Monthly Archives: May 2010

Doing the right thing

Leave a Reply

Justin, you got me thinking.

Jesus speaks about doing what is right and godly. He has (at least) three good aims for the doer of righteousness. They’re all true!

To be seen by people

Matthew 5:16 esv
… let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Not to be seen by people, but by God our father

Matthew 6:1, 4 esv
Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
… And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

To act naturally and without plan, let alone an aim to be seen

Matthew 25:37 esv
Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?’

  • It’s worth aiming for people to see righteousness.
    Because it will glorify God that his people do well.
  • It’s important that we aim to please God, not people.
    Because it’s easy, superficial and hypocritical to impress others. Only God’s ‘well done’ is worth hearing.
  • We shouldn’t have any aims at all.
    Because righteousness is not a show.

Hairy versus baldy

Leave a Reply

Here’s something that I probably won’t mention this coming Sunday. But I don’t want to lose the idea …

In Numbers 6 we find the description of the Nazirite: a non-priestly man or woman who can, with special vow and behaviour, take on the holiness that looks very like the Hebrew high priest. And she/he cannot cut any body hair until the vow is complete. In fact, the hair becomes an offering.

Numbers 6:8 esv
And the Nazirite shall shave his consecrated head at the entrance of the tent of meeting and shall take the hair from his consecrated head and put it on the fire that is under the sacrifice of the peace offering.

In Numbers 16 (Sunday’s passage) there’s a rebellion against God’s appointed leaders. Korah – not a priest – wants to become like a priest (16:10). He claims that all the people are holy (16:3). And Korah is significantly wrong.

Korah means … baldness. He’s the opposite of a Nazirite in more ways than one!

Putting on the squeeze

Leave a Reply

Today I note a way my local council increased road danger for cyclists.

First, look at this crossing. It’s very good: near a school but the *stop-go* lady is well-respected by all the traffic; usually a 70kph zone but 40kph during school times. There’s a pedestrian island in the middle and good cycle lane at the left.

About 100m away from this there’s a newer pedestrian place – not really a crossing because cars do not have to give way to pedestrians. The centre island is a little wider than the older example. And the left of the road is filled with concrete.

Let me ask you: what do vehicles do when driving past a traffic island? They almost always veer a fraction (or more!) to the left. That can be risky and scary when on a bike. But at this place our council has added to the danger by forcing all riders to veer right, into the lane of traffic. Crazy!

It’s bad enough in the picture above, but it’s worse on the other side of the road. Check out the concrete covering the unbroken white line.

This road gets heaps of cyclists. Now we’re forced into the line of moving traffic, often the traffic is going 70kph. And the orientation of the road guarantees rising/setting sun will blind drivers at some stage almost every day of the year.

Not enough thought!

Keep the traffic island. Get rid of the rest.

*UPDATE*
22 June 2010

The council has improved this crossing! Riding past last week I saw the southern kerb-side section had been removed and the usual road surface put in place. Maybe the north side is next. Good move, and sensible, by the council planners and workers.

Red letter

Leave a Reply

Does red writing emphasise what you want to emphasise? Not always.

Uh oh!

That’s another reason not to like red letter Bibles.

Thanks Lavington Panthers. (Faded red paint signs are not permitted.)

Anointed one

Leave a Reply

I’ve noticed a shift in the title people use for Jesus. Compare these two verses in two similar versions of the Bible. Both translations are NIV (New International Version), but the tNIV is more recent.

Matthew 1:1
A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham (NIV)
This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham (tNIV)

Mark 1:1
The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (NIV)
The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah (tNIV)

There’s a move from Christ to Messiah. It’s common apart from translations, too: in Christian books and addresses, etc. And I’m not really in favour of the shift. Here are some thoughts.

Meaning
Both titles mean anointed one, and indicate a leader appointed by God. Messiah is from Hebrew, Christ from Greek. So there’s no problem with regard to the meaning they signify.

Connotation
Neither of these words is a full translation: that would give ‘Jesus the Anointed One.’ They are a transliteration (that is, an Anglicised version of the underlying Hebrew/Greek word). So why the move to Messiah? It flows from lots of work done to understand Jesus in his historical setting. He was a first century Jew (as well as being God the Son!). So the Hebrew term, it is said, better fits the context of Israel in the 30s AD.

Translation & theology
I think it’s a poor translation. New Testament Greek had a word for Messiah. It also was a transliteration, and is used twice, both in John’s gospel. Note how they appear (both are tNIV):

John 1:41 The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ).
John 4:25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”

When Messiah was used, John immediately translates it to Christ. When Christ is used, it’s never explained by use of Messiah.

By the time the New Testament records were being written, it was clear that Jesus is Lord and Saviour for all – not only for those who submit to Jewish law. I think the use of the Greek expresses the universal access to trust in Jesus. And I think that a reversion to Messiah reflects an ‘I’m-really-clever’ exclusivity, an intellectual snobbery. Saying ‘Messiah’ signals to me the opposite of what ‘Christ’ indicates. It’s a theological mistake.

So I try to speak the way the New Testament does: mainly to say Jesus is Christ, and sometimes that he is Messiah.

If there was any reason to change translation, it would have to be in the direction of inclusion rather than exclusion. Perhaps drop transliteration and begin fuller translation: The start of the gospel of Jesus, God’s anointed, Son of God.