Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Braided Hair?
So why can't women braid their hair (1 Peter 3:3)?  Here's some historical study with a quick application for what it means for us today:

"Although Paul’s exhortation for women to “adorn themselves with modesty and humility” (1 Tim. 2:9) fits the expectations of either Greek or Roman society, the adornment of the hair “with braids and gold or with pearls” (cf. 1 Pet. 3:3) fits a new trend originating in Rome.
    Greek hairstyles for women during this period were for the most part simple affairs: hair was parted in the middle, pinned simply in the back or held in place with a scarf or headband.  The women of the imperial household originated new styles; by the Trajanic period they had developed into elaborate curls, braids, high wigs, pins, and hair ornaments that were quickly copied by the well-to-do through the empire: “See the tall edifice rise up on her head in serried tiers and storeys!” (Juvenal, Satire 6). One can even date representations of women by the increasing complexity of hair fashions.
    If Roman styles seem a bit too far away to affect [local] fashions, consider that portraits of reigning empresses often appeared on coins minted in Ephesus and other Asian cities and that they had prominent statues in both public and private places. Portraits of provincial women from the era show that the imperial coiffures were copied in Ephesus and the other cities of Asia.
    Paul’s injunction regarding elaborate hairstyles reflects the increasing influence of Rome...during the third quarter of the first century A.D. And his skeptical response to this trend was due to his judgment that simplicity and modesty in dress befit pious women rather than external extravagance. [For men, Paul’s equivalent exhortation was to avoid obsession with “body-sculpting” in gymnasia in place of piety (1 Tim. 4:8).] Furthermore, his reaction to women’s imitation of latest hairstyles is understandable since it was quite a new trend, really begun only a decade or so before, and it carried connotations of imperial luxury and the infamous licentiousness of women like Messalina and Poppaea. Today, it is the equivalent of warning Christians away from imitation of styles set by promiscuous pop singers or actresses." [1] (emphasis mine)

It's not about braids.  It's about:

a.  Making beauty and character INTERNAL (for all of us, not just women)
b.  Not imitating and therefore glorifying those that are examples of a life of immodesty, vanity, excess, and promiscuity

I think "b." has a lot to say about us and our choice of fashion today.

What do you think?

[1] Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Volume 2 (Lousville, KY: Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 1996).

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

What is Spiritual Milk?

Disclaimer:  Today's post gets far more technical than usual.  In the course of reading for today's post, I had to consult a number of resources to figure out this issue.  I don't normally get so technical, but I wanted to give you a glimpse into how to deal with a more advanced issue in Bible study, in this case having to do with vocabulary.  Proceed ready to think and do your best to follow.

in today's reading, 1 Peter 2:2 is an interesting verse.  Peter here exhorts the recipients to crave "pure spiritual milk".  But what is that milk?  As Christians ourselves, we should be seeking the same thing that Peter exhorts them to seek, but what does he mean here?  Fellowship? God's Word? Prayer?  There are a number of options.  First things first however - Peter is using "milk" in a different way than we've seen in other places in the NT.  The other places we've seen it have been primarily in a negative sense (that people need to move past milk to solid food), but you don't really get that sense here:

"The reference to “milk” (gala) in 1 Cor 3:1–3 and Heb 5:11–14 occurs in contexts where believers are indicted for spiritual immaturity, but we must beware of imposing those contexts on [Peter's] usage." [1]

So we've established that it's not being used in a negative way, but we still are no closer to figuring out what it actually is.  As I've been researching and looking through material on this topic, it's actually proven very difficult to nail down.  The biggest reason for this is the modifier, "spiritual".  The word used for "spiritual" (logikos) here is very ususual - t occurs only here and in Romans 12:1: "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship."  The context there doesn't offer to much help in figuring out our verse, so I consulted some other Bible versions.

A lot of people view the "spiritual milk" to be God's Word, most likely because of the KJV translation of this verse:

"As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby..."

This version is interesting because the adjective here is "sincere" rather than "spiritual", with an added phrase "of the word" which is inferred because it doesn't actually occur in the Greek text.  The KJV translators were highly interpretive in their translation of this, adding words to clarify what they thought it meant rather than attempting to preserve the original wording.  Other versions mostly use "spiritual milk" here, which still gets us no closer to really understanding.

Commentaries are divided here, most of them uncharacteristically not going very deep into the issue:

""Pure spiritual milk” refers to the very things that nourish the Christian community in its growth: knowledge of God, prayer, instruction in the gospel, faithful obedience, and hearing God’s preached word." [2]

This is a good thought that I mostly agree with, but with no support for the interpretation.  Two other commentaries take the approach of the KJV and peg it as the Bible:

"The Greek word translated “spiritual” is logikos; it means “logical, reasonable, and spiritual.” As such, it probably points to the Word of God, which provides spiritual life to those who partake of it." [3]

Also, with more explanation:

"The word logikos is translated by the NIV and understood by many to mean “spiritual.” Usually, however, in Greek literature the term refers to that which is rational or reasonable. It is not equated with the term “spiritual,” even though it overlaps with it (cf. T. Levi 3:6; Philo, Spec. Laws 1.16; Epictetus, Discourses 1.16). Peter probably opted for the term to clarify that the milk he had in view was the word of God. The “word” (logos), after all, was the means by which God begot believers. God’s “word” (rhēma) abides forever, and that very word is identified as the gospel preached to the Petrine believers (1:25). Hence, Peter used logikos to define milk here, so that the readers will understand that the milk by which they grow is nothing other than the word of God. The means by which God sanctifies believers is through the mind, through the continued proclamation of the word.  Spiritual growth is not primarily mystical but rational, and rational in the sense that it is informed and sustained by God’s word." [4] (emphasis mine)

This is no doubt the thinking behind the KJV's translation of this verse and other interpretations that take it to be the word of God, but I have some big problems with the logic used here.  Schreiner admits that the normal (non-New Testament) use of the word in Greek was "rational or reasonable".  Consulting Greek dictionaries shows this to be true (titles are acronyms):

BDAG: thoughtful (this is a NT and early Christian Greek dictionary)
LSJ: for speaking, expressed in speech (classical Greek dictionary)
Louw-Nida: true to real nature (dictionary focused on understanding the senses and similarities/differences in NT Greek words)

The important lesson?  None of them define this word as "spiritual" even though most translations do.  Also, none of them give the sense of "Word of God" unless you count "speech" as "words".  So why does he write this?  Schreiner here is using the root of the word "logikos", which is "lego" (to speak) to bridge to another word with the same root, "logos" (word).  He is suggesting that using the word meaning "true to real nature/rational" here is supposed to bring to mind "the Word of God" to the readers.  I have a real problem with this thinking.  It is what is usually called "The Root Fallacy" in word studies.  D.A. Carson explains with and English example of the danger of determining word meaning through roots:

"All of this is linguistic nonsense. We might have guessed as much if we were more acquainted with the etymology of English words. Anthony C. Thiselton offers by way of example our word nice, which comes from the Latin nescius, meaning “ignorant.” Our “good–bye” is a contraction for Anglo–Saxon “God be with you.” Now it may be possible to trace out diachronically just how nescius generated “nice”; it is certainly easy to imagine how “God be with you” came to be contracted to “good–bye.” But I know of no one today who in saying such and such a person is “nice” believes that he or she has in some measure labeled that person ignorant because the “root meaning” or “hidden meaning” or “literal meaning” of “nice” is “ignorant.”" [5]

It would appear that many have fallen prey to this error in linguistic logic.

So know that we know what it DOESN'T mean, what DOES it actually mean.  If it's not specifically "the word of God", then what is the meaning of "spiritual" here?

Louw-Nida suggest that "true, unadulterated milk" is more accurate:
"...pertaining to being genuine, in the sense of being true to the real and essential nature of something—‘rational, genuine, true... ‘as newborn babes you drank the true, unadulterated milk’ 1 Pe 2:2. Since in 1 Pe 2:2 the context is figurative, some translators have preferred to render λογικός as ‘spiritual,’ so as to make the reference not literal but figurative." [6] (emphasis mine)

The sense here is in the word is "rational" being used in a spiritual sense in the sense of being "true".  This makes sense if this verse is contrasting the previous one.  They are to put away the old ways of malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander and desire the things that are true and holy.  They ways of the world are the ways of the flesh, but they believers have come to know that which is truly "rational" because it is True (with capital T) in the deepest sense.  To desire pure "spiritual/true" milk is to desire that which nurtures your soul and brings growth and strength, just a physical milk does.  The word of God does that, but as I said before, I don't think that this passage is limited to simply the word of God.  It is ALL of the things that grow us up, as Scot McKnight mentioned above:

""Pure spiritual milk” refers to the very things that nourish the Christian community in its growth: knowledge of God, prayer, instruction in the gospel, faithful obedience, and hearing God’s preached word."[7]

In the end, I find that I totally agree with his explanation after working through what this phrase both does and does not mean.  I wish he'd done some more detailed explaining, but it is a little complex, isn't it?

If you made it all the way to the bottom:  Questions?  Comments? Confusion?

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Introduction 1 Peter and Some Thoughts
I've talked about 1 Peter before in our sermon series on suffering.  This book has a lot do say about suffering and is very important in that regard.  Right from the beginning Peter gives us the framework by which to understand both this book and our lives as Christians.  We are saints (the elect) and strangers.  We must always live with the tension that we are in this world, but it is ultimately not our home.  As he continues on in this chapter, he tells us how to make it through suffering:  hold on to the hope of our inheritance - that we will one day be with God and be fully sons and daughters.  There is much more to say, but not enough time to say it.  Enjoy the chapter! 

Here's some introductory material on this book:

"AUTHORSHIP
    A.      Internal evidence for the Apostle Peter’s authorship
      1.      specifically stated in 1:1
      2.      allusions to the words and life experiences of Jesus and the Twelve
         a.      examples taken from E. G. Selwyn’s The First Epistle of St. Peter, 1946
           (1)      1:3-John 21:27
           (2)      1:7–9-Luke 22:31; Mark 8:29
           (3)      1:10–12- Luke 24:25ff; Acts 15:14ff
           (4)      3:15 -Mark 14:29, 71
           (5)      5:2-John 21:15ff
         b.      examples taken from Alan Stibbbs’ The First Epistle General of Peter, 1971
           (1)      1:16-Matt. 5:48
           (2)      1:17-Matt. 22:16
           (3)      1:18-Mark 10:45
           (4)      1:22-John 15:12
           (5)      2:4-Matt. 21:42ff
           (6)      2:19-Luke 6:32; Matt. 5:39
           (7)      3:9-Matt. 5:39
           (8)      3:14-Matt. 5:10
           (9)      3:16-Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:28
           (10)      3:20-Matt. 24:37–38
           (10)      4:11-Matt. 5:16
           (12)      4:13-Matt. 5:10ff
           (13)      4:18-Matt. 24:22
           (14)      5:3-Matt. 20:25
           (15)      5:7-Matt. 6:25ff
      3.      words and phrases similar to Peter’s sermons in Acts
         a.      1:20-Acts 2:23
         b.      2:7–8-Acts 4:10–11
         c.      2:24-Acts 5:30; 10:39 (esp. use of the Greek term xylon for cross)
         d.      4:5-Acts 10:45
      4.      contemporary first century missionary comparisons
         a.      Silvanus (Silas)-5:12
         b.      Mark (John Mark)-5:13

RECIPIENTS
    A.      Typical of first century letters, the recipients are noted in 1:1 as “those who reside as aliens scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.” These Roman provinces (assuming Galatia is northern ethnic Galatia) are located in northern modern Turkey. These areas are apparently places that Paul did not evangelize (cf. Acts 16:6) nor did Peter (cf. 1:12). Possibly these churches originated from Jewish converts who returned home after Pentecost (cf. Acts 2:9–11).

    B.      Although these churches may have originally been started by Jewish believers at the time of Peter’s writing, they were mostly Gentile
      1.      formerly ignorant of God (1:14)
      2.      futile ways of life inherited from their forefathers (1:18)
      3.      now God’s people (2:9–10, a play on Hosea 1:9–10; 2:23)
      4.      among the Gentiles (2:12)
      5.      lists of Gentile vices (4:3–4)

    C.      The book does contain Jewish elements
      1.      the use of the terms “aliens” and “diaspora” reflect a Jewish setting (cf. John 7:35; Acts 7:6)
      2.      the use of OT Scriptures
         a.      Exodus 19 (cf. 2:5, 9)
         b.      Isaiah 53 (cf. 1:19; 2:22, 24, 25)
However, these examples do not necessarily reflect a Jewish church, but
      1.      the transfer of OT titles from Israel to the church (i.e. “a kingdom of priests”)
         a.      2:5
         b.      2:9
      2.      a church training document (i.e. catechism materials for new believers), which employed OT Messianic texts
         a.      1:19–Isaiah 53:7 (i.e. Lamb)
         b.      2:22–Isaiah 53:5
         c.      2:24–Isaiah 53:4, 5, 11, 12
         d.      2:25–Isaiah 53:6

    D.      Although Peter was called specifically to minister to Jews (cf. Gal. 2:8), he, like Paul, worked with both Jews and Gentiles (cf. Acts 10). Cornelius’ conversion showed Peter the radical inclusiveness of the gospel! I Peter reflects this new realization.

PURPOSE
    A.      I Peter has both a doctrinal and practical aspect. However, as Paul divided his letters into a beginning section on doctrine and a concluding section on application, Peter merges the two. His book is much more difficult to outline. In many ways it reflects a sermon more than a letter.

    B.      The major issue discussed is suffering and persecution. This is done in two ways.
      1.      Jesus is presented as the ultimate example of suffering and rejection (cf. 1:11; 2:21, 23; 3:18; 4:1, 13; 5:1).
      2.      Jesus’ followers are called on to emulate His pattern and attitude (cf. 1:6–7; 2:19; 3:13–17; 4:1, 12–19; 5:9–10).

   C.      In light of the suffering and persecutions so common in the early years of Christianity, it is not surprising how often the Second Coming is mentioned. This book, like most NT writings, is thoroughly eschatological." [1]

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Confess Your Sins to One Another
It might seems strange that in such a large reading (two chapters!) with so much in it, I should pick out this one sentence - James 5:16.  I think this is a very important verse that is quite often misunderstood and with sometimes disastrous results.  Ardel Caneday did a very good multi-part series on this verse over at the Credo blog a while back, and I'd like to share some of his thoughts with you:

"Evangelicals tend to suppress and privatize publicly committed sins that affect many, especially sins that pastors and leaders commit, and to publicize privately committed sins that should be confessed either to the Lord alone or to one or two individuals against whom the sin was committed. How difficult it is to confess a sin to the many against whom the sin was committed! Yet, many Evangelicals teach believers to confess secret sinful thoughts to others, not to the Lord alone. They also teach us to confess to others those sins that we have privately committed against a single individual alone. Is it not obvious that such practices have several injurious consequences? Is it any wonder that gossip blights churches, that relationships are destroyed, and that reputations are ruined? And some injury to reputation is self-inflicted by confessing secret and private sins to individuals who have no need or right to know. How seductive it is to fall prey to the therapeutic notion that secret sins should be publicly confessed to “accountability partners” who have neither any right to bestow forgiveness of such sins nor any need to know (cf. Psalm 90:8; 19:12). How delicious are the morsels received from those who, like whisperers, confess their private sins to others, thus handing them morsels that lodge deep in their memories (Proverbs 18:8; 26:22)!" [1] (emphasis mine)

He goes into more detail about the harm that publicly confessing sins that are private can do (to both the hearers and confessors) in Part 4.  Be sure to check that out.

So what does this verse mean?  How are we to confess to one another?  He explains:

"...because James does not explain the procedures of confession, it is apparent that he expects that his readers know why, when, how, and to whom confession of sin is to be made.

Why? If we sin against others we must confess our sin in order to be set right (reconciled) with those against whom we have sinned.

When? We are obliged to confess our sin whenever we commit sin against a fellow human, especially against fellow believers, the case James has in view.

How? We are to confess the sin unequivocally with a request for forgiveness of the sin that we have committed.

To whom? We are required to confess our sin to the individual or individuals against whom we have sinned. Because only those against whom we sin have the right to forgive the sin we commit against them, confession of sin is to be made to them, not to people against whom we do not commit the sin. Even the Scribes understood that humans have no authority to grant forgiveness of sins not committed against them (Mark 2:1-12). Only God has that authority because every sin that we commit is against God, he alone has authority to forgive every sin (Psalm 51:4). So, if the sin I commit is a sinful thought confined within my heart alone and not an outward deed against any fellow human, to the Lord and to the Lord alone I am to confess my sin. Because every sin is against the Lord, every sin is to be confessed to the Lord to receive his forgiveness (cf. 1 John 1:9). But consider the injury that would almost surely be done if I confess to a fellow believer an evil thought I might have entertained against that believer. If I sin privately against my wife, privately I must confess this sin to her and to her alone before the Lord. If I sin against my family, I must confess this sin to my family and to them alone before the Lord. If I sin against the whole church, to the whole church I must confess my sin and to the church alone before the Lord." [2] (emphasis mine)

Take some time and read the whole series here.  They are for the most part not that long, but very important and challenging to our current cultural ideas and practices about this verse.

What do you think?  Questions?  Comments?

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

A Choice
I love James.  There is so much wise and practical advice in this book.  Chapter 3 is certainly no exception, and is a rightfully well-known passage.  James is so clear and vivid here that I don't really think I need to say much else beyond what he says.  Just a quick thought:

James says that blessing and cursing can't come from the same mouth just like fresh and salt water can't come from the same stream.  He paints a picture of the power of the tongue that shows how truly devastating it can be.  I know personally that I can think of things that people said to me years ago that I still remember vividly because they were so destructive.  The tongue is powerful.

So it seems we have a choice.  Will we speak life and build up others, or will we speak death and destroy them?

My encouragement is for you to ask this question of yourself whenever you speak.  Realize the power of the tongue and use it for good.  Make the choice to not speak death to others or of others.  Don't just be neutral either!  Actively seek ways to build others up and encourage them!

Questions?  Comments?

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Quick note: My apologies for getting behind on responding to comments and questions this week.  I'll get to them as soon as I can - probably on Tuesday.  Sorry for the delay!

Real Faith Works
There's been a lot of brouhaha about James chapter 2 - about how James contradicts Paul, about how James is holds to salvation about works, etc. etc.  This is unnecessary.  James here is talking about REAL faith.  Real faith always works (meaning that it will manifest fruit by actions).  The key to understanding this passage comes in verse 14:

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith (NIV - such faith) save him? (emphasis mine)

Notice here that ESV and NIV (and most modern translations) draw a distinction, saying not just "can faith save him" (because the answer to that would be yes), but "can THAT faith save him".  I believe here that James is drawing a distinction between this "fake faith" and true faith, which always bears fruit.  That is why The Message phrases it (helpfully) this way:

Does merely talking about faith indicate that a person really has it?

Read the rest of the passage this way and I think it should clear up any confusion.  The point here is not that works save a person, but that a person who is saved will display works from a changed heart.  If there are no works, how do you know if the heart has been changed?  True faith is more than words.  True faith always works.   Faith apart from works is no faith at all - it is merely words ABOUT faith. 

Questions?  Comments?

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Introduction to James and Trials
Some introductory info on James with a few thoughts on chapter 1 to follow:

"AUTHOR

    A.      The traditional author is James (Hebrew, “Jacob”), the half-brother of Jesus (one of four, cf. Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Acts 1:14; 12:17; Gal. 1:19). He was the leader of the Jerusalem Church (A.D. 48–62, cf. Acts 15:13–21; Gal. 2:9).
      1.      He was called “James the Just” and later nicknamed “camel knees” because he constantly prayed on his knees (from Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius).
      2.      James was not a believer until after the resurrection (cf. Mark 3:21; John 7:5; Jesus appeared to him personally, I Cor. 15:7).
      3.      He was present in the upper room when the Spirit came on Pentecost (cf. Acts, recorded in 2:1).
      4.      He was married (cf. I Cor. 9:5).
      5.      He is referred to by Paul as a pillar (possibly an apostle, cf. Gal. 1:19) but was not one of the Twelve (cf. Gal. 2:9; Acts 12:17; 15:13ff).
      6.      In Antiquities of the Jews, 20:9:1, Josephus says that he was stoned in A.D. 62 by orders from the Sadducees of the Sanhedrin, while another tradition (the second century writers, Clement of Alexandria or Hegesippus) says he was pushed off the wall of the Temple.
      7.      For many generations after Jesus’ death a relative of Jesus was appointed leader of the church in Jerusalem.
      8.     There are two other men named James in the NT apostolic band. However, James, the brother of John, was killed very early in A.D. 44 by Herod Agrippa I (cf. Acts 12:1–2). The other James, “the less” or “the younger” (cf. Mark 15:40), is never mentioned outside the lists of apostles. The author of our epistle was apparently well known.

LITERARY GENRE

    A.      This letter/sermon reflects a knowledge of wisdom literature, both canonical (Job - Song of Songs) and inter-biblical (Ecclesiasticus about 180 B.C.). Its emphasis is practical living—faith in action (cf. 1:3–4).

    B.      In some ways the style is very similar to both Jewish wisdom teachers and Greek and Roman moral itinerant teachers (like the Stoics). Some examples are:
      1.      loose structure (jumping from one subject to another)
      2.      many imperatives (54 of them)
      3.      diatribe (a supposed objector asking questions, cf. 2:18; 4:13). This is also seen in Malachi, Romans, and I John.

    C.      Although there are few direct quotations from the OT (cf. 1:11; 2:8, 11, 23; 4:6), like the book of the Revelation, there are many allusions to the OT.

    D.      The outline of James is almost longer than the book itself. This reflects the rabbinical technique of jumping from subject to subject in order to keep the attention of the audience. The rabbis called it “pearls on a string.” [1]

In reference to chapter 1, I would encourage you to read and understand verses 2-18 as a whole, not as separate topics.  Not everyone would agree with me on this, but I think there is much sense in understanding it this way.  The subject is introduced in the beginning - trials - and then differing issues that arise from dealing with trials are addressed:

1.  How do you have wisdom in trials? (vv. 5-8)
2.  Trials and poverty in life aren't a punishment -riches will fade. (vv. 9-11)
3.  Persevering and understanding the difference between temptation and trial (vv. 12-15)
4. Be thankful for every gift from God - even the gift of suffering and trial (vv. 16-18)

Understanding this passage as a whole gives chapter 1 a lot more coherence and reduces the weirdness of addressing trials twice in a short section of seemingly unrelated topics.  If all of these relate to trials in some way, the passage makes more sense as a whole.  It also makes the final part both make more sense and also makes it more challenging.  Everything God gives is a gift, including the difficult of trials.  Anyway, you can feel free to disagree with me on this, but understanding the passage through this lens makes it much more understandable I think.

Questions?  Comments?

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Remember
Today's passage finishes out the book of Hebrews with a handful of thoughts on various things.  I want to draw attention to a topic that we've spend a lot of time on already, but which is important and easy to forget:

Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body.

As I've said, we've talked about this before on the blog.  We did International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church just a few weeks ago in English service - and yet, it is so, so easy to forget our brothers and sisters in chains around the world.  Many suffer for their faith.  Especially around this time of year, when we've just celebrated a holiday supposedly focused on giving thanks and are entering Christmas time, it's easy to think only of our own lives during the holiday season.  Remember our brothers and sisters around the world in prayer. 

Here's some help:
Voice of the Martyrs Website
Open Doors Website

Questions on the passage today?  Comments?

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Happy Thanksgiving!
I'm taking the day of from the blog today for the holiday.  If you have any questions on today's passage, let me know!

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Run the Race