Feb
22

RTW: For Black History Month…

Today’s Road Trip Wedensday at YA Highway is in celebration of Black History month (which is this month, if you didn’t know). This week’s questions is: “Who is your favorite African American author or fictional character?”

Honestly, I wish I had a week to prepare for this. Not that I don’t read novels with black characters, but often an author will describe a character as having dark skin and dark hair, which could just as easily describe someone of Middle Eastern or Indian descent as it could someone of African American origin. (Is this naïve of me? Should I just assume “dark skin and dark hair” means “black”?) Given more time, I could go back and re-read some of the character descriptions to get a better idea of their ethnicity. But for the sake of responding today, I’m going to cheat a little–just a little–and present a character from my current read: Hunter from Neil Gaiman’s NEVERWHERE. She’s a tough warrior, guardian to the Lady Door, and while she may end up dead, a traitor, or somehow not as good as she appears right now, at the moment I’m enjoying the way she contrasts the other characters in the story, and gives glimpses of depth to the tough exterior. As I said, I’m still reading this book, so my opinion may change by the time I get to the end. I’m sure there are dozens of other characters I could have chosen, but for now, off the top of my head, Hunter’s my pick.

Who would be your pick of African American writers or characters? Comment below, or join the fun at YA Highway by blogging your answer and then linking in the YA Highway article comments!

Feb
21

Pancake Day!

OK, so maybe you were expecting an article from me about Shrove Tuesday, a day of repentance prior to Lent. I have nothing against days of repentance, or even those who choose to observe a Lenten fast. Christians of the Reformed persuasion (as I am) generally don’t go in for those kinds of observances–it all goes back to the Reformation, and I’m sure you don’t want me to lecture you on church history.*

However, when I was growing up, the Tuesday prior to Lent was always “pancake day.” Every year on Shrove Tuesday, my mum (and I believe, on occasion, my dad) would make pancakes for us. Some of you may not be aware that British (or at least English**) pancakes are not the same as American pancakes. American pancakes are about the size of a hamburger and thick, whereas English pancakes are large and flat–a bit like a crêpe. Here are some pictorial examples:

American pancakes with maple syrup “drizzled” over them.

English pancakes rolled up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you’ve never had an English-style pancake, they’re very easy and very quick to make. All you need is some flour, some milk, a couple of eggs, and perhaps some butter (not everyone uses butter in their pancake recipe). You can then spread your favourite filling in the middle before rolling. The following recipe makes about 8 pancakes.

Put a cup of flour into a mixing bowl, then make a well in the middle of the flour. Crack two eggs into the well and beat the eggs and flour together. When you have these mixed to a smooth consistency, start adding about a cup and a quarter of milk–mixing it in gradually to help maintain a smooth, lump-free mixture. If you want, you can add 2 teaspoons of melted butter to the mix when you’ve added about half the milk. But you don’t have to.

You then want to let the pancake batter sit–some people say 15 mins is good enough, though some like to refrigerate the mixture for an hour. I think the last time I made pancakes I refrigerated the mixture for an hour. Does it make any difference? I don’t honestly know–I’m not Bobby Flay, I just follow a recipe!

When your batter is ready to use, put a little oil or butter in a medium pan and heat on high. Once the pan is hot, turn the heat down to medium, then ladle enough batter to lightly coat the bottom of the pan (note the thickness of the pancakes in the picture above on the right). It should take about a minute to cook, at which point you flip the pancake (or turn with a spatula if you’re not that adventurous) and cook the other side for about 30 seconds. As you can see from the picture, the pancakes should be a nice golden brown colour. Put the pancake on a plate and repeat, stacking the pancakes as you go until you run out of batter.

The traditional filling for pancakes is sugar and lemon. Take one of your pancakes on a plate, lightly sprinkle sugar over it, then squeeze some lemon juice on it. Then roll the pancake and eat! Other popular fillings are jam (strawberry jam is really tasty on a pancake), and honey. I’ve not tried chocolate spread on a pancake, but I bet that would be tasty. Mmm… Nutella!

Anyway, I hope you have a fun day. And if you try the pancakes, I wish you every success and good eating! :)

* Just to clarify, I believe times of fasting and repentance are good and, especially the latter, should be practiced often. What I have in mind here, though, are church calendar observances (Shrove Tuesday, Lent, etc.).

** I believe Scottish pancakes are more like American pancakes, only smaller. Perhaps one of my Scottish friends *cough* Emma Maree *cough* could confirm this?

Feb
21

Sunday School Notes: Romans 7:4-6

4 Therefore, my brethren, you have also been put to death to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may be with another, the one raised from the dead, so that we may bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, our sinful passions, those through the law, were at work in our limbs, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the law, having died [to that] by which we were restrained, so that we serve in newness of life, and not in oldness of letter.

My translation of the passage is fairly literal, so feel free to compare with your favorite version. Hopefully the notes from this past Sunday will help to explain some of the odd wording.

As I anticipated last week, this week we spent time discussing exactly where Paul is coming from here with regard to “the law.” Which law does he mean: “law” in general, or the Mosaic Law? And he seems to be equating “law” with death and sin, and yet in the next section he will be telling us that “the law” is good. How are we to understand Paul’s attitude to “the law” here? And what does this all mean for us? As I’ve mentioned more than once, what follows are just some brief notes on the class discussion, and can no way fully represent all that we talked about. Please use the comments to ask questions, make points, and further the conversation–especially if you were in class and feel that I’ve either misrepresented what was said, or I’ve left out something important.

Just as the death of one’s spouse frees a person legally from the bonds of marriage so they can remarry, so being dead to the law through Christ’s atoning sacrifice frees us from bondage to sin and the law, and enables us to be united with Christ. This then enables us to do works that are pleasing to God, and bear the fruit of sanctification in our lives.

While it’s possible that “law” here may be general, it seems to me the Mosaic Law is at least in the back of Paul’s mind (especially given that he quotes the tenth commandment in the next passage). But if the Law was given by God, why would there be the need to be “put to death” to it? And how could it incite or arouse our sinful passions if it is good and holy? And if the Law is of God, why would we need to be free from it?

The Law was never intended to actually save anyone; it was not inadequate to save–salvation was not the goal. The Law shows God’s righteous standard. Obedience to the Law was indeed the mark of someone who loved God (for example, David extols the Law and God’s commandments in Psalm 119), but even in Old Testament times, salvation came through faith in the promised deliver (a topic we have touched on in Romans 4). The mistake of the Jewish Christians was to imagine that the Law, and keeping the Law, in any way made them more pleasing or acceptable to God than their gentile brethren. They could never keep the Law well enough to please God outside of Christ. This has been Paul’s message to them for much of the letter so far.

The effect of the Law on unbelievers, says Paul, is to work or arouse in their limbs, or the members of their bodies, their sinful desires. The result of this is to bear fruit “for death.” How can God’s Law produce sin, especially if it’s from God? One way might be by the fact that prior to the giving of the Law, people would sin, and they might even know that they had sinned, but they may not necessarily understand against whom they had sinned. When God gave the Law, not only did He make known what sin is, but He made it clear that all sin is an affront to His holiness. Not only is mankind without excuse, but now no-one can say “I didn’t know I was sinning against God.”

Further, the fact that the commandments are from God, and that the sin is an offense to God, causes the unbelieving heart to want to sin all the more. This is like telling a child not to do something–the child’s natural reaction is to want to do that very thing. Many times we have heard atheists and others express a desire to “thumb the nose” at God by doing things they know are contrary to what He has commanded in Scripture. In this way, the Law provokes the sinful heart to rebel against God, leading to the bearing of “fruit” for death. The Law is not to blame for the sin; rather it is the rebel heart’s reaction to God’s Law that brings about sin.

Paul says that we have now been released from the law by the fact that we have died to that which restrained (or “bound”) us. We were once captive to the law (or Law), feeling the obligation of the Law’s commands, but unable and unwilling to obey–and under the penalty of the law for that inability and unwillingness. But in Christ we are free from that obligation. Not that we don’t want to obey God’s commands, but now we have willing hearts enabled by the Spirit. We are now new creations in Christ. Where once sin was in accordance with our nature, now we have new natures, such  that when we sin, it is contrary to the “new man.”

Does the believer know he or she has sinned immediately? Is there always instant repentance? We don’t think there is always immediate repentance. And sometimes the Lord seems slow to prod our hearts about sin we don’t recognize. What we can be sure of is that the Lord will chastise His people. He won’t leave us unaware of sin, and in His time He will draw us to awareness and repentance.

So, once again we rejoice in the freedom from sin and the Law we have in Christ. This is not freedom to sin, however, but freedom to truly live for the Lord, to obey His commands, and to please Him with our lives. When we fall into sin, we know He will not leave us in sin but will convict us and lead us back.

Feb
20

On Sixties Music and E-books

Remember the sixties? No? Neither do I! Believe it or not, the sixties was before my time (just), but there was a lot of really good music that came out of that era, both in the UK and the US. Back in the early sixties, recording studios were fairly basic. Bands would record to two, perhaps four tracks, and effects would be limited to reverb and not much else. Essentially, what you heard on the record was not much different to what you’d get in a live performance. Check out this clip of The Beatles singing “She Loves You” in 1963 (look–no autotune!):

You may or may not like the song, but that performance showcases the song itself. There’s no fancy production work, no lush overdubs and autotuning. What you hear there is pretty much what you heard on the studio recording. Aside from The Fab Four shaking their heads and looking awesome (I’m a Beatle fan, sorry!), there’s nothing else to distract you from the song.

These days, and really for the last thirty years, the record producer has almost become one of the band in most studios. The work he or she puts into the sound of the recording is almost as important to the overall sound and appeal of the music as the song itself. Have you ever heard a song on the radio (or on your mp3 player), and then heard it live and thought “wow–that’s almost like a different song!”? The only difference is the lack of production and studio wizardry in the live setting. And often its the stripping away of all that production that reveals how good a song really is on its own.

Similarly, as much as I like real, physical books, I too can be distracted by the new book smell, the beautiful cover design, the fonts, or even just the weight and feel of the book itself. And sometimes we can pre-judge a book on those criteria, not on how good the actual story is. Maybe the physical book is like that carefully crafted, studio mixed song, where the song itself is hidden under layers of production, and the e-book is like the live performance. Sure, you get a digital representation of the cover art, and perhaps even some replication of the original font used. But you lose the feel of the book, the smell of the fresh pages, and all those other things that delight the bibliophile, but really aren’t part of the story. Perhaps, in this sense, e-books actually bring us closer to the text.

Don’t get me wrong–I love books. I have a lot of them, and will always prefer physical books. But I throw these thoughts out there to suggest that there’s something about the rawness of the e-book, that factor that makes us paper-and-ink fans uncomfortable, that forces us to the story more immediately than the physical novel.

What do you think? Especially those who have been reading e-books for a while, do you find it easier, harder, better, or no different than reading regular books?

Feb
19

Sunday Devotional: Philippians 2:12-13

12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only as in my presence, but now much more in my absence, with fear and trembling work out your own salvation, 13 for it is God who is working in you both to will and to work for the sake of [His] good pleasure.

After exhorting the Philippians to unity and humility (or unity by means of humility), Paul now encourages them to “work out” their own salvation. What exactly does he mean by this, and what does this mean for us?

Although this phase is not at the beginning of the passage, let’s deal with it first since this is Paul’s main exhortation here. The verb translated “work out,” katergazethe (from katergazomai), means “to produce,” “to accomplish”–essentially to bring about some kind of result by doing something. I could have said “produce your own salvation,” or “accomplish your own salvation,” but the implication of these translations would have been difficult to reconcile with Paul’s theology of the cross. Christ has accomplished our salvation for us, and it is his work, not ours, that makes us acceptable to God. I believe what Paul is saying here is that on the basis of the salvation they have been given, they–and we–need to work that out in their lives. In other words, good works are the fruit of salvation, not the root of salvation (I think I got that from R. C. Sproul–it’s not original with me, anyway). The translation “work out” is not only a legitimate translation of the Greek verb, but it more closely gets this idea across. Salvation is ours, but it should have an effect on our lives. We should be applying the grace of this great gift to every aspect of our thoughts, words, and actions.

Paul tells the Philippians to be obedient in this especially in his absence. They were more than willing to submit to his apostolic authority when he was among them, but it is even more crucial they heed his words when he isn’t there to watch over them. This isn’t just a vain exertion of power on Paul’s part. He knows the dangers they face, especially if they are not united in humility, and striving to live out gospel-centered lives.

In verse 13 we see the flip side of the Philippians (and us) working out their salvation: it is actually God who is at work in them–His will and His effort–bringing about these works for His good pleasure. God’s glory and the fulfillment of His will is of primary importance, and He uses us to accomplish these things. Not only do we need God’s power to “work out” our salvation, but it is God’s desire to work through us to accomplish His will.

Our efforts to honor God through our thoughts, words, and actions are simply the outworking of the salvation He has given to us. Furthermore, those thoughts, words, and actions are the means God uses to fulfill His purposes in our lives and in His church. Perhaps this thought encourages you as you strive to love the Lord by obeying Him, especially in a culture that would have you live otherwise. Your efforts are not in vain; in fact, the Lord is enabling you, and working through you for His glory.

Have a great week!

 

Feb
17

Friday Fives: Top Fives of Yesteryear

Just for a bit of musical fun, this week’s Friday Fives is a look back to the British singles charts of years since passed. For your entertainment, complete with YouTube links, here are the Top Five singles in the British charts this day forty years ago, thirty years ago, twenty years ago, and ten years ago.

Have a fun Friday!

February 12-19, 1972

  1. Son of My Father: Chicory Tip
  2. Telegram Sam: T-Rex
  3. Have You Seen Her?: The Chi-Lites
  4. Look Wot You Dun: Slade
  5. Mother of Mine: Neil Reid

February 13-20, 1982

  1. A Town Called Malice: The Jam
  2. Golden Brown: The Stranglers
  3. Say Hello Wave Goodbye: Soft Cell
  4. Maid of Orleans: Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark
  5. The Model: Kraftwerk

February 15-22, 1992

  1. Stay: Shakespeare’s Sister
  2. Goodnight Girl: Wet Wet Wet
  3. Remember the Time: Michael Jackson
  4. I’m Doing Fine Now: The Pasadenas
  5. My Girl (1992): The Temptations

February 16-23, 2002

  1. Hero: Enrique Iglesias
  2. You: S Club 7
  3. Point of View: DB Boulevard
  4. What About Us?: Brandy
  5. Get the Party Started: Pink

 

Feb
16

I’ve Been Tagged!

On Monday, Vicki Orians tagged me. I’ve never been blog-tagged before. The idea is that the person tagging you asks a bunch of questions that you have to answer. You then come up with your own set of questions and tag a bunch of people you would like to answer those questions. It’s a kind of “getting to know you better” way of drawing attention to other people’s blogs. Here’s Vicki’s blog so you can visit, join, and enjoy:

http://vickiorians.blogspot.com

For this particular tag chain, I answer 11 questions, ask 11 questions, and choose 11 people to answer those questions.

Let the interrogation fun begin!

Vicki’s Questions:

1. What two characters would you like to see battle each other?
Sauron vs. Voldemort.

2. Who is your greatest inspiration?
From a literary perspective, I have drawn inspiration from different people for different reasons, including C. S. Lewis, Arthur Conan Doyle, and J. K Rowling. If you want one person that I could point to as someone that has generally inspired my life, that would have to be my friend and academic mentor Dr. James R. White, for his scholarship, his integrity, his humility, and his example of godly living.

3. If you could change places with any book character, who would it be and why?
Dr. John H. Watson, working alongside Sherlock Holmes, being first-hand witness to his brilliance, being a part of solving mysteries, and then getting to write it all up afterwards. Sounds like fun to me.

4. Sum up your current WiP in one sentence.
A teenage alien travels to Earth thinking she has gone back to 1978, but has in fact traveled back to 1879… and her time travel device has run out of electricity.

5. Are you a plot-driven writer or a character-driven writer?
I thought I was plot-driven, and I like to have a good plot, but I think I tend to be more character-driven. The best plot in the world can be dull if the characters are wooden and boring.

6. What is your biggest fear?
Anything that involves my family suffering.

7. When you walk into a book store, where do you go first?
I usually head for the YA books first.

8. Cats or dogs?
Cats.

9. You’ve just been placed in the Witness Protection Program. What’s your alias?
Tim Shinloc (see this RTW for an explanation).

10. Would you rather live in outerspace or under the sea? Why?
Outerspace: I can’t swim. :)

11. If you HAD to lose one of your senses, which one would you choose to live without?
Smell. Though I love them all, I think being able to smell things matters less to me than being able to taste, touch, hear, or see (and if I had to lose my senses, that’s the order I would prefer to lose them).

 

My Questions:

  1. Which fictional character would you love to invite over for dinner?
  2. Think of one person you aren’t able to see for whatever reason (distance, availability, etc.) you would love to meet up with. Who is this person? This can be a famous person, a relative, a literary agent–anyone, as long as they are alive.
  3. Which “classic” novel do you think least deserves that title?
  4. If you could be any historical figure, who would that be and why?
  5. Where in the world would you most like to visit, and why?
  6. If you were a crayon, what colo(u)r would you be, and why?
  7. Let’s pretend you have J. K. Rowling’s bank account. What’s for dinner tonight?
  8. Coke or Pepsi?
  9. Tea or Coffee?
  10. Think of your favo(u)rite band or song from the 1960s or 1970s. What/who is it?
  11. When you get (or got) “the call” from an agent, who will be (or was) the first person you will tell (or you told)?

 

My Victims Subjects:

  1. Bailey Hammond (Over Yonder…)
  2. Jaime Morrow (J’aime Reading, Writing, Rambling)
  3. Elodie (CommutingGirl)
  4. Brianne Carter (Words and the World)
  5. Susan Francino (The Feather and the Rose)
  6. Tyler-Rose Counts (The Feather and the Rose)
  7. Daisy Carter (Fresh as a Daisy)
  8. Robin Moran (The Nook)
  9. Emma Maree
  10. Miss Cole (Miss Cole Seeks Publisher)
  11. Melanie Stanford (Daydreamer to Writer)

I would greatly appreciate it if the above 11 would answer my 11 questions, and then tag another 11 people with their own 11 questions. And put a comment below when you’ve posted your questions so we can all visit you and see your answers! Thanks. :)

Feb
15

RTW: Don’t Make Me Say It!

The Road Trip Wednesday question today from the YA Highway ladies is: What words do you absolutely hate? Which ones do you adore? Like most RTW questions/challenges, this made me think. Our language is so diverse and malleable, there are hundreds of thousands of words to choose from–and many are words I’ve never used. Some are really great words, and some do the job but I wish there was a better word. And then there are some that, frankly, I would sooner vomit than let slip from my mouth. For today’s RTW, here’s some of these words that I like, and some I don’t like:

DON’T LIKE

Functionality: I had never encountered this word until I started working in I.T., and everyone seemed to use it as a short-hand way of referring to the functions a certain program or device could perform. It sounded to me like a made-up word, and I resisted it for a long time. In the end, though, the word seemed to have such general acceptance among I.T. and business professionals, that I caved in and started using it. But I really, REALLY don’t like the word.

sh*t, f*ck, etc: Normally considered the worst of the “swear” or “cuss” words. There is nothing intrinsically bad about any word. Words are, after all, merely a collection of letters. If you were to rattle off a string of the ugliest cuss words to a non-English speaker, that person wouldn’t care–you could be saying the sweetest things to him or her. The power of these words is in their intent, and in the reaction they elicit in the hearer. In our day and culture, they are still considered offensive, and are often used merely to be offensive. The user could have chosen a different way of expressing their feelings, or not said anything, but instead chose to use one of these words because they wanted to cause some kind of negative reaction. (Notice, I said “usually” and “often”–I know people sometimes use them because they genuinely feel anger, hurt, or contempt, and one of these words, perhaps shouted in solitude, for them expresses those emotions best at the time.) To me, these words are harsh and offensive no matter what the context. I don’t use them. I literally cannot make myself say them. If I’m frustrated, I’d sooner shout “poo,” partly because that word won’t cause offense, and also because the sound of the word makes me smile, helping to alleviate my feelings of frustration. Now, I can put up with reading them in literature, and I understand that they are words in common parlance, so writers often feel the need to include them in their characters’ dialog; but I prefer it when writers come up with ways to avoid using them.

Gotten: Sorry, but this is where my Brit blood flows strongly and recoils at what is, to me, the worst of all Americanisms. Since I’ve been in the US for nearly 20 years now, I find myself using this word… but I really, REALLY hate it when I do. The only phrase I don’t mind that uses it is “ill-gotten,” as in “ill-gotten gains.” But otherwise, on my better days, I find ways to avoid using it. Like using “got, obtained, purchased,” or countless other words I used to use before I came to the States.

LIKE

Effervescent: It just bubbles and sparkles on the lips.

Tranquil: This word sounds like a drop of water on a still pond.

Onomatopoeia: You can probably tell that I like words that are onomatopoeic, but I like that word too. It’s unusual, but it bounces around the mouth, as if your tongue’s on a trampoline.

I could spend all day coming up with words to add, so I’ll leave it there. I’m sure others will come up with words I could have added, so be sure to check out the blogs of everyone participating in today’s Road Trip Wednesday!

Feb
14

A Writer’s Love Story

The ladies at YA Highway are doing a special Valentine blogfest today, a bit like the Road Trip Wednesday blogfest, but for today it’s a “lovefest.” The idea is for everyone contributing to write a Valentine blog post that is a love note to… anyone or anything they love (spouse, children, sibling, friend, pet, agent, book…).

Mine is somewhat traditional, in that this is about my wife. But with a bit of a twist. I’m not sure she will appreciate this, but as I was thinking about how my wife and I met, got to know each other, and eventually fell for each other, I couldn’t help but be struck by how similar our story is to finding an agent. Yes, you heard right. Bear with me as I tell you our story from the writer’s perspective…

The Query Letter

We met at a Bible study at the beginning of my second year at University. She was a “study abroad” student from the US, and she, along with some other newcomers to the school, came back to my house for tea, coffee, and socializing. There I discovered that the US east and west coasts are a long way from each other, and she had never been to California. Over the course of the year, she baked the most amazing desserts (her monkey bread was a big hit with many people), and made me laugh a lot. I was intrigued to know more…

The Partial Request

As the academic year drew to a close, we started spending more time together. We talked, we watched Monty Python, we shared our likes and dislikes, our past experiences and future hopes. We got to know each other on a much deeper level. And we liked what we found…

The Full Request

We parted on the day after school finished as “an item.” We began our long-distance dating via telephone and letter. Every time the postman dropped letters through the door, I would run to collect them, looking for “Air Mail” written across the front in her distinctive handwriting. Each new communication brought an even deeper level of knowledge and connection. By the time we had completed our degree courses and she was back in the UK, I was sure she was the one for me.

The Offer

If memory serves me well, it was August 7th, 1991 when I “popped the question.” She said yes. On December 14th that same year, we were married. Twenty years and six kids later, she still makes me laugh, and she still makes the best desserts. :)

Feb
14

Sunday School Notes: Romans 7:1-4

1 Or do you not know, brethren–for I speak to those who know the law–that the law rules over a man for as long as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to [her] husband while he lives; but if [her] husband should die, she is released from the law concerning [her] husband. 3 Therefore, then, while [her] husband lives, she is called an adulteress if she should be with another man. But if [her] husband dies, she is free from the law, such that she is not an adulteress while being with another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you have also been put to death to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may be with another, the one raised from the dead, so that we may bear fruit to God.

We actually read through to verse 7, and touched on some of the themes in verses 5-7, but not in any depth, so we will leave that until next week. This week, we primarily focused on verses 1-4.

The topic of “law” has come up a number of times already. First, we noted that a good portion of Paul’s readership were probably Jewish Christians, and, from what Paul says, we can deduce an attitude of superiority among them due to the fact that they have the Mosaic Law. Throughout, Paul has emphasized the fact that we cannot earn favor with God through the law. It is faith in Christ’s work on the cross alone that makes us right with God. His grace alone is what we need. In 6:14 Paul reminded them that they are not “under the Law [or "law"]” but “under grace.”

When Paul speaks of “law,” does he always mean the Law of Moses? The Greek doesn’t really help us answer this, since the same word, nomos, is used for both secular and religious law. We are left, therefore, looking to the context in which Paul uses the word to determine his intention. In the context of Romans 7, and particularly the analogy he draws in verses 1-4, he could mean either. He gives a general principle in verse 1 that would apply to any culture: laws only exist while those to whom the law applies are alive. His parenthetical statement (“I speak to those who know the law”) could indicate that he has his Jewish readers in mind. And while the marriage example may well fit a secular culture, we know it certainly applied with regard to the Jewish marriage laws.

The analogy Paul draws between our situation with regard to Christ and “the law,” and marriage law is simple. According to the law, a woman is bound to her husband for as long as he lives. If she should have an intimate relationship with another man, she is an adulterer. But if her husband dies, and she takes another man, she is not an adulterer because her legal bond to her former husband has been broken by death. In the same way, we were bound to the law (and sin–a connection he will draw out in the next section), and that shackle could only be broken by death. Through Christ’s death, we have died with him to sin. As a result we are now free to be united to Christ. Paul doesn’t state this explicitly, but I think it can be implied: if you are now united to Christ, if you attempt to “be with” the law, you are committing adultery!

A couple of interesting linguistic points. First, the word Paul uses in verse 2 for “married,” hupandros, literally means “under a man.” Not only does this reflect the biblical perspective of marriage, whereby the wife is submissive to her husband (a concept that is not welcomed in our culture, but truly is a wonderful thing when handled according to Scripture), but it further emphasizes that tie the woman has to her “man.” Second, the phrase in verse 4, “you have been put to death to the law” is my translation of the Greek humeis ethanatôthête tô nomô. The NASB renders this. “you were made to die to the Law,” which, while legitimate, I feel is a little wimpy. The Greek is an emphatic aorist passive, which I think requires a translation with a bit more punch. Especially since the use of the passive voice is pointing to the work of God: it was God in Christ that put them to death with regard to the law.

This passage has been used as a proof-text to say that Christians can only remarry if their spouse dies. Divorce, for whatever reason, does not free a person to take another spouse. We decided that it would be a mistake to use Romans 7 to argue this point, since Romans 7 really isn’t discussing marriage and divorce. Paul is simply using the fact that the marriage bond is broken by death to make his point about our connection to Christ versus the law. Whether or not you can make an argument from Scripture concerning when Christians can remarry really depends on a careful study of passages that teach about marriage. First Corinthians 7 is an excellent place to start, as well as Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 5:27-32 and Mark 10:2-12.

The way Paul has spoken of the law–or the Law–in previous passages, and in the following verses (7:5ff) might give the impression that Paul had a very low opinion of the Law. It seems that he is saying it causes us to sin, and that it leads to death. And yet we know the Law was given by God, and he will go on later in the chapter to speak of the Law as a positive thing. So what are we to make of what Paul says about the Law? This will be our starting point next week.

Go back to top