Scripture Engagement

 In this age of temporary structures and temporary relationships it's good to know that our Lord does not ever leave us. The other day I was working on Joshua chapter 1 and was reminder how precious this verse is: No one will be able to stand against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will never leave you nor forsake you. 1.5 As the Israelites prepared to enter Canaan, with Joshua at the helm, they needed to know that Yahweh, they God they worshipped, was with them, and would never leave them. In the context of this passage it assures them of future victories in battle, as they took on the Canaanites. For us, we can be sure that whatever we have to face, the Lord will be with us.  There's a really good scene in the Netflix series Shtisel , where Ruchami is reassured by her fiance Hanina that he will never leave her. She had been worried that, just as her father left her mother (but later returned, cap in hand), Hanina would one day lea...

'The book of Romans wasn't written by Luther. The book of Romans wasn't even written by Calvin. The book of Romans was written by Paul, and Paul was a Jew, and we Jews, don't like Gentiles!' Martin Goldsmith, All Nations Christian College, 1991-92. We are so used to reading Romans through the eyes of Luther and Calvin that we forget that the reason it was written was quite different from the issues those venerable theologians faced. The problem, from a Jewish perspective, is that the Gentiles were considered to be so impure as to be beyond the bounds of God's saving grace. They were the uncircumcised, sexually immoral, idolatrous, unclean people who couldn't possibly by part of God's saving plan. But God's plan did include them (Gen 12:1-3), and Isaiah, amongst others, prophesied that 'all nations' would be included in temple worship (Isa 56:6-8). In this he was correct. Jesus' resurrection and ascension changed everything. No longer was ...

We are used to talking about Bible translation in terms of communication. Missiologists talk often talk about 'bridges' used for sharing the good news, which is also a communication metaphor - we have something we want to communicate, but we need a bridge, a way of expressing it, some kind of packaging for it, so that it communicates correctly (or hides whats inside the package, if we interpret the metaphor literally). This is a misunderstanding for two reasons: It is a false assumption that we have 'correctly' understood the good news. Unfortunately we have only understood a representation of the good news for our own culture . It doesn't matter how we package it, this will be misunderstood or irrelevant to the receptor culture (the primary audience in question). For instance, those in the minority world often explain the good news in terms of our guilt before a just God who has to punish sin, and that He, in Christ, took that punishment on our behalf to make us...