It's Not Exactly Brain Surgery

The Value of Motherhood

"Exceptions exist, but, as a rule, the experience of pregnancy and birth appears to be a more profoundly life-altering experience for women than becoming a father is for men. So closely is giving birth linked to the fundamental human goal of giving meaning to one’s life that is has been argued that, ultimately, it is not so much that motherhood keeps women from doing great things outside the home as it is men’s inability to give birth that forces them to look for substitutes” 

--Charles Murray, Human Accomplishment 

God is Not Like You (or Brad Pitt)

Movie actor Brad Pitt, explaining why he abandoned Christianity, spoke for many when he said "I don't understand this idea of a God who says 'You have to acknowledge me. You have to say that I'm the best, and then I'll give you eternal happiness. If you won't, then you don't get it.' It seemed to be about ego. I can't see God operating from ego, so it made no sense to me." Pitt's operating assumption, as with every fallen human, is that he is 'like God' (Genesis 3:5). After all, he places God and humanity in equivalent moral positions, as if God and humans are entitled to the same things. 

But would Pitt or would we be so self-assured if we were all standing in God's throne room with Isaiah? Consider Isaiah's response: 'Woe is me!' For the first time in his life, Isaiah's eyes are open to the utter contradiction that is fallen human existence--the contradiction of a creature posturing as Creator, thereby denying and defaming the Creator. Isaiah, in the presence of God, finally sees his fallen self, and the only proper response is 'Woe' and 'lost.'"

--Jonathan Leeman, "God, Not Like You;" from Don't Call it a Comeback: The Old Faith for a New Day

Missions Exists Because Worship Doesn't

In light of missionary Charles Woodrow's visit to Grace Baptist Church today, I thought the following excerpt would be appropriate:

"Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Missions exists because worship doesn't. Worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man. When this age is over, and countless millions fall on their faces before the throne of God, missions will be no more. It is a temporary necessity. But worship abides forever.

Worship, therefore, is the fuel and goal of missions..."  

--John Piper, the opening lines of his classic book on missions, Let the Nations Be Glad (available here:  http://www.amazon.com/Let-Nations-Be-Glad-Supremacy/dp/0801036410/ref=pd_sim_b_4) 

These lines from Piper have also inspired at least two songs:

(1) "Mission's Flame" by Matt Redman, for song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qENs_lJFmXU; for lyrics: http://www.stlyrics.com/songs/m/mattredman20504/missionsflame929476.html
(2) "Send Me" by Lecrae, for song: http://reachrecords.com/releases/show/After-The-Music-Stops; for lyrics: http://reachrecords.com/lyrics/show/Send-Me

Armchair Pundits vs. Leaders

"Recently, a friend quoted John Kennedy to me: `To lead is to choose.' It is not a quotation that I have been able to verify, but whether Kennedy said it or not, it is surely a piece of brilliant insight into the nature of leadership. One of the luxuries of having no power or influence is surely the fact that one never has to make any significant choices.  Sure, one can choose to support this leader or that leader, to argue for this side or that side of an issue; but because such support and such arguments are hypothetical and insignificant, because the responsibility for the decision or the policy lies in the hands of somebody else, then if it all goes horribly wrong, one always has the option of walking away while telling onlookers. `It was nothing to do with me.' The leader has no such luxury: ultimate he not only has to support one side of an argument but he has to act consistent with that; and once he does so, his ability to walk away unscathed if it all goes down the pan is reduced to zero." 

--Carl Trueman, "Pro-Coice not Pro-Options" 

http://www.reformation21.org/articles/prochoice-not-prooptions.php

Family Tensions and the Holidays

Great article by Dr. Russell Moore.

http://www.russellmoore.com/2011/11/21/family-tensions-and-the-holidays/

Pigs Wandering through the Worship Service

"The Christian who travels may be surprised to see pigs wander through an African church service, or to hear the Scriptures chanted by Muslim converts, but be moved to praise, singing the multi-cultural universality that springs from the unity of God's truth. At Pentecost the divisions of Babel were overcome. The apostles spoke no heavenly language, or even a spiritual Esperanto as one universal language, but the many languages of their world. Yet their message unified divided peoples and formed a new humanity in the church."

--Edmund Clowney, The Church 

Bumper Sticker Evangelism

"As I write these words right now, I’m sitting in a coffee shop in my community. Outside my window there are two cars, one brandishing a bumper magnet of a “Darwin fish,” the early Christian emblem of the fish, growing legs with the word “Darwin” inside. Next to it is a car, I’m guessing owned by a Christian, with a bumper sticker of that Darwin fish being devoured by a larger Jesus fish. Is this really an evangelistic tool?

Has there ever been an atheistic evolutionist who has seen such a thing and concluded, “You know, Darwinism is crazy. Where can I find a gospel tract showing me how to believe?” I doubt it. Instead, much of our rhetoric is less about persuading unbelievers, or maintaining the faith of believers, than about, as Thomas Merton put it a generation ago, our search for an argument strong enough to prove us ‘right.’ That’s why we caricature the views of our opponents that can get loud ‘amens’ in our own settings but leave our children completely unprepared for the more careful, nuanced arguments they find when they actually encounter the viewpoints we’ve lampooned. What is the end result? The end result is a self-referential Christian rhetoric that not only fails to persuade outsiders, but also fails to protect our own children and grandchildren from what we’re afraid of exposing them to in the first place.” 

--Russell Moore, Tempted and Tried (2011 A.D.)   

What is a Christian?

“A Christian is essentially one who throws himself with absolute trust upon a living Lord, and not simply one who endeavors to obey the commands and follow the example of a dead teacher.” 

--B.F. Westcott, The Gospel of the Resurrection (1884 A.D.)

"Nice Means Nice:" How Not to Use Greek in Bible Study

OK. Unoriginal thought number 2.

Have any of you ACE homeschool kids ever took the PACES called "Etymology"? I did. Etymology deals with the 'roots' of words--where a word originally came from way back in the foggy mists of time. Etymology is a valuable area to study, and nothing in the following excerpt is meant to suggest otherwise (i.e. your Etymology PACES were not a waste of time). 

Nevertheless, a problem arises when people mistakenly think that a word's etymology tells them "what it really means." We can see the fallacy of this notion clearly in our native English language. For example, the word "nice" comes from the Latin root 'nescius,' meaning 'ignorant.' But no one but a whacko would respond to your calling them 'nice' by saying 'Oh, I see what you really mean! You're saying I'm ignorant! I'm onto your veiled Latin insults! You can't call me 'nice,' maaaan!' No one does this in their native language, but many Christians do this very thing when studying the Bible. They look up Greek words in their Strong's Concordance, find the original Greek root of a word, and conclude that they have found the word's 'real' meaning.

Here's the point: roots and etymology are good. They can sometimes give you an interesting backstory on why a particular word came to be used to describe a particular thing. They can even help you out in the national spelling bee. But they don't tell you the 'real meaning' of a word. A word's meaning is not determined by its etymology, but by its usage. If you proposed to your girlfriend and she said "No," but you could somehow prove that "No" came from a Latin root meaning "Yes," it wouldn't do you much good. Sadly, meaning is determined by usage, not etymology. The reason no one today would take 'nice' as an insult is that no one today uses 'nice' as an insult. If you want to know what a word means today, you must find out how it's used today. That's what an up-to-date dictionary will tell you. Contrary to what is sometimes believed, dictionary writers do not determine word-meanings; they simply tell you how words are currently being used. Rather than prescribing they are simply describing. 

Incidentally, this is also why it is counterproductive to be an "1828 Noah Webster-Onlyist." Webster's 1828 Dictionary (which I, along with many homeschooling families, own) is a valuable resource for finding out how words were used in 1828, and as such can be used profitably to discover the meanings of unfamiliar words you might find in pre-19th century works like Robinson Crusoe, Gulliver's Travels, Shakespeare's plays, and the King James Version of the Bible. In fact, it contains thousands of definitions that are still accurate. But it can't serve as your only dictionary, because word usage has changed significantly in the last 200 years. Some words have lost old meanings ('let' is no longer used to mean 'hinder'), others have gained new ones ('cell' is now used to describe a phone), and others have simply come into existence (babysitter, internet, etc.). Living, spoken languages are not frozen in time, nor are they constrained by etymology.       

When it comes to Bible study, many Christians think that knowing Greek is like a magic bullet that will unlock all the secrets of biblical meaning. This is simply not the case. Come to find out, Greek scholars have disagreements, too. The truth is, the main thing I learned in the first couple of weeks of Greek class was that most of what I thought I knew about Greek was malarky. Turns out that 'agapao' and 'phileo' weren't really different kinds of love after all, and the gospel wasn't really the 'dynamite' of God. In many ways, Greek was much more mundane than I had thought. 

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from studying Greek. In fact, I would encourage more people to learn as much as they can. But the hard truth is that most people don't have time to learn it. The good news, however, is that God never intended all (or even most) of his people to have to learn Hebrew and Greek in order to understand his word. There is a happy division of labor in the body of Christ, just as there is in society in general. God is merciful--some people become experts in Greek and Hebrew so the rest of us don't have to. As my hermeneutics prof Rob Plummer has said, 

"Never before in the history of Christianity has there been less need for word studies than today. With the multiplicity of many excellent English Bible translations, readers of the Bible have the fruit of scholars' painstaking research."

And as 19th century Baptist theologian John Dagg put it:

"Translations, though made with uninspired human skill, are sufficient for those who have not access to the inspired original. Unlearned men will not be held accountable for a degree of light beyond what is granted to them; and the benevolence of God in making revelation has not endowed all with the gift of interpreting tongues...God has seen it wiser and better to leave the  members of Christ to feel the necessity of mutual sympathy and dependence, than to bestow every gift on every individual. He has bestowed the knowledge necessary for the translation of his word on a sufficient number of faithful men to answer the purpose of his benevolence. And the least accurate of the translations with which the common people are favored is full of divine truth and able to make wise to salvation."

If Dagg is right, and I think he is, then the impulse that says "I don't want to be dependent on scholars" may be a latent form of pride. It may be the hand saying to the foot 'I have no need of you.' I'm not trying to turn scholar-translators into an infallible high priestly class. I'm just saying that unless God expects us all to become experts in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, then he must have willed for there to be a division of labor in this area. We are dependent on experts whether we like it or not. Pride will chafe at this. Paranoia will invent conspiracy theories. But until we become self-sufficient and omniscient the way God is, nothing will change it. Even the King James Onlyist is dependent on experts (namely, the King James translators). 

But humility will see this as good news, and will be relieved at God's way of dividing the labor. The sad news is that many Christians spend too much time looking up Greek words and coming to misguided conclusions because they don't really understand how the language works (often they know just enough to be dangerous). But for those who think they can't understand the Bible unless they can understand Greek, the good news is that 9 times out of 10 you will gain a better understanding of what a word means simply by reading it in its context. 

Here's what I mean by 'reading it in its context:' don't just zero in on one word, read the entire sentence. Then read the entire paragraph. As Paul Baker once wisely told us in one of his parable messages, "Words shouldn't be read with blinders on." The reason for this is obvious when you think about it. There is a sense in which an individual word doesn't even have a meaning--rather, it has a range of possible meanings. That's why a dictionary will usually list several possible options. It's only when a word is used in a context that the more definite meaning becomes clear. Context usually narrows the possible meanings to one (an exception would be those wonderful things called "puns"). So for example, if you want to know what John means by the word "sin" in 1 John 3:4, instead of zeroing in on the word "sin" and doing a word study of 'hamartia' and trying to find out what 'hamarita' 'really' means based on its root, read the entire sentence: "Sin is lawlessness." Then read the surrounding context: "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin." It's not as flashy a study method, and it probably won't make you look as smart, but it'll save you a lot of time and give you much more accurate results. :-) 

If all this sounds new to you, I promise that this is indeed an unoriginal thought. Nothing radical. ;-)

Stein on the Triumphal Entry

Chapter 13- "The Triumphal Entry: Israel's King Enters Jerusalem."

"For Jesus the triumphal entry was a carefully orchestrated messianic act. It was a parabolic act that could be perceived by those with eyes to see but that was concealed for others. His messianic entry was shrouded in the same kind of secrecy that characterized his parabolic teaching on the kingdom of God and his use of the title 'Son of Man.' In conscious fulfillment of the messianic prophecy found in Zechariah 9:9, he arranged for an unridden donkey to be ready for him. Having fetched it, he rode into Jerusalem. He did not walk into the city as other pilgrims did; he rode. Yet he mounted no warrior stallion, for he was meek and humble. He rode into Jerusalem not to mount a kingly throne, but to fulfill his Father's mission. In majesty he rode on--to die!

The crowds knew little, if any, of this. The festive occasion and the coming of a famous celebrity worked together to inspire an enthusiastic pilgrim's welcome...The greeting of this pilgrim psalm was more fitting than realized, however. He who 'comes in the name of the Lord' was indeed coming to 'save' (hosanna). Yet here, as at Caesarea Philippi, the confession or greeting was not understood. Jesus was greeted as 'the prophet Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee' (Matthew. 21:11), not as Messiah and King. The people's understanding and messianic hopes were radically different; they could not understand this event. No doubt this lay within the divine will. The consequences of an open messianic welcome for Jesus would have brought about an immediate confrontation with Rome. Rome could not tolerate any Messiah or King of Israel. 

At the trial, when witnesses were sought to condemn Jesus and justify Roman political action, no mention was made of the triumphal entry. Clearly in the minds of Rome and the Jewish leadership this event was not understood as a messianic claim or challenge...

 The triumphal entry was a real event that Jesus had consciously arranged and carried out in fulfillment of his divine mission. Within a short time the enthusiasm greeting Jesus on this day would turn to a more hostile 'Crucify him!' (Mark 15:13-14). Yet this was his day. It was fitting to receive this enthusiastic welcome. In fact, if the crowds and disciples had not so responded, if they had remained silent, 'the stones would [have] shout[ed] out' (Luke 19:40).'"

--Robert Stein, Jesus the Messiah 

 

 

"AIDS, Among Other Things"

AIDS, Among Other Things

The wages of sin is death. These words run
With a quiet persistence in my brain,
As though that biblical archaic phrase
Had been precisely meant to diagnose
What’s bothering an unreligious man

Like me today. The blasphemy was met
By sins of silence, cowardice and doubt,
And so we muddied what clear light might thresh
The good from the bad or merely foolish
When the consequences begin to hit.

I fear that we have too glibly mocked
For too long in the word and in the act
To hope we’ve any second chances owed
Or plead extenuation when we’re paid
The wages we knew always to expect.

We acquiesce to birth-in-bottles now,
Dissimulate on every law we knew
Was solemn in the covenants we had
With whatever we call Nature or God,
Yet we never think to reap what we sow.

The ills multiply as we unlearn
That ancient wise humility of men
Who saw, beyond the wreckage of taboos,
Despair and madness, hatred and disease—
The promised payment in the promised coin.

             from Freedom to Breathe
            © Peter Kocan

Stein on the Transfiguration

Chapter 12- "The Transfiguration: A Glimpse of the Future"

Just for context, let me give you Mark's account of the Transfiguration.

And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power. ² And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, ³ and his clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them. ⁴ And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus. ⁵ And Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good that we are here. Let us make three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.” ⁶ For he did not know what to say, for they were terrified. ⁷ And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him.” ⁸ And suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone with them but Jesus only. (Mark 9:1-8)

Here then are some of Stein's thoughts:

"The transfiguration account is attached to the events of Caesarea Philippi by one of the few chronological connections found in the Gospels. According to mark 9:2 and Matthew 17:1, the transfiguration  took place 'six days later' than the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi. In Luke 9:28 the chronological tie is 'about eight days after.' (Luke may be reckoning the time period inclusively whereas Mark and Matthew though exclusively.) Apart from the events between Palm Sunday and Easter, we find no other temporal designation this specific."

*********************************************************************

"The transfiguration is intimately tied to the events of Caesarea Philippi. This is true not only temporally, but also theologically. What had occurred at Caesarea Philippi was affirmed, and its implications were further spelled out. What Peter had confessed was now verified by the divine Voice. Jesus was not Elijah, Moses, a prophet, or John the Baptist. The Voice affirmed what Peter had said. Jesus was the Messiah/Christ., the beloved Son of God. This implied that he had no equals. People could not treat him on the same terms as Moses and Elijah--he was much greater.    

What this meant concerning his mission had to be learned from Jesus himself. Peter earlier had sought to impose his own messianic conceptions on Jesus. The result was a Satanic understanding of the messianic role. At the transfiguration, the Voice told Peter and the others that they must 'listen to Jesus.' He alone was the one who could and must interpret the messianic role God had intended. And this role led to Jerusalem and a cross."

--Robert Stein, Jesus the Messiah 

 

Aragorn on Moral Relativism

"How shall a man judge what to do in such times?" [asked Eomer] "As ever he has judged," said Aragorn. "Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It's a man's part to discern them..."

J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers 

Gandalf on the Ethics of Suicide

[Speaking to Denethor, Steward of Gondor, who was about to burn himself and his son Faramir alive on a funeral pyre]

"Authority is not given to you, Steward of Gondor, to order the hour of your death,' answered Gandalf. 'And only the heathen kings, under the domination of the Dark Power, did thus, slaying themselves in pride and despair, murdering their kin to ease their own death.'"

J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King 

 

Stein on the Events of Caesarea Philippi

Chapter 11: "The Events of Caesarea Philippi: The Turning Point"

The events Stein is describing here are recorded in Mark 8, Matthew 16, and Luke 9. They took place in the Gentile city of Caesarea Philippi, and include chiefly Peter's confession of Jesus as the Messiah, and Jesus' beginning to teach them about his crucifixion and resurrection.

"The events of Caesarea Philippi were clearly the watershed and turning point of Jesus' ministry. It is at this point that the disciples came to acknowledge, despite their own misconceptions, that Jesus was indeed the Christ. Upon receiving this confession, Jesus began to prepare the disciples for his forthcoming passion."

*********************************************************************

"The necessity of preparing the disciples for the future passion was understandable. One need only observe the response of Peter to this teaching to see why. Despite the verbal correctness of his earlier confession that Jesus was the Christ, Peter's understanding of what this confession implied was seriously flawed. In his thinking, as in the thinking of most of his contemporaries, there was no place for the suffering, rejection, and death of which Jesus spoke. Jesus had altered in part the disciples' nationalistic preconceptions about the person and work of the Messiah, but there was no room for a messianic passion in their understanding. Consequently Peter began to criticize and even rebuke Jesus for teaching this. No wonder Jesus had commanded his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. If the disciples were still confused and harbored misconceptions concerning the work of the Messiah, how much more confused must the crowds have been."

************************************************************************

"In the past one could usually tell if a commentator in the gospel of Matthew was a Roman Catholic or Protestant simply by how he or she interpreted this passage of Scripture. If the rock was interpreted as referring to Peter, the commentator was Roman Catholic. If the rock was interpreted as alluding to Peter's confession that Jesus was the Christ, he or she was a Protestant. It is unfortunate when the interpretation of a text is predetermined from the start by one's religious affiliation. One's religious background predisposes how one interprets a text such as this. Such awareness should serve as a first step in trying to be more objective....

The easiest way of understanding this pun [between Peter's name, which means "a stone," and the word "rock" upon which the church is built] is to assume that Jesus is referring to Peter as a 'rock' due to the future role he would play in the church. Peter is the one who would serve as the early leader of the church; it would be through him that the gospel would be proclaimed in Jerusalem, Judea (Acts 2:1-4:31), and Samaria (Acts 8:14-25), and it would be through Peter that the first Gentiles would hear the gospel and believe (Acts 10:1-11:18). There is a real sense, therefore, that  it would be through the ministry of Peter, the leader of the apostles, that the church would be established and grow...Protestants and Orthodox can join with Roman Catholics in joy over the gift of this man to the church. However, there is no hint anywhere in this text or in the rest of the New Testament that this leadership role was passed on in perpetuity to a successor of any sort."   

--Robert Stein, Jesus the Messiah 

 

 

 

Wanna Avoid Being a Job's Comforter? Study Hermeneutics!

The title of this blog is two-pronged: (1) "Excerpts" (2) "Unoriginal Thoughts." So far, I have posted only excerpts: ideas that come directly from other people. This post will serve as my first sharing of an unoriginal thought--ideas that come indirectly from other people after being filtered through my mind, personality, and experience (both first-hand and vicarious). The words of C.J. Mahaney also apply to me: "I've never had an original thought" (Tilly disagrees with me on this, but she's wrong. :-) )

This unoriginal thought comes from my final exam in Dr. Robert Plummer's hermeneutics class. Hermeneutics is the study of how to interpret the Bible. I took this class in the Fall of 2009. Since then, Dr. Plummer has published his own book on hermeneutics called 40 Questions about Interpreting the Bible (which I own if anyone wants to borrow it). This was apparently question number 7 on the exam. The question was:

(7) “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.”  I recently received an email from an old friend who told me to “claim the promise” of this verse.  Is this a correct way to think about this text? (10 points)

To which I responded:

I’m sure the friend meant well, and his or her trust in the truth of God’s word is admirable. However, before we go “claiming any promises,” we must first ask the question, “Is this a promise?”

We must keep in mind that the Bible contains many literary genres, such as historical narrative, poetry, prophecy, and apocalypse. Each genre has different rules for how we are to interpret it. So in order to interpret any passage properly, we must know what genre it belongs to and how to interpret that genre.

The answer to the question “Is this a promise?” is actually “No.” This verse belongs to the genre (and book) known as “proverbs.” Proverbs are not promises that hold true in every instance, but instead are short, pithy sayings that convey general truths. For example, when one proverb counsels us to “answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him,” it does not mean that we should never answer a fool, because the very next verse tells us to “answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” Neither proverb is an absolute statement that applies in every case. Both are appropriate at given times, just as both are inappropriate at given times. Deciding which proverb applies requires wisdom. As I said, proverbs are short, pithy sayings. In order to remain short and pithy, however, they can't go into the exceptions; they simply state the rule. In this case, as a rule, if you raise a child properly, he will turn out well. But this does not guarantee that that will happen in every case.

In a similar example, there are proverbs that talk about how prosperity comes from hard work and poverty comes from laziness. Again, this is generally true, but this does not mean that all poverty comes from laziness, or that if someone is poor he must be lazy. Scripture often speaks of poor people who are righteous. If we were to interpret these proverbs as promises, we would end up acting like Job’s miserable comforters toward all poor people, telling them that they must have sinned or been lazy, otherwise they wouldn’t be poor. In the same way, we can easily become Job’s comforters toward Christian parents with wayward children if we misconstrue this proverb as a promise, telling them that they must have failed in some way, since the Bible promises that if you train up a child in the way he should go then he will not turn from it."    

Digging Up Buried Treasure

“We have been instructed by faith to recognize that whatever we need and whatever we lack is in God, and in our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom the Father has willed all the fullness of his bounty to abide so that we may all draw from it as from an overflowing spring. It remains for us to seek in him, and in prayers to ask of him, what we have learned to be in him. Otherwise, to know God as the master and bestower of all good things, who invites us to request them of him, and still not go to him and not ask of him—this would be of as little profit as for a man to neglect a treasure, buried and hidden in the earth, after it had been pointed out to him...It is therefore, by the benefit of prayer that we reach those riches which are laid up for us with the Heavenly Father. For there is a communion of men with God by which, having entered the heavenly sanctuary, they appeal to him in person concerning his promises in order to experience, if necessity so demands, that what they believed was not vain, although he had promised it in word alone. Therefore we see that to us nothing is promised to be expected from the Lord which we are not also bidden to ask of him in prayers. We dig up by prayer the treasures that were pointed out by the Lord’s gospel, and which our faith has gazed upon.” 

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559 A.D.)

Stein on the Person of Jesus

Chapter 10- "The Person of Jesus: 'Who Then is This That Even the Wind and the Sea Obey Him?"

"At times Jesus performed certain actions that were the exclusive prerogative of God. When Jesus forgave the sins of a paralytic, the scribes protested: 'Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?' (Mark 2:7). Similarly, when he forgave a woman of her sins, some of those present responded: 'Who is this that even forgives sins?' (Luke 7:49). Attempts have made to interpret these actions ('your sins are forgiven') as examples of 'divine passives'--a reverent way of avoiding the name of God by using the passive. The words of Jesus, according to this view, should be interpreted 'God has forgiven you of your sins,' rather than 'I personally have forgiven you of your sins.' It is evident that neither Mark nor Luke understood these sayings in this manner.

Nor did Jesus' audience understand his words in this way, for they were greatly upset. They all believed that Jesus was exercising a prerogative belonging to God alone. The accounts furthermore do not give the slightest hint that Jesus sought to explain to his opponents that they misunderstood his action. There is no hint of Jesus saying, 'You have misunderstood me. I was simply using the 'divine passive' and stating that God had forgiven him/her.' The gospel accounts clearly portray Jesus as consciously exercising a divine prerogative and personally forgiving sins."

***********************************************************************

"Unlike John the Baptist, the ministry of Jesus was typified by miracles. Thirty-four separate miracles are performed by Jesus in the Gospel accounts...One cannot read the Gospel accounts without the question arising, 'Who is this man who is master of nature, disease, and even death?' In Jesus' actions people saw a bold claim to a unique authority. Even as the prince dressed a pauper unconsciously revealed who he was by his behavior, so Jesus, despite his modest dress and occupation, revealed his understanding of who he was by his actions." 

 

Robert Stein, Jesus the Messiah 

They Don't Realize They're Future Meat

Dr. Russell Moore is the Dean of the School of Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, where I am headed in a few short weeks. This comes from his excellent book Tempted and Tried. 

“The first question the devil asked [Jesus] was a hidden one, wrapped in the first clause of an offer: ‘If you are the Son of God…’ This is precisely the opening salvo the demonic powers launch to this very day. The factory farm wants the cows to see themselves as pets or as companions, or simply as ‘free’ and alone. What they don’t want the cattle to recognize is that they are future meat. Identity confusion is the reason people are able to affirm one thing and do another. And it’s the reason more worldview training on how to think like a Christian doesn’t stop people from wrecking their lives. 

Most people don’t ‘choose’ fiery tempers of alcoholic binges or torturing prisoners of war or exploiting Third World workers or dumping toxic chemicals into their community’s water supply. Most people don’t first conclude that adultery is right and then start fantasizing about their neighbor swinging from a stripper pole. Most people don’t first learn to praise gluttony and then start drizzling bacon grease over their second helping of chicken-fried steak. It happens in reverse. First, you do what you want to do, even though you ‘know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die’ and only then do you ‘give approval to those who practice them’ (Romans 1:32). You start to see yourself as either special or as hopeless, and thus the normal boundaries don’t seem to apply.” 

Russell Moore, “Tempted and Tried” (p. 36)  

http://www.amazon.com/Tempted-Tried-Temptation-Triumph-Christ/dp/1433515806/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321620822&sr=1-1

David Brooks on Politics and Prudence

I have yet to post any political excerpts on this fledgling blog. But there's a first time for everything. This excerpt comes from one of my personal favorite columnists, the New York Times' David Brooks. He wrote it back in July in the midst of the government shutdown crisis, and was lamenting the fact that (in his opinion) the Republicans missed their chance to make positive progress toward their goals because they were unwilling to compromise. He proceeded to give a taxonomy of the species of conservatives whom he believes obstruct progress toward conservative goals. I'm not sure if I agree with him on all the details (I don't follow politics closely enough to judge), but I agree with his overall view of the nature of the political process. So yes. Here's Brooks' taxonomy of imprudent conservatives:

The Beltway Bandits. American conservatism now has a rich network of Washington interest groups adept at arousing elderly donors and attracting rich lobbying contracts. For example, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform has been instrumental in every recent G.O.P. setback. He was a Newt Gingrich strategist in the 1990s, a major Jack Abramoff companion in the 2000s and he enforced the no-compromise orthodoxy that binds the party today. 

Norquist is the Zelig of Republican catastrophe. His method is always the same. He enforces rigid ultimatums that make governance, or even thinking, impossible. 

The Big Government Blowhards. The talk-radio jocks are not in the business of promoting conservative governance. They are in the business of building an audience by stroking the pleasure centers of their listeners. 

They mostly give pseudo Crispin’s Day speeches to battalions of the like-minded from the safety of the conservative ghetto. To keep audience share, they need to portray politics as a cataclysmic, Manichaean struggle. A series of compromises that steadily advance conservative aims would muddy their story lines and be death to their ratings. 

The Show Horses. Republicans now have a group of political celebrities who are marvelously uninterested in actually producing results. Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann produce tweets, not laws. They have created a climate in which purity is prized over practicality. 

The Permanent Campaigners. For many legislators, the purpose of being in Congress is not to pass laws. It’s to create clear contrasts you can take into the next election campaign. It’s not to take responsibility for the state of the country and make it better. It’s to pass responsibility onto the other party and force them to take as many difficult votes as possible. 

All of these groups share the same mentality. They do not see politics as the art of the possible. They do not believe in seizing opportunities to make steady, messy progress toward conservative goals. They believe that politics is a cataclysmic struggle. They believe that if they can remain pure in their faith then someday their party will win a total and permanent victory over its foes. They believe they are Gods of the New Dawn. 

Fortunately, there are still practical conservatives in the G.O.P., who believe in results, who believe in intelligent compromise. If people someday decide the events of the past weeks have been a debacle, then practical conservatives may regain control."  

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/opinion/19brooks.html?ref=davidbrooks

Stein on the Message of Jesus Part 2

"To understand Jesus' ethical teachings, we must recognize that his teachings on ethical behavior are intimately connected to the coming of the kingdom of God. Since the God of the kingdom is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, and the prophets, we should expect continuity with the ethical teachings God gave to his people in the Old Testament. Those teachings stem from the moral character of God himself. As a result, ethical holiness in the new covenant corresponds with the ethical holiness in the old. Yet with the coming of the kingdom the attainment of that holiness has been enhanced because of the 'already.' With the coming of the kingdom of God, the 'childhood' of the old covenant gives way to the maturity of 'adulthood' in the new. Thus certain teachings concerning clean/unclean give way to the freedom (and responsibility) found in the new covenant (Gal. 4:1-7). Whereas this was alluded to in germ form by Jesus (Mark 7:12-23), it would become clearer to the church after the resurrection (Rom. 14:1-23; Acts 10-11).

********************************************************************

"The ministry of Jesus was marked by the announcement that something new was taking place. The day awaited and longed for had arrived. The promises of the Old Testament were being fulfilled. The kingdom of God had come. This new day brought with it such joy and excitement that fasting was inappropriate. It was rather a time for celebration (Mark 2:18-19).

A new covenant was inaugurated. Yet this new covenant was not a repudiation of the past covenant, but its fulfillment. It involved not a new religion or movement but the fuller realization of the covenant God made long before with the people of Israel. Unlike Marcion and some later church leaders, Jesus did not see the coming of the kingdom of the kingdom as a repudiation of the covenant God made with Israel. Nor, as some would later argue, did he understand the new covenant as identical with the earlier one. The fact that he called it 'new' (1 Cor. 11:25) reveals this.

The coming of the kingdom brought with it a certain sameness, for the God of the new covenant was the same as the God of the old covenant. The same God was worshiped in both, although a new intimacy was apparent in the use of the title Abba. The same ethic that stems from the character of the unchangeable God is found in both, although the deeper intention of that ethic and a new empowering is now present. Paradoxically the ethic Jesus taught was both the same and different, old and new!"

Robert Stein, Jesus the Messiah

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Messiah-Survey-Life-Christ/dp/0830818847/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321563803&sr=1-1

 

 

 

"God, Please Help it Not to be Our House"

This excerpt is from a great book on prayer by Paul Miller.

“The church’s tendency toward unnatural spirituality has been further influenced in recent years by our culture’s embrace of Buddhist spirituality. In Buddhism you become enlightened and reach nirvana when you stop desiring. Thus Buddhist monks repeat “om” mindlessly to themselves in an attempt to become one with the all. The goal is the suppression of desire.

Jesus could not be more different. Read the gospels and you’ll discover a passionate, feeling man. Thank God we have a Savior who is in touch with the real world, who prays that he will not drink the cup of his Father’s wrath, who cries out on a rough wooden cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Jesus neither suppresses his feelings nor lets them master him. He is real.

It is perfectly natural to pray, ‘God, please help whomever’s house is on fire. Keep them safe, and help it not to be our house.’ You are honest with your desire and loving at the same time. If you are sinking on the Titanic, you pray ‘God, get me a place in a lifeboat,’ and then you put all your energy into helping other people get on. Desire and surrender are the perfect balance to praying.”
Paul Miller, A Praying Life

Stein on the Message of Jesus

Jesus the Messiah--Chapter 9: "The Message of Jesus: The Kingdom of God has Come to You"

"During the first eighteen centuries of the church, parables were interpreted as allegories in which the individual details of the parable were to be searched for meaning. Today they are more correctly recognized as extended metaphors which tend to teach a basic point. At times, however, the details of the parable may bear allegorical significance (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43; 22:2-10; Mark 12:1-12). The key for detecting valid allegorical details is to ask whether Jesus' original audience would have interpreted these details in such a manner. Asking this question makes it evident that the ring and the fatted calf in the parable of the prodigal son could not be references the Christian baptism and the Lord's Supper, although the vineyard mentioned in Mark 12:1-12 would have been interpreted as a reference to Israel (Isa. 5:1-2)."

"In these passages [Luke 11:20, 16:16, 17:20-21; Mark 2:21-22] Jesus claimed that kingdom of God had in some way arrived. It was not just near but already here. It was realized...On the other hand, there are passages  in which Jesus taught that the kingdom of God involved some future event, something that had not yet occurred [Luke 11:2, 13:22-30; Matt. 5:19-20, 7:21-23, 8:11-12, 25:31-46; Mar 14:25; and so on]. In these passages Jesus taught that the kingdom of God was in some way still future--it was 'not yet.' In some instances the kingdom of God is even a synonym for eternal life (Mark 10:17, 23; John 3:3-5, 15-16]...According to Jesus, the kingdom/reign of God has now come in the a unique way in his ministry. Already the promised Spirit was at work, and after the resurrection he would baptize all of Jesus' followers, beginning at Pentecost. Old Testament prophecies were being fulfilled. A new covenant was inaugurated (Mark 14:24); the resurrection of the dead was about to begin (1 Cor. 15:20-23). Yet the final consummation of all things still lay in the future...Maintaining a balance between the 'already' and the 'not yet' of the kingdom of God is critical. When the tension between them is lost and one aspect is emphasized at the expense of the other, two major errors arise. To lose sight of the 'not yet' leads to a triumphal enthusiasm that is ultimately doomed to disappointment and disillusionment. The fallen character of the this world and our sinful nature will see to that. On the other hand, to lose sight of the 'already' leads to a defeatism and a defensive mentality that thwarts the spreading of the gospel throughout the world. Kept in proper perspective, Jesus' teaching leads to an optimistic and aggressive evangelism as well as an awareness that in this life we are still 'strangers and foreigners on the earth' (Heb. 11:13)."

You're Not Who You Think You Are

"The Bible as a whole--get this!--says that you're not who you think you are. And God is not who you think he is. And then it calls us to exchange the story we've been telling ourselves with God's version of our story. It redefines reality, or gives us new eyes."

 Jonathan Leeman, Reverberation

Stein on Christ's Calling of the Disciples

Chapter 8, Robert Stein's Jesus the Messiah. "The Call of the Disciples: You Shall Be My Witnesses"

I have already quoted one except from this chapter concerning why Jesus chose twelve apostles. See  "Why Twelve Apostles" from October 28.

"One reason Jesus chose twelve disciples has already been discussed. It involves the symbolism of the number. With his ministry, the long-awaited kingdom of God had come. The 'consolation' (Luke 2:25) and 'redemption' (Luke 2:38) of Israel were now taking place. To symbolize the gathering of the ten (literally--nine and a half) lost tribes and the reunion of Israel, Jesus chose twelve disciples.Their number and presence during his ministry was a visual proclamation that the kingdom of God had indeed come."

***********************************************

 "Among the disciples were a traitor (the tax collector Matthew) and a Zealot revolutionary (Simon). The fact that they could coexist side by side for an extensive period reveals how Jesus can change the hearts of natural enemies and bring reconciliation and peace. Truly, Jesus demonstrated that through the lives of his disciples that he could break down the walls of hostility."

********************************************************** 

"Apart from Jesus' death and resurrection, probably no other event in his life possessed a greater significance and had more lasting consequences than his choosing of the Twelve. The act itself reveals that Jesus saw in his ministry the fulfillment of Old Testament promises. Because the kingdom had now arrived and God was visiting his people, the Old Testament promises were being fulfilled. As we will see in the next chapter, Jesus' message involved a realized dimension. Already, not just in the near future, the end of the ages had come. For Jesus 'in that day' had moved from the distant future to the present. His choosing of the twelve disciples illustrates that... 

Much discussion has focused on how Jesus taught his disciples. Did he teach them according to how the Talmud claims that rabbis taught their disciples, using at times rote memory? Such a procedure conflicts radically with the free-spirited individualism of the present day. It has been argued that JEsus' disciples, unlike the rabbinic disciples, were not followers of traditions and ideas but of a person. Yet this would certainly not make them less committed to the teachings of that person. If anything, it would make them even more committed to them. Within the ministry of Jesus we even find a situation in which those teachings were proclaimed by the disciples. It is hard to imagine that when Jesus sent out the twelve disciples to preach (Mark 6:7) he told them to say whatever they felt or whatever came into their minds. What kind of disciple would have preferred his own preaching and formulation of the divine message over that of the divine messenger himself? The proclamation of Jesus' message during this mission would have helped fix these teachings forever in their memory.

After the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, the disciples would provide leadership for the early church and be guarantors of the gospel traditions. For this they had been both called and trained. They were called to preach (Mark 3:14) and to oversee as 'eyewitnesses and servants of the word' the passing on of the Jesus tradition (Luke 1:2). There is a very real sense, therefore, that even today the church is built on the founding work of the twelve disciples. That is true not just in the historical sense that the Christian church today is descended from the church they founded. It is also true that the Gospels that the church today that the church possess are the result of the preservation and transmission of the gospel traditions by 'those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word' (Luke 1:2). Two of our Gospels are associated in the tradition of the church with the Twelve (Matthew and John). The Gospel of Mark is associated in all the early church traditions with the Apostle Peter. Luke claims that his gospel is result of his having investigated both the written works of other writers and the oral accounts stemming from the apostolic eyewitnesses themselves (Luke 1:1-3). Thus the church today, if it remains true to the Gospel teachings, still rests on 'the foundation of the apostles' (Eph. 2:20)."

--Robert Stein 

 

 

 

A Quieter and More Lasting Kind of Interest

“People get from books the idea that if you have married the right person you may expect to go on ‘being in love’ forever. As a result, when they find they are not, they think this proves they have made a mistake and are entitled to a change—not realizing that, when they have changed, the glamour will presently go out of the new love just as it went out of the old one. In this department of life, as in every other, thrills come at the beginning and do not last. The sort of thrill a boy has at the first idea of flying will not go on when he has joined the RAF and is really learning to fly. The thrill you feel on first seeing some delightful place dies away when you really go to live there. Does this mean it would be better not to learn to fly and not to live in the beautiful place? By no means. In both cases, if you go through with it, the dying away of their first thrill will be compensated for by a quieter and more lasting kind of interest. What is more (and I can hardly find words to tell you how important I think this), it is just the people who are ready to submit to the loss of the thrill and settle down to the sober interest, who are then most likely to meet new thrills in some quite different direction. The man who has learned to fly and becomes a good pilot will suddenly discover music; the man who has settled down to live in the beauty spot will discover gardening.” 
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Stein on the Wilderness Temptation of Jesus

"This temptation [to be given the world's kingdom in exchange for worshipping Satan] boils down to an offer to win the world without the 'cup' God had called him to drink (Mark 10:38). It involves a political solution to the world's problems. If the basic need(s) of the world could be solved by political action, this was the way Jesus should go. With the kingdoms of the world given him he could rid the world of hunger, war, injustice, poverty, and so on. A 'crossless' solution would solve such problems, and it would do so with no need of great suffering on his part. On the other hand, if the basic need of the world involved forgiveness, reconciliation with God, and salvation from future judgment, then such a 'victory' by Jesus would be a shallow one. 'For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?' (Mark 8:36). Jesus saw his mission as saving his people from their sins (Mt. 1:21), saving the lost (Mark 10:45), and leading his followers into Paradise (Luke. 23:43), and he had to follow the path God had ordained for him at his baptism (Mk. 10:38-39)."

Robert Stein, Jesus the Messiah

Church Membership and Casual Nibbling

If you've never read anything by Jonathan Leeman, then let me introduce you to him. For readers of this blog who are members of Grace Baptist Church in Hartsville, TN, Leeman has three claims on our peculiar affection. (1) He conducted the wedding of our brother and sister Jared and Maggie Lake. (2) While working at Boyce College in Louisville, he encouraged our brother Chris Davis to run for student council. (3) As a current elder at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., he is an elder over our beloved Josh and Abigail Abbotoy.

So let those points recommend his books to you. He has published two so far, and has a couple more in the works. I will link you to his current published works after I give you these excerpts from his book on church membership.

“If we try to conduct our discipleship with Christ by casually nibbling and grazing wherever we please, moving back and forth between one field and another, it’s difficult to see how we will ever truly submit to the church of God. We may give of ourselves to this or that Christian or church, but we will never truly give ourselves. Submitting to the church on earth means walking up to a group of people and saying ‘I believe what you believe. Now put me to work supporting our mutual cause however you need me. You can count on me.’ In short, the nature of authority and submission requires professing Christians to submit to the local church. It requires commitment.”

        [Note: In the following lengthy passage, Leeman talks about 1 Corinthians 13, the famous chapter on love. What Leeman points out here is that while we often use this chapter at weddings, in context it is mainly describing love in the local church. It is situated right between 1 Cor. 12 and 1 Cor. 14, both of which deal with the church in Corinth, which, in many ways, was a pretty sorry church. So here’s what Leeman says about love in context of a sorry church.

“It’s in this context that Paul grabs back the pretty lyrics of 1 Corinthians 13 from the wedding party and reads it to the local church. Do you want to exercise, practice, embody, and define the glorious love of heaven, he asks us? Then do it in a local church, a church where factions are pitted against one another (1 Cor. 1:12-13), where people have big heads (4:8), where members are sleeping with their fathers’ wives (5:2), where members are suing and defrauding one another (6:1-8), where members are getting drunk on the communion wine and not leaving enough for others (11:21-22), where spiritual gift one-upmanship is rife (chaps. 12 and 14), where the meetings are threatened by disorder (14:40), and where some are saying there is no resurrection from the dead (15:12). Bind and submit yourself and your gifts to these kinds of people. Love them with patience and kindness, without envy or boasting, without arrogance or rudeness, not insisting on our own way, not irritably or resentfully, not rejoicing at wrongdoing but rejoicing at the truth. 

People often complain about the sinners they find in the local church, and with good reason. It’s filled with sinners, which is why Paul calls Christians to love one another by bearing all things, believing all things, hoping all things, enduring all things. If you won’t love such backstabbers and defrauders like this, don’t talk about your spiritual gifts, your vast biblical knowledge, or all the things you do for the poor. You’re just a noisy gong. Don’t talk about your love for all Christians everywhere; you are just a clanging cymbal. But if you do practice loving a specific, concrete people, all of whose names you don’t get to choose, then you will participate in defining love for the world, the love which will characterize the church on the last day perfectly because it images the self-sacrificing and merciful love of Christ perfectly.”   

Jonathan Leeman, The Church and the Surprising Offense of God's Love; see also his book Reverberation

 

Stein on the Baptism of Jesus

Chapter 6 of Robert Stein's Jesus the Messiah, moving through Jesus' life chronologically, deals with his baptism  in the Jordan River by John the Baptist. It is subtitled "The Anointing of the Anointed."

"With the coming of John the Baptist the voice of prophecy was once again heard in Israel [for the first time in 400 years]. The spiritual drought of the past four centuries had come to an end. God was again visiting his people. Yet John's message was not an end in itself. Integral to (and the highlight of) his message was the announcement of the Coming One. A person greater than the greatest of the Old Testament prophets (Matt. 11:9-11), was present in John the Baptist, but a far greater one was at hand. John labored to prepare the people for this person, and it was a privilege to baptize him. Whereas John later had questions concerning Jesus' messianic status (Matt. 11:2-6), Jesus' reply was apparently satisfactory. At least the evangelists want us to understand the incident that way.

At his baptism Jesus began his ministry as the Anointed One, the Christ or Messiah. "Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations" (Isa. 42:1). Even as prophets (1 Kings 19:16), priests (Exo. 29:7, 21), and kings (1 Sam. 10:1) were anointed for their tasks, so the Prophet-Priest-King also was anointed for his ministry. The issue of how Jesus would fulfill his divine role and the kind of Messiah he would be now faced him. This would be resolved in the wilderness."

Stein on the Silent Years of Jesus

Chapter 5 of Stein's Jesus the Messiah is entitled "What was the Boy Jesus Really Like? The Silent Years." The chapter covers the first 30 years of Jesus life under various topics.

In regard to the claim that Jesus was married:

Sensational claims have been made that Jesus was married. Some have even written tabloid-like works claiming that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene or Salome. The strongest argument made for the view that Jesus was married is that it was normal for Jewish men to marry and that it was expected that teachers would marry and be an example in this area. In discussing whether or not Jesus was married we must be careful to recognize that a decision on this subject should not be based on whether or not one believes that celibacy is more noble than marriage.

That there is no reference in the NT to a wife of Jesus and that there is nothing whatsoever in the NT that Jesus was married argues strongly (if not conclusively) against such a view...The argument that Jesus would have been unusual if he did not marry also confronts the objection that Jesus was in fact most unusual. The concern for his mother (John 19:27) but lack of any concern for an alleged wife also raises powerful objections. There is in reality no evidence whatever that Jesus was married."

In regard to Jesus' education, Stein remarks:

"It would appear, then, that Jews lived in a trilingual environment. Thus, although Jesus' native language was Aramaic, he could probably also converse in Hebrew and Greek."

"Being the oldest son, Jesus was most likely of the children to have received a formal education. Yet John quotes Jesus' opponents with approval: 'How does this man have such learning, when he has never been taught?' (John 7:15). That Jesus could read is evident from Luke 4:16-21, where he read the Scriptures at Sabbath worship in Nazareth. The later noncanonical passage found in John 7:43-8:11 suggests that he could write (John 8:6), but one most judge this scribal addition most critically. That Jesus was a learned man goes without saying. He engaged in debates with the intellectual leaders (Mk. 2:23-28; 3:1-6; 7:1-23; etc.), was called 'Rabbi' and 'Teacher,' and most important, he taught in the synagogues (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:21; etc.). So whereas we do not know how Jesus received his training and education, the fact remains that his ability to read, to debate the Scriptures, and to answer exegetical questions reveals that he was an educated  man." 

 

 

In Honor of our Veterans

Just a couple of items in honor of our veterans.

First, this is a link a fan-produced video for Carbon's Leaf's song "The War was in Color."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P7umAnAcvE

Second, one of my favorite Thomas Sowell quotations on the nature and definition of patriotism.

“Despite a tendency in some intellectual circles to see the nation as just a subordinate part of the world at large—some acting, or even describing themselves as citizens of the world—patriotism is, in one sense, little more than a recognition of the basic fact that one’s own material well-being, personal freedom, and sheer physical survival depend on the particular institutions, traditions, and policies of the particular nation in which one lives. There is no comparable world government, and without the concrete institutions of government, there is nothing to be a citizen of or to have enforceable rights, however lofty or poetic it may sound to be a citizen of the world. When one’s fate is clearly recognized as depending on the surrounding national framework—the institutions, traditions, and norms of one’s country—then the preservation of that framework cannot be a matter of indifference while each individual pursues purely individual interests. Patriotism is recognition of a shared fate, and the shared responsibilities that come with it. …Conditions may become so repugnant in one country that it makes sense to move to another country. But there is no such thing as moving to “the world.” One may of course live in a country parasitically, accepting all the benefits for which others have sacrificed—both in the past and in the present—while rejecting any notion of being obliged to do the same. But once that attitude becomes general, the country becomes defenseless against forces of either internal disintegration or external aggression. In short, patriotism and national honor cannot be reduced to simply psychological quirks, to which intellectuals can consider themselves superior, without risking dire consequences, of which France in 1940 was a classic example. It was considered chic in some circles in France of the 1930s to say “Rather Hitler than Blum.” But that was before they experienced living under Hitler or dying after dehumanization in Hitler’s concentration camps.”

Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, (279-280). 

"If I Cannot Believe it Now, It is Because I Am Insane"

More wise words from our fictional friend, Jane Eyre. (I'm reading it for the first time, since I am tutoring Jacob and Isaac Maxwell in British Lit, etc. Warning: there will be spoilers.)

At this point in the novel, Jane has had her hopes of marriage to her beloved Mr. Rochester (literally) dashed  at the altar, where it is revealed that he is already married. Turns out that the insane woman who lives on the third floor--and who periodically tries to burn him alive in his bed--is his wife, Bertha Mason. As might be expected, Jane is heartbroken. In this scene, however, her resolve is being severely tested by Mr. Rochester, who is trying to convince her that a marriage between them would not be immoral, since no one with half a heart could consider his marriage to Bertha morally binding. Endeavoring to lay a guilt-trip on her, he implores Jane:

"Is it better to drive a fellow-creature to despair than to transgress a mere human law--no man being injured by the breach?"

To which Jane honorably responds, in words that give us penetrating insight into the nature of sin:

"I will keep the law given by God; sanctioned by man. I will hold to the principles received by me when I was sane, and not mad--as I am now. Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigor; stringent are they; inviolate they shall be. If at my individual convenience I might break them, what would be their worth? They have a worth--so I have always believed; and if I cannot believe it now, it is because I am insane--quite insane: with my veins running fire and my heart beating faster than I can count its throbs."

Charlotte Bronte, Jane Eyre, chapter 27. 

Stein on the Virgin Conception

Chapter 4 of Stein's book Jesus the Messiah is titled "Conceived by the Holy Spirit, Born of the Virgin Mary: How it All got Started." It deals with the conception and birth of Jesus. He here lays out the importance of the virgin conception of Jesus--what it means and what it doesn't mean.

"Some have argued that the virginal conception was necessary to keep the Son of God from inheriting the corruption of the sin of Adam...Yet the person who thinks this way must somehow protect the Son of God from inheriting such sin and corruption via Mary. It is not surprising therefore that the logical consequence of this kind of thinking was to argue for the immaculate conception of Mary. Now the Son of God could truly be protected from such sin, since he could not have inherited sin from his mother. The New Testament does not enter into such speculations. Luke simply says that the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and overshadowed her through all this. Through his protection, the offspring would be holy, the Son of God (Luke 1:35).

The incarnation, not the virginal conception, is the essence of the Christmas story. For orthodox Christianity that is self-evident. The Son of God did not come into existence through a virginal conception. The Son of God was, is, and always will be. Long before the virginal conception, the birth of Mary, the entire genealogy of Luke 3:23-38 and the creation of the world, the Son was. The virginal conception was simply  the means by which God brought about the incarnation of his Son.

Nevertheless, the Bible does say that the incarnation was brought about by a virginal conception. If that was God's way of bringing this about, we can do nothing but acknowledge it. The importance of confessing or denying the virginal conception lied not in its christological consequences. The virginal conception and birth did not make Jesus the Son of God. It was not required to keep him holy and undefiled. What is at stake involves not a doctrine of Christ but of Scripture. The virgin birth served for the authors of The Fundamentals as a kind of litmus test concerning one's view of the Bible. To deny it was obviously to reject the Bible as an infallible rule of faith. In this respect the question 'Do you believe the virgin birth?' served as a kind of 20th century shibboleth (Judg. 12:6) testing a person's view of the Bible." 

Robert Stein 

 

Getting Stupid: Why I Became a Nihilist

In case you're wondering, let me give you a definition of nihilism. Merriam-Webster defines nihilism as " a belief that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless;" as well as "a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth,especially of moral truths."


I as privileged to hear the excerpt's author, J. Budziszewski, lecture in Nashville a couple of years ago when my buddy Michael Poore invited him to speak at the Humanitas Forum. (Poore is the guy who hosted the Ted Kluck lecture in Cookeville a couple of weeks ago.) The lectures were great, and can be accessed here:  http://humanitas.org/forum/archive/2010_budziszewski/2010_budziszewski.shtml  


I certainly wouldn't endorse everything Budziszewski says (he moved from Episcopalianism to Roman Catholicism several years back), but, as the excerpt below will show, he is a penetrating thinker and writer.  

"...How did I become a nihilist? Why was I so determined? What were my real motives? 

There were quite a few. One was that, having been caught up in radical politics of the late sixties and early seventies, I had my own ideas about redeeming the world, ideas that were opposed to the Christian faith of my childhood. As I got further and further from God, I also got further and further from common sense about a lot of other things, including moral law and personal responsibility.

That first reason for nihilism led to a second. By now I had committed certain sins of which I did not want to repent. Because the presence of God made me more and more uncomfortable, I began looking for reasons to believe that he didn't exist. It's a funny thing about us human beings: not many of us doubt God's existence and then start sinning. Most of us sin and then start doubting his existence. 

A third reason for being a nihilist was simply that nihilism is what I was taught. I may have been raised by Christian parents, but I'd heard all through school that even the most basic ideas about good and evil are different in every society. That's empirically false--as C. S. Lewis remarked, cultures may disagree about whether a man may have one wife or four, but all of them know about marriage; they may disagree about which actions are most courageous, but none of them rank cowardice as a virtue. But by the time I was taught the false anthropology of the times, I wanted very much to believe it. 

A fourth reason, related to the last, was the very way I was taught to use language. My high school English teachers were determined to teach me the difference between what they called facts and what they called opinions, and I noticed that moral propositions were always included among the opinions. My college social science teachers were equally determined to teach me the difference between what they called facts and what they called values, and to much the same effect: the atomic weight of sodium was a fact, but the wrong of murder was not. I thought that to speak in this fashion was to be logical. Of course it had nothing to do with logic; it was merely nihilism itself, in disguise. 

A fifth reason for my nihilism was that disbelieving in God was a good way to get back at him for the various things that predictably went wrong in my life after I had lost hold of him. Now of course if God didn't exist then I couldn't get back at him, so this may seem a strange sort of disbelief. But most disbelief is like that. 

A sixth reason was that I had come to confuse science with a certain worldview, one that many science writers hold but that actually has nothing to do with science. I mean the view that nothing is real but matter. If nothing is real but matter, then there couldn't be such things as minds, moral law, or God, could there? After all, none of those are matter. Of course not even the properties of matter are matter, so after while it became hard to believe in matter itself. But by that time I was so disordered that I couldn't tell how disordered I was. I recognized that I had committed yet another incoherency, but I concluded that reality itself was incoherent, and that I was pretty clever to have figured this out--even more so, because in an incoherent world, figuring didn't make sense either. 

A seventh and reinforcing reason for my nihilism was that, for all of the other reasons, I had fallen under the spell of the nineteenth-century German writer Friedrich Nietzsche. I was, if anything, more Nietzschean than he was. Whereas he thought that given the meaninglessness of things, nothing was left but to laugh or be silent, I recognized that not even laughter or silence were left. One had no reason to do or not do anything at all. This is a terrible thing to believe, but like Nietzsche, I imagined myself one of the few who could believe such things--who could walk the rocky heights where the air is thin and cold. 

But the main reason I was a nihilist, the reason that tied all these other reasons together, was sheer, mulish pride. I didn't want God to be God; I wanted J. Budziszewski to be God. I see that now. But I didn't see that then. 

I have already noted in passing that everything goes wrong without God. This is true even of the good things he has given us, such as our minds. One of the good things I've been given is a stronger than average mind. I don't make the observation to boast; human beings are given diverse gifts to serve him in diverse ways. The problem is that a strong mind that refuses the call to serve God has its own way of going wrong. When some people flee from God they rob and kill. When others flee from God they do a lot of drugs and have a lot of sex. When I fled from God I didn't do any of those things; my way of fleeing was to get stupid. Though it always comes as a surprise to intellectuals, there are some forms of stupidity that one must be highly intelligent and educated to achieve. God keeps them in his arsenal to pull down mulish pride, and I discovered them all. That is how I ended up doing a doctoral dissertation to prove that we make up the difference between good and evil and that we aren't responsible for what we do. I remember now that I even taught these things to students. Now that's sin."

J. Budziszewski, "Escape from Nihilim"

Jane Eyre on Marriage

Charlotte Bronte's Gothic heroin offers single people a refreshingly biblical warning about the dangers of wanting a spouse too much.

"My future husband was becoming to me my whole world; and more than the world: almost my hope of heaven. He stood between me and every thought of religion, as an eclipse intervenes between man and the broad sun. I could not, in those days, see God for his creature: of whom I had made an idol."

Charlotte Bronte, Jane Eyre, Chapter 24, closing paragraph. 

Stein on Miracles

I have posted a couple of excerpts in the past few weeks from Robert Stein's book Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ. I find the book so profitable that I plan begin posting at least one excerpt from every chapter. Maybe one per day. But just so that this doesn't become a Robert Stein blog, I will mix in other things along the way.

Chapter 1 is entitled ""Where You Start Determines Where You Finish: The Role of Presuppositions in Studying the Life of Jesus." His main point is that no Bible reader or scholar come to the Gospels with a blank slate. We all have presuppositions. In this excerpt, he points out that liberal scholars are not as unbiased as they sometimes like to let on.

In light of the importance of presuppositions about the supernatural on the outcome of one's work, authors should make clear from the start the position they take on this matter. It is misleading to say that 'due to their investigation of the accounts' authors conclude that Jesus was not born of a virgin, that the miracles are later myths created by the church, that the faith of the early church gave rise to the accounts of the resurrection and not the other way around, and so on. All these conclusions were predetermined before any investigation began. It should come as no surprise that when one starts with the view that miracles cannot happen, the conclusion is that the miracles investigated did not happen.

Robert H. Stein,  Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ, 

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Messiah-Survey-Life-Christ/dp/0830818847/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320782363&sr=1-1

There Was a Day When I Died

I read this book for school this semester. George Muller was a 19th century German-British Christian who is famous for running multiple orphanages without ever asking people for money (he asked God, and God moved the people to give). It's a rather amazing story.

"What is the secret of your service for God," someone once asked Muller. 

"There was a day when I died, utterly died," he replied, and as he spoke he bent lower and lower until he almost touched the floor, "died to George Muller, his opinions, preferences, tastes, and will--died to the world, its approval and censure--died to the approval and blame of even my brethren and friends--and since then I have studied to show myself approved only unto God." 

Roger Steer, George Muller Delighted in God 

Why Teachers Drink

Apparently some kid really gave this as his (or her) answer.

Should We Capitalize Divine Pronouns?

Should we praise God for his love or for His love? Should we capitalize our pronouns when they refer to God, and should we teach others to do so? My high school Christian school books told me that I should. This was rather ironic, however, since this particular curriculum used the King James Version of the Bible--a translation that does not capitalize divine pronouns! The following excerpt is from the most recent preface to the English Standard Version of the Bible. In it, the translators explain why they chose not to capitalize divine pronouns in the ESV. It should prove relevant for anyone who writes or teaches others to write.

"...It is sometimes suggested that Bible translations should capitalize pronouns referring to deity. It has seemed best not to capitalize deity pronouns in the ESV, however, for the following reasons:  first, there is nothing in the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that corresponds to such capitalization; second, the practice of capitalizing deity pronouns in English Bible translations is a recent innovation, which began only in the mid-twentieth century; and, third, such capitalization is absent from the KJV Bible and the whole stream of Bible translations that the ESV seeks to carry forward."

 

The Meaning of Art

"Many people say that while religions may differ in their outward forms, they are identical in their essential content. As Chesterton has observed, this view is precisely backward. The forms of religion often are the same--patterns of worship and sacrifice, shared symbols such as blood and serpents. The difference is the content, what these forms mean. A statue of a woman with a child might represent an actual family, a fertility goddess, or the Virgin Mary, who, in turn might be thought of as a heavenly intercessor or simply as a biblical example of faith. Problems generally inhere not in the work of art--Jeremiah says of the physical objects that had been turned into idols, 'Do not fear them; they can do no harm nor can they do any good' (Jer. 10:5). Interpretation is always necessary, as is careful theological reflection."

Gene Edward Veith, State of the Artss 

Every Christian should own a copy of John Stott's The Cross of Christ. Just sayin.'

"The Bible takes sin seriously because it takes humanity seriously. As we have seen, Christians do not deny the fact--in  some circumstances--of diminished responsibility, but we affirm that diminished responsibility always entails diminished humanity. To say that somebody 'is not responsible for his actions' is to demean him or her as a human being. It is part of the glory of being human that we are held responsible for our actions. Then, when we also acknowledge our sin and guilt, we receive God's forgiveness, enter into the joy of his salvation, and so become yet more completely human and healthy. What is unhealthy is every wallowing in guilt which does not lead to confession, repentance, faith in Jesus Christ, and so forgiveness."

--John R.W. Stott,  The Cross of Christ