Lord and (2) state that grace is a license for immorality.
Second, these people will be punished.
The Epistle of Jude contains some random and unexpected anecdotes.
First, in verses 14-15, it cites a non-canonical book, the Book of Enoch. Why? Who knows, it is strange. Jesus cited a non-canonical book as well, the Wisdom of Solomon.
It also states that the archangel Michael disputed with the devil about what to do with Moses' body. In Deuteronomy 34:6, it states that God buried Moses at a place where no Israelites knew. Here in Jude, we find that the devil had other ideas. Considering that the Israelites ended up worshiping the bronze snake that Moses had them make, they probably would have worshipped Moses' body.
Lastly, Jude says that we should be merciful to those who doubt. (v. 22). So, what is the difference between a person who doubts and a "false teacher"? On one level, the difference is active teaching versus passive disagreeing. But really, I don't think there really is an effective difference. Either way, we should be merciful to them.
My prior text of August 2, 2011
Hey Jude
My reaction to the book of Jude:
The book seems to come of nowhere. I don't think Jude wrote any other books, plus this is one of the shortest at only 1 chapter. Yet, it is short and intense, dealing with eschatology and the ultimate victory of God over evil. It almost seems likes its primary focus is provide a prelude and segue from the rest of the Epistles to Revelations.
Paul to Timothy: Linus Greets You (2 Timothy 4:21)
This is an extremely important verse in all of the epistles from Paul, if not the New Testament.
Paul refers to a man named Linus and thereby introduces us to this man. Paul approves of Linus. If Paul and Timothy both know Linus, se can probably infer from this statement that Peter knew Linus while Peter was in Rome.
Who is Linus?
Nothing else in the Bible can help us identify who this man is. However, tradition, particularly the Catholic tradition states that Linus was the second bishop of Rome after the Apostle Peter. In other words, he is the second Pope.
This is a significant event because eventually, the church leadership must pass from those who knew Jesus in the flesh to people who did not. Here, Paul provides a link to the next generation of church leaders and he approves of a man named Linus.
The succession of church leadership is a little complicated because the Apostle John outlives Paul, Peter, and even Linus. However, the Apostle John is almost killed in prison and sent off to exile on Patmos. He is likely presumed dead by the rest of the early church until letters from him start arriving. These could include first, second, and third John, but would definitely include the Letter to Seven Churches (the book of Revelations). Likewise, it is also commonly believed that John wrote the Gospel of John during the exile period, although I lean towards to the Lazarus theory of the Gospel of John.
So, who was the church leader after Peter and Paul died - Linus in Rome or Apostle John in exile?
I would say a bit of both. John is in exile and cannot manage the actual church. He can only write from afar. Linus would be on the ground in Rome and can run it.
However, it also presumes that the church was organized in this period of time. I don't think it was.
Finally, as far as we can tell, John in exile never challenges the authority of Linus as successor of managing the church in Rome. If John knows about what is happening in the Seven Churches (Revelations 2-4), then we can presume that he knows about the church administration leadership in Rome after Peter and Paul died. If John had a problem with Linus succeeding Peter as "bishop of Rome", then he would have sent a letter stating as such. We should hope that the letter would have ended up in the Biblical canon, if it existed.
We have to be careful with this logic because absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence. But it is telling that in 1, 2, 3 John or Revelations, there is no mention by John challenging the succession of church leaders in Rome.
Paul refers to a man named Linus and thereby introduces us to this man. Paul approves of Linus. If Paul and Timothy both know Linus, se can probably infer from this statement that Peter knew Linus while Peter was in Rome.
Who is Linus?
Nothing else in the Bible can help us identify who this man is. However, tradition, particularly the Catholic tradition states that Linus was the second bishop of Rome after the Apostle Peter. In other words, he is the second Pope.
This is a significant event because eventually, the church leadership must pass from those who knew Jesus in the flesh to people who did not. Here, Paul provides a link to the next generation of church leaders and he approves of a man named Linus.
The succession of church leadership is a little complicated because the Apostle John outlives Paul, Peter, and even Linus. However, the Apostle John is almost killed in prison and sent off to exile on Patmos. He is likely presumed dead by the rest of the early church until letters from him start arriving. These could include first, second, and third John, but would definitely include the Letter to Seven Churches (the book of Revelations). Likewise, it is also commonly believed that John wrote the Gospel of John during the exile period, although I lean towards to the Lazarus theory of the Gospel of John.
So, who was the church leader after Peter and Paul died - Linus in Rome or Apostle John in exile?
I would say a bit of both. John is in exile and cannot manage the actual church. He can only write from afar. Linus would be on the ground in Rome and can run it.
However, it also presumes that the church was organized in this period of time. I don't think it was.
Finally, as far as we can tell, John in exile never challenges the authority of Linus as successor of managing the church in Rome. If John knows about what is happening in the Seven Churches (Revelations 2-4), then we can presume that he knows about the church administration leadership in Rome after Peter and Paul died. If John had a problem with Linus succeeding Peter as "bishop of Rome", then he would have sent a letter stating as such. We should hope that the letter would have ended up in the Biblical canon, if it existed.
We have to be careful with this logic because absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence. But it is telling that in 1, 2, 3 John or Revelations, there is no mention by John challenging the succession of church leaders in Rome.
2 Timothy 4
The concluding personal remarks of Chapter 4 are very interesting. We actually get an inside look at the early church. We learn:
Paul had a first hearing to proclaim his innocence and no one he expected to help actually did. (v. 16) Rather, everyone deserted him. God's strength helped him to get through it.
Paul hopes that Timothy would come to Rome and help him. (v. 9). He also hopes that he brings Mark. (v. 11). Mark is interesting because from Acts 15:36-41, Mark may have deserted Paul when Paul "usurped" control of the missionary group over that of Barnabas. We do not exactly know what happened and why Paul split from Barnabas (15:39), but if Mark sparked the conflict, 2 Timothy 4:11 shows that Paul forgives Mark.
One deserter is a man named "Demas" who left Paul in Rome and went to Thessalonica. (v. 10). Other deserters include Crecens and Titus. (v. 10)
Paul's Epistle to Titus is actually the very next book of the Bible immediately after 2 Timothy. We can presume that this is the same Titus. Titus would eventually desert Paul.
Luke did not desert Paul (v. 11), but it also appears that Luke did not appear on behalf of Paul at this trial.
Paul had a first hearing to proclaim his innocence and no one he expected to help actually did. (v. 16) Rather, everyone deserted him. God's strength helped him to get through it.
Paul hopes that Timothy would come to Rome and help him. (v. 9). He also hopes that he brings Mark. (v. 11). Mark is interesting because from Acts 15:36-41, Mark may have deserted Paul when Paul "usurped" control of the missionary group over that of Barnabas. We do not exactly know what happened and why Paul split from Barnabas (15:39), but if Mark sparked the conflict, 2 Timothy 4:11 shows that Paul forgives Mark.
One deserter is a man named "Demas" who left Paul in Rome and went to Thessalonica. (v. 10). Other deserters include Crecens and Titus. (v. 10)
Paul's Epistle to Titus is actually the very next book of the Bible immediately after 2 Timothy. We can presume that this is the same Titus. Titus would eventually desert Paul.
Luke did not desert Paul (v. 11), but it also appears that Luke did not appear on behalf of Paul at this trial.
2 Timothy 3
Godlessness in the "Last Days" (v. 1-9)
Paul points out there will be godlessness in the "last days". He then provides a litany of bad things about people at this time.
Personally, I do not think that Paul is referring to some sort of event immediately preceding the end of the world or apocalypse. First, the litany of bad things in the "last days" seem to apply to every single generation of humanity (sex, greed, love of money, etc...). In fact, it would highly apply to the Roman culture of the day.
Second, "Last Days" as we saw in Acts 2:17, refers to anything after the Holy Spirit initially fell at Pentecost. Granted, this meaning of "Last Days" bootstraps in an interpretation of the Apostle Peter who is interpreting Joel 2:28-32.
Is Paul using Peter's definition of "Last Days?". I think it is fair to assume so. The phrase "Last Days" is very unique to the Bible and we can presume that Paul knows about what happened at Pentecost and Peter's understanding of it.
A few other things that stand out to me in this chapter:
Timothy studied the Scriptures from his "infancy" (v. 15). It is unclear whether this means his literal childhood or a spiritual immaturity.
Scripture is "God-breathed". (v. 16). Here, Scripture is talking about Scripture and it is "God-breathed". I interpret this to mean "inspired". This does not necessarily mean "literal" or "historical".
So, we consider that Scripture is "inspired" and look back at some of the major areas where people disagree with the Bible's historicity (Creation, Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark, when Daniel wrote, etc...), we can consider these at the very least as "God-breathed".
Paul points out there will be godlessness in the "last days". He then provides a litany of bad things about people at this time.
Personally, I do not think that Paul is referring to some sort of event immediately preceding the end of the world or apocalypse. First, the litany of bad things in the "last days" seem to apply to every single generation of humanity (sex, greed, love of money, etc...). In fact, it would highly apply to the Roman culture of the day.
Second, "Last Days" as we saw in Acts 2:17, refers to anything after the Holy Spirit initially fell at Pentecost. Granted, this meaning of "Last Days" bootstraps in an interpretation of the Apostle Peter who is interpreting Joel 2:28-32.
Is Paul using Peter's definition of "Last Days?". I think it is fair to assume so. The phrase "Last Days" is very unique to the Bible and we can presume that Paul knows about what happened at Pentecost and Peter's understanding of it.
A few other things that stand out to me in this chapter:
Timothy studied the Scriptures from his "infancy" (v. 15). It is unclear whether this means his literal childhood or a spiritual immaturity.
Scripture is "God-breathed". (v. 16). Here, Scripture is talking about Scripture and it is "God-breathed". I interpret this to mean "inspired". This does not necessarily mean "literal" or "historical".
So, we consider that Scripture is "inspired" and look back at some of the major areas where people disagree with the Bible's historicity (Creation, Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark, when Daniel wrote, etc...), we can consider these at the very least as "God-breathed".
Consider this....2 Timothy 2
A few things stand out to me.
Riddles
Paul gives Timothy a few pseudo-riddles and tells him to "reflect on what I am saying". By reflecting on these, the "Lord will you insight". These are:
Paul gives a clue to unravel these pseudo-riddles and that is to "reflect" to gain "insight" from "the Lord". That is precisely one rule and expectation for a relationship with God. To gain insight from God, one must reflect on what God has to say.
Hymenaeus and Philetus (v. 17-18)
Paul identifies two individuals who have wandered away from the flock. Paul specifies that there problem is that they preach the Resurrection has already happened.
The Resurrection already happened? What?!
It is easy to understand why people would be upset by this. If the Resurrection already happened and their loved ones are not walking around, then their loved ones had wandered away. Imagine how some modern Christians would react if people began to believe that the Rapture had already happened. "But we're still here, that means, we missed it".
This is one of the many issues of the early church as it hammered out orthodoxy. It was under constant pressure from the camps of Gnostics and other groups.
Paul does not say when the Resurrection will happen, because he does not know. He points out that these two people have wandered away, implying that the Resurrection has not happened. More importantly, he states that God knows who are is and who are not.
Riddles
Paul gives Timothy a few pseudo-riddles and tells him to "reflect on what I am saying". By reflecting on these, the "Lord will you insight". These are:
- Soldiers do not get involved in civilian affairs in order to impress their commander (v. 4)
- Athletes must obey the competition rules if they want to win (v. 5)
- Hardworking are the first to reap the crops (v. 6)
Paul gives a clue to unravel these pseudo-riddles and that is to "reflect" to gain "insight" from "the Lord". That is precisely one rule and expectation for a relationship with God. To gain insight from God, one must reflect on what God has to say.
Hymenaeus and Philetus (v. 17-18)
Paul identifies two individuals who have wandered away from the flock. Paul specifies that there problem is that they preach the Resurrection has already happened.
The Resurrection already happened? What?!
It is easy to understand why people would be upset by this. If the Resurrection already happened and their loved ones are not walking around, then their loved ones had wandered away. Imagine how some modern Christians would react if people began to believe that the Rapture had already happened. "But we're still here, that means, we missed it".
This is one of the many issues of the early church as it hammered out orthodoxy. It was under constant pressure from the camps of Gnostics and other groups.
Paul does not say when the Resurrection will happen, because he does not know. He points out that these two people have wandered away, implying that the Resurrection has not happened. More importantly, he states that God knows who are is and who are not.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Hi Timothy! (2 Timothy 1)
Personal letters are great as they bring out behind the scene details that are overlooked in the book of Acts.
Paul seems to be writing from Rome as refers to someone searched for him while in Rome (v. 16-17, Onesiphorus)
We also learn personal details about Timothy. In particular, his grandmother is named Lois and mother is Eunice. (v. 5). These women were of great faith and Paul hopes that Timothy follows in their path.
Like 1 Timothy, Paul refers to a Holy Spirit gift that Timothy has. He encourages Timothy to "fan" its "flame". (v. 6). We still do not know what exactly it is, but since Paul mentions it right after discussing Timothy's sincere faith, that might be the gift, or it is at least linked to his faith.
Paul feels abandoned. Paul mentions people deserting him, specifically "everyone from Asia" and he names Phygelus Hermogenes. (v. 15). Who is "everyone"? Is this hyperbole? I suspect it refers to many of the leaders of the churches in Asia (modern-day Turkey) or possibly the people who traveled with Paul. I don't think it means complete abandonment by all the churches in Asia. In fact, a number of the churches of Asia show up in John's epistle to them, which we know as Revelations. These include Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thytira. (Rev. 2:1, 12, and 18, respectively).
Rather, I think Paul feels abandoned by everyone from Asia he expected to come to his aid.
Why are they abandoning him? A clue might come from his discussion of Onesiphorus. Onesiphorus was not ashamed of Paul being in chains.
Paul seems to be writing from Rome as refers to someone searched for him while in Rome (v. 16-17, Onesiphorus)
We also learn personal details about Timothy. In particular, his grandmother is named Lois and mother is Eunice. (v. 5). These women were of great faith and Paul hopes that Timothy follows in their path.
Like 1 Timothy, Paul refers to a Holy Spirit gift that Timothy has. He encourages Timothy to "fan" its "flame". (v. 6). We still do not know what exactly it is, but since Paul mentions it right after discussing Timothy's sincere faith, that might be the gift, or it is at least linked to his faith.
Paul feels abandoned. Paul mentions people deserting him, specifically "everyone from Asia" and he names Phygelus Hermogenes. (v. 15). Who is "everyone"? Is this hyperbole? I suspect it refers to many of the leaders of the churches in Asia (modern-day Turkey) or possibly the people who traveled with Paul. I don't think it means complete abandonment by all the churches in Asia. In fact, a number of the churches of Asia show up in John's epistle to them, which we know as Revelations. These include Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thytira. (Rev. 2:1, 12, and 18, respectively).
Rather, I think Paul feels abandoned by everyone from Asia he expected to come to his aid.
Why are they abandoning him? A clue might come from his discussion of Onesiphorus. Onesiphorus was not ashamed of Paul being in chains.
Monday, May 20, 2013
1 Timothy 6
Slavery (v. 1-2)
Paul again instructs slaves to obey their masters. In fact, if the master is also a believer, then the slave should not show less respect to the master.
Looking back at the Old Testament, where Jewish slavery is more of an indentured servitude, we can infer that this is the model of slavery that Paul has in mind. But I am not entirely convinced of that. Paul writes to Timothy, who is in charge of a Gentile church in the Roman empire. So, if we look at the standards of slavery in that context, this is disturbing.
But again, the greater context of 1 Timothy is to avoid major social discord.
Greed (v. 3-10)
Paul discusses money, in particular, the love of money. Money itself is not bad, but the love of it is. In other words, Paul addresses greed.
Paul's advice is to be content. Contentment with godliness is "great gain".
I think this section has greater application to not just money. It is easy to see the phenomenon with money, but it really addresses making idols of necessities in life. There are things that are good in and of themselves (money, health, relationships, job, etc...), but the love of them could lead us to a bad spiritual place. Paul's advice is to be content.
This section on money comes right after the discussion on slavery. We can presume the slave-owners are wealthy people, or at least wealthier than the slaves that they own. Putting these together, here is a command for the slave owners to not their love of money impact them. I think this would have been read as a command to be nice to their slaves, particularly those that are Christian.
If we look back Jesus' statement that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God, this explains why - the love of money.
Final instructions to Timothy (v. 11-21)
As 1 Timothy winds down, Paul advises Timothy to "fight the good fight of faith". He also states to advise those who are wealthy to put their trust in God. Incidentally, this shows that wealth itself is not bad.
Paul again instructs slaves to obey their masters. In fact, if the master is also a believer, then the slave should not show less respect to the master.
Looking back at the Old Testament, where Jewish slavery is more of an indentured servitude, we can infer that this is the model of slavery that Paul has in mind. But I am not entirely convinced of that. Paul writes to Timothy, who is in charge of a Gentile church in the Roman empire. So, if we look at the standards of slavery in that context, this is disturbing.
But again, the greater context of 1 Timothy is to avoid major social discord.
Greed (v. 3-10)
Paul discusses money, in particular, the love of money. Money itself is not bad, but the love of it is. In other words, Paul addresses greed.
Paul's advice is to be content. Contentment with godliness is "great gain".
I think this section has greater application to not just money. It is easy to see the phenomenon with money, but it really addresses making idols of necessities in life. There are things that are good in and of themselves (money, health, relationships, job, etc...), but the love of them could lead us to a bad spiritual place. Paul's advice is to be content.
This section on money comes right after the discussion on slavery. We can presume the slave-owners are wealthy people, or at least wealthier than the slaves that they own. Putting these together, here is a command for the slave owners to not their love of money impact them. I think this would have been read as a command to be nice to their slaves, particularly those that are Christian.
If we look back Jesus' statement that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God, this explains why - the love of money.
Final instructions to Timothy (v. 11-21)
As 1 Timothy winds down, Paul advises Timothy to "fight the good fight of faith". He also states to advise those who are wealthy to put their trust in God. Incidentally, this shows that wealth itself is not bad.
Caring for each other (1 Timothy 5)
In 1 Timothy 5, Paul gives advises Timothy as a church leader to encourage caring for each other within his church. Paul gives many examples:
1. Treat everyone as if they are members of his family. (v. 1-2). The emphasis is on treating older men with respect (right after telling Timothy to not let older people look down on him)
2. Care for widows who really are in need. (v. 3-16). Paul differentiates older widows who cannot remarry as truly in need while younger widows should remarry because otherwise, they are idle and gossipy. Paul seems a little harsh on younger widows, but we can infer that there was a problem with younger widows who had too much time.
3. Honor elders in church who lead the church well. (v. 17-20). The analogies that Paul uses to describe this is that workers deserve their wages and working oxen should not be muzzled. The use of those analogies here suggest that Paul views honor within the church as a wage for serving church well.
If we apply this to a greater concept, it is important to recognize the contribution of volunteers in any organization.
4. Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands. (v. 22). Presumably, this means rising people to leadership positions. In the context of cultivated and harmonious relationships emphasized in the rest of this chapter, I think this means that Paul wants Timothy to get to know potential leaders very well before giving them authority.
5. Do not drink only water, but have some wine. (v. 23). The stated reason is because Timothy has a lot of stomach ailments. Here, Paul takes on a different role, one of doctor or natural healer. I agree with Paul in that some ailments are fixed with a little alcohol.
1. Treat everyone as if they are members of his family. (v. 1-2). The emphasis is on treating older men with respect (right after telling Timothy to not let older people look down on him)
2. Care for widows who really are in need. (v. 3-16). Paul differentiates older widows who cannot remarry as truly in need while younger widows should remarry because otherwise, they are idle and gossipy. Paul seems a little harsh on younger widows, but we can infer that there was a problem with younger widows who had too much time.
3. Honor elders in church who lead the church well. (v. 17-20). The analogies that Paul uses to describe this is that workers deserve their wages and working oxen should not be muzzled. The use of those analogies here suggest that Paul views honor within the church as a wage for serving church well.
If we apply this to a greater concept, it is important to recognize the contribution of volunteers in any organization.
4. Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands. (v. 22). Presumably, this means rising people to leadership positions. In the context of cultivated and harmonious relationships emphasized in the rest of this chapter, I think this means that Paul wants Timothy to get to know potential leaders very well before giving them authority.
5. Do not drink only water, but have some wine. (v. 23). The stated reason is because Timothy has a lot of stomach ailments. Here, Paul takes on a different role, one of doctor or natural healer. I agree with Paul in that some ailments are fixed with a little alcohol.
Instructions for Timothy (1 Timothy 4)
In chapter four, Paul continues his advice for Timothy. Some of it is personal advice, some of it is ministerial.
Paul advises Timothy to not be drawn by bad doctrine. The specific ones that Paul refers to include forbidding people go eat certain foods and forbidding people to marry.
This is interesting because Paul advised people to not get married, but never specifically forbid it. Regarding food, it is not specified which Paul means, but we can at least presume food offered before idols. The language Paul applies pretty broad ("everything God created is good", v. 4), which could apply to unclean meats.
In contrast to this, Paul says some personal things to Timothy and we can clean some information about him.
Paul advises Timothy to not let other people look down on him because he is young. (v. 12). From this, we can infer that Timothy is fairly young or at least younger than other men in leadership positions.
Paul also refers to a gift that Timothy received when elders laid hands on him and prophesied. (v. 14). No further details are given, but given the context, it could refer to ministerial teaching or studying the Bible.
Paul advises Timothy to not be drawn by bad doctrine. The specific ones that Paul refers to include forbidding people go eat certain foods and forbidding people to marry.
This is interesting because Paul advised people to not get married, but never specifically forbid it. Regarding food, it is not specified which Paul means, but we can at least presume food offered before idols. The language Paul applies pretty broad ("everything God created is good", v. 4), which could apply to unclean meats.
In contrast to this, Paul says some personal things to Timothy and we can clean some information about him.
Paul advises Timothy to not let other people look down on him because he is young. (v. 12). From this, we can infer that Timothy is fairly young or at least younger than other men in leadership positions.
Paul also refers to a gift that Timothy received when elders laid hands on him and prophesied. (v. 14). No further details are given, but given the context, it could refer to ministerial teaching or studying the Bible.
Church leaders (1 Timothy 3)
In chapter three, Paul discusses leaders within the church. In short, they should be examples of Christian character and values.
Interestingly, Paul mentions that leaders should be the "husband of one wife". If I am not mistaken, I think this is the only place in the Bible where polygamy is explicitly discouraged. If we think back to the Old Testament, men frequently had multiple wives. David, a man "after God's own heart", had several.
This issue actually comes up in the modern context, particularly with missionaries and church plants in areas of the world where polygamy is still common. In some areas, the only way to have any local leaders at all is to have a person with multiple wives.
Personally, I think polygamy is a mess. That said, I am OK if church leaders in polygamous cultures are polygamous leaders. If we look back to the Old Testament, God generally did not have a problem with it, but met people where they are.
Rather, I think Paul is outlining a general ideal of character evaluation for church leaders. In context, character and their personal lives matter. Paul is highly aware of the complicated problems that can arise with polygamy and does not want leaders to be pulled down by it.
Interestingly, Paul mentions that leaders should be the "husband of one wife". If I am not mistaken, I think this is the only place in the Bible where polygamy is explicitly discouraged. If we think back to the Old Testament, men frequently had multiple wives. David, a man "after God's own heart", had several.
This issue actually comes up in the modern context, particularly with missionaries and church plants in areas of the world where polygamy is still common. In some areas, the only way to have any local leaders at all is to have a person with multiple wives.
Personally, I think polygamy is a mess. That said, I am OK if church leaders in polygamous cultures are polygamous leaders. If we look back to the Old Testament, God generally did not have a problem with it, but met people where they are.
Rather, I think Paul is outlining a general ideal of character evaluation for church leaders. In context, character and their personal lives matter. Paul is highly aware of the complicated problems that can arise with polygamy and does not want leaders to be pulled down by it.
Advice for Christian assimilation into Roman society (1 Timothy 2)
At other points in the Bible, it contains rules and guidelines for holiness. Here in this chapter, it stresses the role of the individual in making a peaceful society.
A look at the historical context is helpful before sorting out Paul's ideas. Christianity was a fledgling offshoot of the Jewish religion, but growing quickly amongst the Jews and the Gentiles in the Roman provinces. It also faced periodic opposition from the Roman officials and the Jewish establishment. Christians were periodically rounded up and thrown into gladiator games or to hungry lions in the coliseum.
Likewise, Timothy might still be in Ephesus (1:3), which had a major riot and Christians were almost lynched (Acts 19). Further, women did not have many rights. It is also my understanding that most people, about 90% of the population, did not have much wealth.
With this context, Paul advises the following:
1. Pray for your leaders (2:1-2).
The reason is that we might have peaceful lives. If we think about the contemporary Christian persecution by Rome, it adds another dimension that Americans take for granted today. A good modern example would be to pray for the leaders of China and North Korea that the people in those countries have peaceful lives.
But undoubtedly, it also means that Americans should pray for Obama. I am sure many American Christians prayed for George W Bush, but how many pray for Obama?
2. Women should dress modestly (2:9).
This is good advice. Paul gives examples and runs the gambit between "decency and propriety" to no expensive clothes.
Are expensive clothes wrong? I would say no. But in the context of major socio-economic strata, if one had expensive clothes, then they were in a small minority of people. Rather, I think the reference to expensive clothes means that Paul is actually saying "do not flaunt your wealth" among the poor.
Again, the emphasis seems to be on peaceful coexistence with others.
Further, modesty and decency are contextual. What is appropriate to wear at the gym or the beach is not necessarily appropriate to wear at a cocktail lounge. Wearing gym or beach attire outside of such environments gives the impression of sexual impropriety. Paul understands the male mind and he does not Christian women to be viewed as prostitutes or worse, raped. Rather, Paul wants peaceful coexistence between Christians and within greater society as a whole.
3. Women should not hold authority over men. (3:11-15)
I think this is frequently understood to mean that women should not leaders in the church. If someone reads it that literally, then they should go all the way with the literal. in particular, Paul advises women to be "silent".
If we read this super literally, that means women should not be business owners that employ men or perhaps even drive cars with male passengers. This passage also means women should have no other function in life other to have children.
I do not read it this literally. For starters, there are two great examples of female leaders in the Bible itself. These include Moses' sister, Miriam, and Deborah the judge. (Exodus 15:20; Judges 4-5). Both women were be prophetesses and the Bible records songs they sang. (Exodus 15:20; Judges 4:4, chpt. 5).
I don't think it is wrong for women to be spiritual and political leaders because God raised two women to fill this role.
So, what is Paul talking about? Paul wants peace for the Christian society. With that in mind, Paul is not trying to upset the established social order. At this time, women did not have a lot of rights and even their testimony was not reliable in court. Rather, Paul wants Christians to conform to the social and cultural norms where they live for their own good. Obviously, there will be a conflict with on some level, particularly if the norm is to worship idols. But in areas like this, Paul wants Christians to live within the norms of society.
Two thousand years later, we live in an era of far more gender equality. I think the same principals would apply, but it would look very different than the Roman era. For instance, today, Christian women should integrate into society (although not dress like prostitutes).
A look at the historical context is helpful before sorting out Paul's ideas. Christianity was a fledgling offshoot of the Jewish religion, but growing quickly amongst the Jews and the Gentiles in the Roman provinces. It also faced periodic opposition from the Roman officials and the Jewish establishment. Christians were periodically rounded up and thrown into gladiator games or to hungry lions in the coliseum.
Likewise, Timothy might still be in Ephesus (1:3), which had a major riot and Christians were almost lynched (Acts 19). Further, women did not have many rights. It is also my understanding that most people, about 90% of the population, did not have much wealth.
With this context, Paul advises the following:
1. Pray for your leaders (2:1-2).
The reason is that we might have peaceful lives. If we think about the contemporary Christian persecution by Rome, it adds another dimension that Americans take for granted today. A good modern example would be to pray for the leaders of China and North Korea that the people in those countries have peaceful lives.
But undoubtedly, it also means that Americans should pray for Obama. I am sure many American Christians prayed for George W Bush, but how many pray for Obama?
2. Women should dress modestly (2:9).
This is good advice. Paul gives examples and runs the gambit between "decency and propriety" to no expensive clothes.
Are expensive clothes wrong? I would say no. But in the context of major socio-economic strata, if one had expensive clothes, then they were in a small minority of people. Rather, I think the reference to expensive clothes means that Paul is actually saying "do not flaunt your wealth" among the poor.
Again, the emphasis seems to be on peaceful coexistence with others.
Further, modesty and decency are contextual. What is appropriate to wear at the gym or the beach is not necessarily appropriate to wear at a cocktail lounge. Wearing gym or beach attire outside of such environments gives the impression of sexual impropriety. Paul understands the male mind and he does not Christian women to be viewed as prostitutes or worse, raped. Rather, Paul wants peaceful coexistence between Christians and within greater society as a whole.
3. Women should not hold authority over men. (3:11-15)
I think this is frequently understood to mean that women should not leaders in the church. If someone reads it that literally, then they should go all the way with the literal. in particular, Paul advises women to be "silent".
If we read this super literally, that means women should not be business owners that employ men or perhaps even drive cars with male passengers. This passage also means women should have no other function in life other to have children.
I do not read it this literally. For starters, there are two great examples of female leaders in the Bible itself. These include Moses' sister, Miriam, and Deborah the judge. (Exodus 15:20; Judges 4-5). Both women were be prophetesses and the Bible records songs they sang. (Exodus 15:20; Judges 4:4, chpt. 5).
I don't think it is wrong for women to be spiritual and political leaders because God raised two women to fill this role.
So, what is Paul talking about? Paul wants peace for the Christian society. With that in mind, Paul is not trying to upset the established social order. At this time, women did not have a lot of rights and even their testimony was not reliable in court. Rather, Paul wants Christians to conform to the social and cultural norms where they live for their own good. Obviously, there will be a conflict with on some level, particularly if the norm is to worship idols. But in areas like this, Paul wants Christians to live within the norms of society.
Two thousand years later, we live in an era of far more gender equality. I think the same principals would apply, but it would look very different than the Roman era. For instance, today, Christian women should integrate into society (although not dress like prostitutes).
Monday, May 13, 2013
Introductory Remarks (1 Timothy 1)
Here we find that Paul writes to Timothy. Timothy assisted Paul and traveled with him for a significant portion of Paul's missions.
In the letter, Paul refers to telling Timothy to stay behind in Ephesus. This could be the situation of the letter. It seems that Timothy, as Paul's right hand man, leads the church of Ephesus. We are not sure when Paul writes.
Another thing that stands out to me is that "slave traders" is mentioned in the laundry list of bad people. (v. 10). It stands out to me because it makes an interesting counter-weight to where Paul tells slaves to "obey their masters". (Colossians 3:22) That verse is interesting because Colossians was likely hand-delivered by the escaped slave Philemon.
What is Paul's view on slavery? I am not sure. Returning to Colossians 4, a few verses down from "slaves, obey your masters", slave owners are told to not mistreat slaves. (v. 1). Here in 1 Timothy, Paul goes even further and says that slave traders are unrighteous.
From what I know about Roman history, slaves frequently fought and died in the gladiator combat games.
In fairness and balancing the contexts, we could reasonably infer that slave traders probably mistreated their slaves or had no qualms about selling slaves to owners who would mistreat them.
In the letter, Paul refers to telling Timothy to stay behind in Ephesus. This could be the situation of the letter. It seems that Timothy, as Paul's right hand man, leads the church of Ephesus. We are not sure when Paul writes.
Another thing that stands out to me is that "slave traders" is mentioned in the laundry list of bad people. (v. 10). It stands out to me because it makes an interesting counter-weight to where Paul tells slaves to "obey their masters". (Colossians 3:22) That verse is interesting because Colossians was likely hand-delivered by the escaped slave Philemon.
What is Paul's view on slavery? I am not sure. Returning to Colossians 4, a few verses down from "slaves, obey your masters", slave owners are told to not mistreat slaves. (v. 1). Here in 1 Timothy, Paul goes even further and says that slave traders are unrighteous.
From what I know about Roman history, slaves frequently fought and died in the gladiator combat games.
In fairness and balancing the contexts, we could reasonably infer that slave traders probably mistreated their slaves or had no qualms about selling slaves to owners who would mistreat them.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Final words of 1 John (1 John 5:13-21)
In the conclusion of the book, John gives advice. This is an interesting contrast to the personal remarks that we find at the end of the letters from Paul. If we think of that, then can presume that the author intentionally wrote this letter for the entire church to read, as opposed to specific advice for a specific church.
If we look at the other letters attributed to the Apostle John, we find
2 John - to the church as a whole
3 John - to "Gaius"
Revelations - to the "seven churches", which is understood to be the church as a whole.
Here are other things that stand out to me:
Pray according to God's will (v. 14)
These prayers will be heard and if they are heard, they will be granted. That said, it does not say when these prayers will be answered or what it means to pray according to God's will.
Sins that lead to death and sins that do not (v. 16-17)
This is an interesting concept. John does not provide an exact definition of what he refers to. One possibility is found within this context of the letter. Much of the letter of focuses on what it means to be "Children of God" and the implications of salvation. In this context, perhaps John means that sin that does not lead to death is a Christian continuing in error, but the sin is covered by the blood of Jesus.
Stay away from idols (v. 21)
Keeping in mind that this was a letter, it feels like an abrupt ending for the letter. I wonder if John ran out of room on the original parchment.
If we look at the other letters attributed to the Apostle John, we find
2 John - to the church as a whole
3 John - to "Gaius"
Revelations - to the "seven churches", which is understood to be the church as a whole.
Here are other things that stand out to me:
Pray according to God's will (v. 14)
These prayers will be heard and if they are heard, they will be granted. That said, it does not say when these prayers will be answered or what it means to pray according to God's will.
Sins that lead to death and sins that do not (v. 16-17)
This is an interesting concept. John does not provide an exact definition of what he refers to. One possibility is found within this context of the letter. Much of the letter of focuses on what it means to be "Children of God" and the implications of salvation. In this context, perhaps John means that sin that does not lead to death is a Christian continuing in error, but the sin is covered by the blood of Jesus.
Stay away from idols (v. 21)
Keeping in mind that this was a letter, it feels like an abrupt ending for the letter. I wonder if John ran out of room on the original parchment.
Friday, May 10, 2013
The Trinity (1 John 5:6-12)
This text is famous for its explanation of the Trinity in verse 7. It literally says that the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit are one. In context, it says that these testify in Heaven. In contrast, water, blood, and Spirit testify on earth and they are in agreement.
A side note, the greater context of this text is "testimony".
The church I grew up in did not like the concept of the Trinity. I am not really sure why. It is hard to understand, but that does not make it true.
The Biblical rationale was that there was a manuscript discrepancy about this. The NIV version I use actually makes a note of this. It says the Vulgate and Greek manuscripts from the middle ages differ on the inclusion of verse 7.
Which is right? What happened? Honestly, no one can say what happened, when, why, of which version is 'correct'. But if someone really trusts in God to protect the Bible, this should not be an issue.
In fact, I would say any sort of sectarian church doctrine that is principally based on the removal of text from the Bible should immediately be suspect. Viewed from another way, the rationale is "we don't like the Trinity, so we will remove the portions of the Bible that discuss it". This should raise major red flags for people.
If somebody says that they have a problem with Trinity because it is not clear in the Bible because of the manuscript discrepancy, then I can respect it. But that is very different from saying that the Trinity is wrong, because that rationale claims knowledge of what happened 1,000 years. Basidia, the Vulgate was a highly respected translation of the Bible and probably the most significant translation until the Authorized Version by King James.
Finally, the context of this passage talks about the agreement of things, specifically three things - blood, water, and Spirit. In this context, there is some support that in fact it is talking about the Trinity.
A side note, the greater context of this text is "testimony".
The church I grew up in did not like the concept of the Trinity. I am not really sure why. It is hard to understand, but that does not make it true.
The Biblical rationale was that there was a manuscript discrepancy about this. The NIV version I use actually makes a note of this. It says the Vulgate and Greek manuscripts from the middle ages differ on the inclusion of verse 7.
Which is right? What happened? Honestly, no one can say what happened, when, why, of which version is 'correct'. But if someone really trusts in God to protect the Bible, this should not be an issue.
In fact, I would say any sort of sectarian church doctrine that is principally based on the removal of text from the Bible should immediately be suspect. Viewed from another way, the rationale is "we don't like the Trinity, so we will remove the portions of the Bible that discuss it". This should raise major red flags for people.
If somebody says that they have a problem with Trinity because it is not clear in the Bible because of the manuscript discrepancy, then I can respect it. But that is very different from saying that the Trinity is wrong, because that rationale claims knowledge of what happened 1,000 years. Basidia, the Vulgate was a highly respected translation of the Bible and probably the most significant translation until the Authorized Version by King James.
Finally, the context of this passage talks about the agreement of things, specifically three things - blood, water, and Spirit. In this context, there is some support that in fact it is talking about the Trinity.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Faith in the Son of God (1 John 5: 1-5)
The first part of 1 John 5 discusses the implications of belief in Jesus as the Son of God. It is woven together with the command of God for the children of God.
So much of the focus of these chapters are on the love of fellow men, I think this text serves to intertwine it with the love of God.
I have seen statements like verse (carry out God's commands) in the New Testament used as a backhanded way to bootstrap in lifestyle criteria to determine if one is Christian or not. Oftentimes, it is a sexual lifestyle criteria (homosexual, cohabiting without marriage), but it is not limited to that. In the church I grew up in, the focus was on the complete observance of a seventh day Sabbath. After all, these things are commanded at some point in the Bible.
But they are not commanded here and I do not think that is what John has in mind. Rather, the emphasis is on the love of fellow men.
So much of the focus of these chapters are on the love of fellow men, I think this text serves to intertwine it with the love of God.
I have seen statements like verse (carry out God's commands) in the New Testament used as a backhanded way to bootstrap in lifestyle criteria to determine if one is Christian or not. Oftentimes, it is a sexual lifestyle criteria (homosexual, cohabiting without marriage), but it is not limited to that. In the church I grew up in, the focus was on the complete observance of a seventh day Sabbath. After all, these things are commanded at some point in the Bible.
But they are not commanded here and I do not think that is what John has in mind. Rather, the emphasis is on the love of fellow men.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
God is love (I John 4:7-21)
This is another "love" chapter and is not as popular as I Corinthians 13.
This portion focuses on God's love. "Love" is the very nature of God, which the author states twice as "God is love" (vv. 8 and 16). The author provides an example of this kind of love in verse 10, that God sent his only Son to be an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
Some characteristics about love the author points out:
Whoever lives in love lives in God (v. 16)
Perfect love drives out fear (v. 18)
If God abides in us, then we will have love for others. (v. 20).
Love for another is a measure of living a walk of faith. (vv. 20-21).
A question that opens up is what about people who have love for their fellow men, but seem to have no faith in Jesus? After all, there are good examples of humanitarianism of people who do not claim to be Christian.
This is an area I ponder for which do not have a ready answer. In short, I don't know.
This portion focuses on God's love. "Love" is the very nature of God, which the author states twice as "God is love" (vv. 8 and 16). The author provides an example of this kind of love in verse 10, that God sent his only Son to be an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
Some characteristics about love the author points out:
Whoever lives in love lives in God (v. 16)
Perfect love drives out fear (v. 18)
If God abides in us, then we will have love for others. (v. 20).
Love for another is a measure of living a walk of faith. (vv. 20-21).
A question that opens up is what about people who have love for their fellow men, but seem to have no faith in Jesus? After all, there are good examples of humanitarianism of people who do not claim to be Christian.
This is an area I ponder for which do not have a ready answer. In short, I don't know.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Test the spirits (I John 4: 1-6)
The chapter gives advice on the discernment of spirits. It provides a simple a test - ask the spirit if Jesus Christ came from God in the flesh. A spirit that denies it is not from God, whereas a spirit that acknowledges it is from God.
A spirit that denies is the "Antichrist". Here, we have a definition of the loaded term.
Verses 4-6 provide another test to determine truth from falsehood. This is to acknowledge the authority of the Apostles. For us in the modern setting, it would be to recognize their written record that they left behind, in other words, the New Testament.
One thing that comes to mind in this is that even the Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet. Thus, they believe Jesus came from God. They do not however believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Can this be reconciled with I John 4? After all, the spirit test in I John 4 makes no mention of whether Jesus was the Son of God, but rather that Jesus was sent by God.
I think this perspective would remove the test from the context. For starters, a few verses down (v. 9) shows the author believes that Jesus was the Son of God and that God sent him. Plus, much of what the apostles stated elsewhere is that Jesus was the Son of God.
Based on this, we could read into the spirit test that not only Jesus was from God, but that Jesus was God's son.
A spirit that denies is the "Antichrist". Here, we have a definition of the loaded term.
Verses 4-6 provide another test to determine truth from falsehood. This is to acknowledge the authority of the Apostles. For us in the modern setting, it would be to recognize their written record that they left behind, in other words, the New Testament.
One thing that comes to mind in this is that even the Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet. Thus, they believe Jesus came from God. They do not however believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Can this be reconciled with I John 4? After all, the spirit test in I John 4 makes no mention of whether Jesus was the Son of God, but rather that Jesus was sent by God.
I think this perspective would remove the test from the context. For starters, a few verses down (v. 9) shows the author believes that Jesus was the Son of God and that God sent him. Plus, much of what the apostles stated elsewhere is that Jesus was the Son of God.
Based on this, we could read into the spirit test that not only Jesus was from God, but that Jesus was God's son.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)