The Flying Inn

Apocrypha Continued

2009-07-16T06:04:00.003-05:00

Well, I'm plugging along and will hopefully finish reading the Apocrypha today. I'm taking this brief opportunity to catch up on my notes. This post will most certainly be shorter than my last one.

The Letter of Jeremiah: Just 73 verses intended as a letter written by Jeremiah to those about to be exiled from Jerusalem to Babylon. The section in the letter about the idols of the heathen is very much in line with the humor in the book of Jeremiah.

Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews: This appears (according to my ever-handy footnotes) to be a hymn to God later attributed to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace. This one was really short, so I don't have much to say about it.

Susanna: This was a really fun story. I had actually read this one previously, but it deserves a re-read. Susanna is a chaste and beautiful wife, who is stalked by a couple of lustful elders. They catch her alone in her garden and try to force themselves upon her. When she resists, they begin shouting loudly so that people come running. The elders inform the household that they caught Susanna in the garden with a young man. With no witnesses, everyone naturally believes two elders of the people over one woman, so Susanna is sentenced to death for unfaithfulness. But thankfully, Detective Daniel is on the case to investigate and clear Susanna's good name.

Bel and the Dragon: What can I say? This story is hilarious. Centered around food references, Daniel shows to Cyrus that the god Marduk (Bel) is not eating all the food that the people leave for him each night, but rather the priests of Marduk and their familes. Daniel is a good detective in this story as in Susanna. Daniel then kills a large dragon that the Babylonians worship by feeding it poison. In the last part of the story, Daniel is thrown into the lions den again, and is miraculously fed by the prophet Habakkuk. It's like comic books when the writers decide to do a crossover between two popular comics (Wolverine and the Hulk, Superman and Batman, etc.). Daniel emerges from the lion's den unscathed, and his persecutors are tossed in and quickly eaten.

1 Maccabees: A great historical narrative. I had read brief blurbs in textbooks about the intertestamental period, but I got a much clearer picture by reading this book which is culled from letters and contemporary sources. Epic in scope and very interesting. 2 Maccabees tells, essentially the first part of the story of 1 Maccabees, but rather than follow Judas and his men, the story focuses on the plight of the people in Jerusalem. It is much more theological in nature than 1 Maccabees.

1 Esdras: This is the story of Ezra and Nehemiah. It is almost identical to the Biblical narrative, except for one interesting scene that show Zerubbabel earning the right to rebuild the temple by winning a contest of wit set by the king.

Well, that's where I am now. One more post should finish off the Apocrypha, and then I can get on with the rest of the books I have to read before the end of the summer. I love my job.

More Thoughts on the Apocrypha

2009-07-14T06:58:00.003-05:00

Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach- This is a very interesting book. Written by a teacher for his students, it contains a lot of great, practical advice for holy living. A few of the things I noted along the way:

"Never dine with another man's wife, or revel with her at wine; or your heart may turn aside to her, and in blood you may be plunged into destruction." (9:10)
How many times to we see this occur even within the Church today? When men do not sufficiently guard the exclusive nature of the marriage relationship and allow themselves to develop deep and intimate friendships with women other than their wives, adultery is the natural result. However, to suggest that a married man can't have lots of close female friends is considered intolerant and outdated.

"Riches are inappropriate for a small-minded person; and of what use is wealth to a miser?...Do good to friends before you die, and reach out and give to them as much as you can. Do not deprive yourself of a day's enjoyment; do not let your share of desired good pass by you." (14:3, 13-14)
This passage echoes Solomon's wisdom in Ecclesiastes. The man who hoards money, misses out on real wealth. He who is not liberal with his money fails to help his friends, and denies himself the good things that God has given us for our enjoyment. Money is artificial wealth. Friends, family, food and frivolity are real wealth and are given by God.

"Do not desire a multitude of worthless children, and do not rejoice in ungodly offspring. If they multiply, do not rejoice in them, unless the fear of the Lord is in them. Do not trust in their survival or rely on their numbers; for one can be better than a thousand, and to die childless is better than to have ungodly children. For through one intelligent person a city can be filled with people, but through a clan of outlaws it becomes desolate." (16:1-4)
This is a good warning for us, as Christians to heed. We live in a culture where children are considered a curse instead of a blessing, where we are encouraged to murder babies for the sake of convenience. Thankfully, many Christians have been responding to this lie by having lots of babies and this is a good thing. We need to overcome our selfish and wicked culture. However, lots of kids are not an automatic blessing, and this passage is a good reminder of that. If we are not careful to raise our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, then they become a curse rather than a blessing. It is indeed better to die childless than to introduce a brood of ungodly children into the world. We want to be multiplying the kingdom, not the ranks of the enemy, and therefore we must be trusting God in faith as we raise our children that they may be godly.

"Have you heard something? Let it die with you. Be brave, it will not make you burst! Having heard something the fool suffers birth pangs like a woman in labor with a child. Like an arrow stuck in a person's thigh, so is gossip inside a fool." (19:10-12)
I thought this image of a gossip being like a woman in labor was both funny and very true.

"There is wrath and impudence and great disgrace when a wife supports her husband." (25:22)
I don't have a lot to say about this one, except that our culture really needs to hear it.

"A wife's charm delights her husband, and her skill puts flesh on his bones. A silent wife is a gift from the Lord, and nothing is so precious as her self-discipline. A modest wife adds charm to charm, and no scales can weigh the value of her chastity. Like the sun rising in the heights of the Lord, so is the beauty of a good wife in her well-ordered home. Like the shining lamp on the holy lampstand, so is a beautiful face on a stately figure. like golden pillars on silver bases, so are shapely legs and steadfast feet." (26:13-18)
Amen.

"One who loves gold will not be justified; one who pursues money will be led astray by it. Many have come to ruin because of gold, and their destruction has met them face to face. It is a stumbling block to those who are avid for it, and every fool will be taken captive by it. Blessed is the rich person who is found blameless and who does not go after gold. Who is he that we may praise him? For he has done wonders among his people. Who has been tested by it and been found perfect? Who has had the power to transgress and did not transgress, and to do evil and did not do it? His prosperity will be established, and the assembly will proclaim his acts of charity." (31:5-11)
I find that this passage displays a healthy balance. Rich people are not condemned as sinful, nor is wealth, per se. Displaying a Biblical view, the author shows that the pursuit or love of wealth is sinful. However it is possible, though very difficult, for a man to be rich without loving riches, and such a man is especially blessed. And how is he blessed? His prosperity is established. So though the love of money is wicked, the possession of money is not, and the blessing for being liberal with riches and giving it away is that God will establish your prosperity and bless you with more.

"Wine is very life to human beings if taken in moderation. What is life to one who is without wine? It has been created to make people happy. Wine drunk at the proper time and in moderation is rejoicing of heart and gladness of soul. Wine drunk to excess leads to bitterness of spirit, to quarrels and stumbling. Drunkenness increases the anger of a fool to his own hurt, reducing his strength and adding wounds." (31:27-30)
Once again, we see a wonderful Biblical balance in recognizing that God's creation is good, and intended to be used for our pleasure, but not abused to our detriment.

The book of Sirach is a good book of godly advice for Christians. I found the author's perspective to be very Biblical in most areas and I feel that I've benefited by reading it. However, there is one recurring problem with the book that needs to be addressed. The author's view of women is often a very negative one, his wonderful poem about wives notwithstanding. At one point he says that the virtue of a woman is on par with the vice of a man, and he continually views women with suspicion. He even goes so far at one point as to say, "From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die," (25:24), apparently meaning that the curse came through Eve rather than Adam. Whether he uses this type of language hyperbolically because he is directing his words to young men and wishes them to avoid fornication, or whether he really considers women to be vessels of temptation here to test men I can't say. Without knowledge of the context, his statements seem pretty harsh. However, in light of the overall goodness of the book, I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun

2009-07-13T08:31:00.006-05:00

I recently read the new book The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun by J.R.R. Tolkien, edited by his son Christopher. Two words: BEAUTIFUL, BRILLIANT. Essentially, Tolkien has taken the stories of Sigurd and Gudrun from such sources as the Elder Edda, the Saga of the Volsungs, and the Nibelungenlied, as well as a smattering of other things, and woven them together into a seamless whole. He has smoothed over the inconsistencies in the legends and recast the entire story, get this, in the style and meter of Old Norse Poetry. The result is stunning, but may not be for everyone. If you were to go to this book expecting Lord of the Rings, you would be disappointed. This book is not less than Lord of the Rings, but it is different, with an entirely different aim and purpose. Lord of the Rings was an attempt to tell an original story. The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun is a recasting of an ancient story, attempting to resurrect the Old Norse style in modern English. The poem aims for short, stark emotional moments, evoking the essence of a single event. For those who don't already know the story of Sigurd and Gudrun, the poem may be confusing, as it is not a strict narrative retelling. While there are copious notes from Christopher Tolkien explaining the story to the uninitiated, flipping back and forth between poem and notes would, in my opinion, ruin the flow and power of the poem.

My recommendation is: by all means, read this poem. It is just another example of the intelligence and aesthetic mastery that Tolkien possessed. However, you ought to read The Saga of the Volsungs first to get the entire story in a narrative form before venturing into this particular book.

Thoughts on the Apocrypha So Far

2009-07-09T19:10:00.005-05:00

I've been enjoying my reading of the Apocrypha thus far. It has been quite interesting, and I thought I'd post a few more or less random things that have occurred to me while reading.

Tobit: An excellent story. I enjoyed it very much.

Judith: An extremely entertaining story, but historically atrocious. I was baffled when Nebuchadnezzar was introduced as an Assyrian king ruling from Nineveh as opposed to a Babylonian king ruling from Babylon. I was even more confused when I realized the story was taking place after the exile, and thus during what ought to be Persian rule. In addition, the footnotes told me that few of the places mentioned were actual cities and towns. So, as a work of fiction, Judith is wonderful and holds up very nicely, but it shouldn't be taken as historically accurate in any way.

Esther (with Greek additions): This one was very problematic for me. For the most part the additions to Esther are not wholly detrimental to the story, but there are several places where the additions blatantly contradict the Hebrew story. For example, one of the Greek additions says that Haman's sons were hanged with him, but a few verses later in the original Hebrew story, we see Haman's sons being killed in battle. The additions also tend to do away with some of the subtlety and humor of the original. The biggest problem by far, however, is in the treatment of Mordecai. The additions tend to try to justify Mordecai in every possible way and make him a supremely devout character. However, the text in Hebrew doesn't bear this out. We see this particularly in his refusal to bow to Haman. There is no law prohibiting Israelites from doing obeisance to dignitaries and rulers. They may not worship them, but we see several examples throughout the Old Testament of honor being shown by bowing. Mordecai's failure to bow to Haman was not piety but rather pride. The story is dumbed down and simplified by making Mordecai and example of a perfect Jew and making Haman the perfectly evil bad guy.

The Wisdom of Solomon: This was a good book overall, and in keeping with the spirit of the Proverbs. It is clear also that the author was very familiar with Greek literature and philosophy. The strangest thing is that the book emphasizes the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul rather than the more Hebrew idea of bodily resurrection. Also there is some hint of the preexistence of souls, which is quite problematic for a Biblical worldview.

Well that's about is for my observations so far. I'm about to read Ecclesiasticus (a.k.a. Sirach). I'll probably post more rambling thoughts then.

Intertestamental Judaism and Almsgiving

2009-07-07T22:38:00.002-05:00

I'm reading through the Apocrypha right now, and I thought that this quote was interesting in the way it illuminates the importance of almsgiving in intertestamental Judaism.

"Prayer with fasting is good, but better than both is almsgiving with righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than wealth with wrongdoing. It is better to give alms than to lay up gold. For almsgiving saves from death and purges away every sin. Those who give alms will enjoy a full life, but those who commit sin and do wrong are their own worst enemies." Tobit 12:8-10

Gems from Luther Part 4

2009-06-18T06:26:00.004-05:00

This will be my last Luther post from Bondage of the Will, so I'm going to throw in all the quotes left that I marked as being particularly good or funny. A couple of them I marked because of references to classical myths and legends, and because they were rather witty. The first is from an argument Luther presses to say that one must not quote from Church Fathers and old theologians authoritatively as if a simple quote holds enough authority in itself to prove an argument. (Abelard had already written his Sic et Non at this point, a collection of apparently contradictory quotes from the Church Fathers that shows that there was a wide range of opinion on various topics.) Luther wonders why Erasmus picks the worst statements of the Fathers rather than the best:

"To take an example: what can be said that is more carnal, more utterly godless, sacrilegious and blasphemous, than what Jerome is wont to say: "Virginity peoples heaven, marriage earth"-as though earth, not heave, is the right place for the patriarchs, apostles and Christian husbands, and heaven for pagan vestal virgins without Christ! Yet is it these sentiments and others like them, that the Sophists collect from the fathers to get themselves authority-for their weapon is numbers, rather than judgment. So did that idiotic Faber of Constance, who has just presented the public with his precious jewel, that is, his Augean stable-thus ensuring that there might be something to make the godly learned feel sick, and vomit!"

One thing I found funny was that Luther is comparing Faber's Malleus in Haeresin Lutheranam to the Augean stable. Those familiar with Greek mythology will know what the Augean stable was full of.

In this next quote, Luther makes a humorous comparison between Erasmus' conception of God and Homer's Zeus.

"On your view, God will elect nobody, and no place for election will be left; all that is left is freedom of will to heed or defy the long-suffering and wrath of God. But if God is thus robbed of His power and wisdom in election, what will He be but just that idol, Chance, under whose sway all things happen at random? Eventually, we shall come to this: that men may be saved and damned without God's knowledge! For He will not have marked out by sure election those that should be saved and those that should be damned; He will merely have set before all men His general long-suffering, which forbears and hardens, together with His chastening and punishing mercy [inside joke from previously in the book], and left it to them to choose whether they would be saved or damned, while He Himself, perchance, goes off, as Homer says, to an Ethiopian banquet!"

Finally, I thought it would be good to conclude with this. Luther, despite his sarcastic and satiric tone throughout Bondage of the Will, genuinely respects Erasmus as a scholar and is much is very grateful for him. Luther's German Bible was translated from Erasmus's Greek text, and Erasmus contributed greatly to the study of classical languages and literary arts. Luther shows himself to be a big man by acknowledging this and praying that Erasmus will learn to think as clearly theologically as he has in other areas:

"However, if you cannot treat of this issue in a different way from your treatment of it in the Diatribe, it is my earnest wish that you would remain content with your own gift, and confine yourself to pursuing, adorning and promoting the study of literature and languages; as hitherto you have done, to great advantage and with much credit. By your studies you have rendered me also some service, and I confess myself much indebted to you; certainly, in that regard, I unfeignedly honour and sincerely respect you. But God has not yet willed nor granted that you should be equal to the subject of our present debate. Please do not think that any arrogance lies behind my words when I say that I pray that the Lord will speedily make you as much my superior in this as you already are in all other respects. It is no new thing for God to instruct a Moses by a Jethro, or to teach a Paul by an Ananias."

As a brief conclusion, if you haven't read Bondage of the Will, go out now and buy a copy so you can. It is an amazing book, and a wonderful read. Luther's style is as fresh and witty today as it was 500 years ago, and his reason is clear and compelling.

Against Christianity

2009-06-09T06:54:00.006-05:00

I just finished reading Against Christianity by Peter Leithart. In this book, Dr. Leithart contrasts compares and contrasts "Christianity" and "Christendom." Christianity is defined as "a set of doctrines or a system of ideas." Unfortunately, as the good doctor points out, "The Bible gives no hint that a Christian 'belief system' might be isolated from the life of the Church, subjected to a scientific or logical analysis, and have its truth compared with competing 'belief systems.'" Jesus didn't come to propose a new philosophy, but rather to establish a new society, the Church. And the Church is not only a new society, but a new humanity, the beginning of the eschatological state of the human race. As Leithart writes, "...the Church presented herself not as another 'sect' or cult that existed under the umbrella of the polis; she was an alternative governing body for the city and the beginning of a new city."

As there is far too much in this book that I love, I'm going to simply list a few of the things that I really liked about it.

1) I very much appreciated Dr. Leithart's interaction with John Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas. It has been several years since I read Yoder's The Politics of Jesus, but Leithart seems to put his finger on exactly what made Yoder so right, and exactly what made him so wrong.

2) I loved the little sketch he wrote of the Apostles Paul, Peter, and John meeting with Georgus Barnus to discuss how they were going to market their new religion.

3) I loved this passage: "Theology is a specialized, professional language, often employing obscure (Latin and Greek) terms that are never used by anyone but theologians, as if theologians live in and talk about a different world from the one mortals inhabit.

Theology functions sociologically like other professional languages--to keep people out and to help the members of the guild identify one another.

Whereas the Bible talks about trees and stars, about donkeys and barren women, about kings and queens and carpenters."

4) Related to the previous is this: "Let us not talk of theology. Let us talk about the Church's language and myth. The Church is a distinct 'language group'...the Church speaks and must speak one language. We have one confession, and with the confession comes a distinct way of naming the world and unique categories for interpreting creation and history.

As a language group, the Church is called to maintain and develop her own, Scriptural naming of the world. When the church enters a new mission field, she always comes into an existing culture in which the world is preclassified. The Church enters that situation with a new classification and new names. That is mission: Christian language penetrates an existing language, and the Church begins to attach new labels to everything she finds.

Contextualization be damned. The Church's mission is not to accommodate her language to the existing language, to disguise herself so as to slip in unnoticed and blend in with the existing culture. Her mission is to confront the language of the existing culture with a language of her own."

5) Dr. Leithart's view of the Church is breathtaking and beautiful. Outside of the context of the book, this may not make sense, but it's wonderful anyway: "The Church is neither a reservoir of grace nor an external support for the Christian life. The Church is salvation."

I could go on and on like this but it will suffice to say that this book is outstanding and, one might say, brilliant. I'm looking forward to letting it settle on my mind for several months, and then going back to read it again in order to see what more I can glean from it.

Christian Economics 1

2009-05-26T11:07:00.001-05:00

Part I: Foundational Truths
CHRIST IS LORD

Before we can talk about the “green stuff” (or the “gold stuff” for those who hold to such standards) there are a couple of foundational issues that we need to consider. Capitalism is necessarily dependent on the idea of the ‘free market’. I do not say that the ‘free market’ is dependent upon capitalism because I don’t think it is, but I’ll save that for a later discussion. The question I’d like to deal with here is: What is a ‘free market’? A common definition of a ‘free market’ might be, “an economic scenario in which buying and selling are engaged in without restriction and competition among businesses is unregulated.” If we’re all agreed about this definition then we can move on. Good? All right, let’s go.

I would be happy to sign on to this idea of a ‘free market’ if we make one stipulation; the restriction and regulation that do not exist in a ‘free market’ are governmental restrictions and regulations. There can be no market that is ultimately unrestricted and unregulated. Ultimately all democracies and all republics are under a divine monarchy, the monarchy of King Jesus. After his resurrection, Jesus told his disciples, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18). What does this authority encompass? It certainly encompasses all world governments: “Now therefore, be wise, O kings; Be instructed, you judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, And rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little…” (Psalm 2:10-12). But more than this, it encompasses all our lives. Jesus is our King. He is our Lord. And we are bound to serve him. It is important for us, as Christians, to understand that there is no little area in our lives over which we can claim sovereignty. Jesus has it all. Is Jesus sovereign over how we raise our children? Of course. Is he sovereign over how we teach history, or math, or science? Naturally. Is he sovereign over how we submit to our earthly authorities? Quite. Is he sovereign over how we run our businesses? Ummm…I’ll get back to you on that one…

In the words of the great Dutch statesman Abraham Kuyper, “There is not one square inch in the whole domain of human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not say, ‘Mine!’” Jesus is king of our whole lives, and this means that, yes, even in the way we run our businesses, we must answer to his ultimate authority. The biggest problem I see with most people who tout a ‘free market’ is that they see it as self-regulating. Set up a free market anywhere and it will work, just like gravity, just like the laws of thermodynamics. (Incidentally, I believe that scientific laws only work because God constantly supports them. Things fall, not of necessity, but because God wants them to. So all of scientific study must be based on the assumption of God’s faithfulness. But that is another topic.) In reality, there can be no self-regulating system, only a Christ-regulated system. Set up a free market in an atheistic society and you will get very different results from a free market set up in a Christian society. Whether the result of a free market is good or bad is dependent upon whether the free market is founded on a worldview that is in submission to Christ or a worldview in submission to sin and death. The same is true for systems of government. A monarchy in submission to Christ will be a good monarchy. A democracy in submission to Christ will be a good democracy. Monarchies and democracies not in submission to Christ will be bad monarchies and democracies. As a Christian, I am not bound to a particular economic theory or governmental theory (though I may have my preferences). I am bound to Christ and his law. There is no neutrality.

Now, the thing that makes me pause in considering the popular economic theories of our day, capitalism and communism (I include socialism under the latter category), is that both were invented by atheists. Adam Smith was most likely an atheist, though possibly a weak Deist. Karl Marx was a god-hater as well. So even though, yes, atheists can sometimes have good ideas, we need to pay special attention when an atheist seeks to tell us how we ought to live or regulate our society. If they are not for Christ, they are against him (Luke 11:23), and as Christians we must discern which of their ideas are inseparable from their wicked view of the world and which may be brought into submission to Christ.

The first foundational truth here is this: Christ is Lord of all. We are required by the gospel to submit every area of life, even economic theories, to the commands of Christ. The Bible is authoritative in every area it addresses, and it addresses everything. Later we will discuss exactly what the Bible has to say about economics. For now, let us agree that the free market is regulated by Christ, and at the last day no one will be excused from any sins committed by saying, “It’s just business. That’s the way it works.”

In my next post, I’ll discuss the doctrine of the Trinity, and how it informs our ideas of human society and individualism.

Who is America's King?

2009-05-25T11:04:00.002-05:00

"The Christian faith is a public faith. The claims of Jesus Christ are absolute, and we have no authority to diminish the authority that God has given to Him to make these claims. We may not say, of any name, that it has the right to refuse to acknowledge that that name of Jesus is the ultimate authority. No one, standing at the last judgment, will have the right to say that he would have acknowledged the authority of Jesus, but certain key interpretations of the First Amendment prohibited it. At that great day, when the sky and earth have fled to hide themselves, they will not be authorized to appeal to Jefferson's 'wall of separation' between church and state. There is no wall of separation between the authority of Jesus Christ and the authority of the civil magistrate. American Christians must come to grip with this...

He has authority in heaven, and He has authority on earth. Not only is this the case, but He says that He has all authority in heaven and on earth. There is now no authority in heaven or on earth that is not subordinate to His authority. This includes, but is not limited to, the United States Supreme Court, the Muslim rulers of Saudi Arabia, every parliament on the continent of Europe, the United Nations General Assembly, the U.S. Congress, the legislature of South Dakota, the communist thugs running North Korea, every secret meeting ever convened by the Illuminati or whoever those guys are, and the commissioner of baseball."

-from Heaven Misplaced by Douglas Wilson

Heaven Misplaced

2009-05-25T10:53:00.004-05:00

I just finished the new book Heaven Misplaced, by Douglas Wilson. It's a very unusual sort of book to read: a theology book that sets out to convince the reader of the beauty, rather than the truth, of its propositions. Not that Doug Wilson is uninterested in truth. Quite the contrary. He writes, "He [Tolkien] was once asked whether he believed that Middle Earth was real. His reply was, 'One hopes.' Even a work of fiction, if it is compelling enough, can awaken a deep desire for it to have been true. So here is my proposal. There are many Christians who believe that the future of our world (prior to the Second Coming) is bleak indeed. I am asking them to read this little book as though it were a work of fiction. Just for a short while, I am asking for that willing suspension of disbelief. And if that request is granted, then I believe that a striking feature of this kind of historical optimism will become plain. Every Christian can agree on one thing at least. Wouldn't it be glorious if this really were true?"

There are many wonderful books on Postmillennial eschatology that beat the reader over the head with verses and evidence to show the truth of the position. Doug is attempting, not to do away with such books, but to show the beauty that is often left behind in those sorts of books. Not only is this way of thinking true, but even if you don't agree with it, you have to admit that it is a beautiful story and wish that it could be true.

This is a short book and for those already versed in postmillennialsism it shouldn't present many surprises. But I recommend it as a nice refresher for those who have lost the vision or forgotten how one's theology of Christ's kingdom affects the way we live our lives as Christians. It would also be good to give to any pessimistic friends who have been left behind in premillennialism or amillennialism.

Gems From Luther Part 3

2009-05-25T10:27:00.004-05:00

In defending the Biblical position that the human will is enslaved to sin against the arguments of Erasmus in favor of free will, Luther has his work cut out for him. He must play the part of Menelaus capturing the shape-shifting Proteus. It seems like Erasmus has a hundred different definitions of free will that he mixes and matches without rhyme or reason. Some of the best passages in Bondage of the Will are results of Luther dealing with Erasmus' refusal to define his terms and begin the discussion.

"You describe the power of 'free-will' as small, and wholly ineffective apart from the grace of God. Agreed? Now then, I ask you: if God's grace is wanting, if it is taken away from that small power, what can it do? It is ineffective, you say, and can do nothing good. So it will not do what God or His grace wills. Why? Because we have now taken God's grace away from it, and what the grace of God does not do is not good. Hence it follows that 'free-will' without God's grace is not free at all, but is the permanent prisoner and bondslave of evil, since it cannot turn itself to good."

"And first, we will begin, as we should, from your actual definition. You define 'free-will' thus: 'Moreover, I conceive of "free-will" in this context as a power of the human will by which a man may apply himself to those things that lead to eternal salvation, or turn away from the same.'

...This is the kind of definition that the Sophists call vicious--that is, one in which the definition fails to cover the thing defined. For I showed above that 'free-will' belongs to none but God only. You are no doubt right in assigning to man a will of some sort, but to credit him with a will that is free in the things of God is too much. For all who hear mention of 'free-will' take it to mean, in its proper sense, a will that can and does do, God-ward, all that it pleases, restrained by no law and no command; for you would not call a slave, who acts at the beck of his lord, free. But in that case how much less are we right to call men or angels free; for they live under the complete mastery of God (not to mention sin and death), and cannot continue by their own strength for a moment."

"Out of one view about 'free-will' you devise three! The first, that of those who deny that man can will good without special grace, neither start, nor make progress, nor finish, etc. seems to you 'severe, but probable enough'. You approve of it because it leaves man effort and endeavour, but does not leave him anything that he may ascribe to his own strength. The second, that of those who contend that 'free-will' avails for nothing but sinning, and that grace alone works good in us,etc., seems to you 'more severe'; and the third, that of those who say that 'free-will' is an empty term, and God works in us both good and evil, and all that comes to pass is of mere necessity, seems to you 'most severe'. It is against these two last that you profess to be writing.

Do you know what you are saying, my dear Erasmus? You represent here three opinions, as if of three parties, simply because you fail to realise that it is the same thing in each case, stated by us same spokesmen of the selfsame party, but in different ways and different words...How, I ask, does that definition of 'free-will' which you gave above square with this first view, which is 'probable enough'? You said that 'free-will' is a power of the human will by which a man can apply himself to good; but here you say, and approve of its being said, that man without grace cannot will good...So the 'free-will' you define is one thing, and the 'free-will' you defend is another. Erasmus now has two 'free-wills', more than anyone else, and they are at loggerheads with each other!"

Gems From Luther Part 2

2009-05-20T12:27:00.003-05:00

Erasmus accused Luther of saying that, "all we do is done, not by free-will, but of mere necessity." Luther had earlier expressed his distate for the word 'necessity' though admitting that language does not afford a better one. He writes, "I could wish, indeed, that a better term was available for our discussion than the accepted one, necessity, which cannot accurately be used of either man's will or God's. It's meaning is too harsh, and foreign to the subject; for it suggests some sort of compulsion, and something that is against one's will, which is no part of the view under debate. The will, whether it be God's or man's does what it does, good or bad, under no compulsion, but just as it wants or pleases as if totally free. Yet the will of God, which rules over our mutable will, is changeless and sure..."

In other words, Luther was qualifying the debate. As to the question of whether man can choose between, say, a hot dog or hamburger for dinner, Luther says that man acts as he pleases, though his will is ultimately mutable and subject to God's immutable will. In other words, man acts freely, but his mutable will is under, and agrees with, God's immutable will. This is, so to speak, a metaphysical discussion.

Luther, however, steers the debate in another direction. The question he and Erasmus are debating is not whether God can be sovereign and man be free at the same time (the metaphysical question). The question they are debating is a moral question: can a sinful man alter his own will to desire good, and, if so, what is the need for the Holy Spirit. Again Luther writes:

"I said 'of necessity'; I did not say 'of compulsion'; I meant, by a necessity, not of compulsion, but of what they call immutability. That is to say: a man without the Spirit of God does not do evil against his will, under pressure, as though he were taken by the scruff of the neck and dragged into it, like a thief or footpad eing dragged off against his will to punishment; but he does it spontaneously and voluntarily. And the willingness of volition is something which he cannot in his own strength eliminate, restrain or alter. He goes on willing and desiring to do evil; and if external pressure forces him to act otherwise, nevertheless his will remains averse to so doing and chafes under such constraint and opposition. But it would not thus chafe were it being changed, and were it yielding to constraint willingly. This is what we mean by necessity of immutability: that the will cannot change itself, nor give itself another bent, but, rather, is the more provoked to crave the more it is oppose, as its chafing proves; for this would not occur, were it free or had 'free-will'...

On the other hand: when God works in us, the will is changed under the sweet influence of the Spirit of God. Once more it desires and acts, not of compulsion, but of its own desire and spontaneous inclination. Its bent still cannot be altered by any opposition; it cannot be mastered or prevailed upon even by the gates of hell; but it goes on willing, desiring and loving good, just as once it willed, desired and loved evil."

Gems from Luther Part 1

2009-05-19T06:49:00.005-05:00

I'm reading through Luther's Bondage of the Will right now,and am more pleased every day that I named my son after him. I'm going to be posting some of my favorite passages over the next few days. One thing that strikes me is the clarity of Luther's theology as he approaches his debate with Erasmus.

In this passage he is arguing against Erasmus's view that some of the Scriptures are obscure and difficult and some are plain. So there are some doctrines we ought to know and some doctrines that we ought not to worry our pretty little heads about. To prove this, Erasmus points to Scriptures that refer to the mystery of God's will and knowledge (Rom. 11:33; Isa. 40:13). Luther counters by saying that there are indeed many mysteries in God. However Scripture, as revelation, was given to man that he may know things. So while there may be mystery about things not revealed to us in Scripture, the things given in Scripture are given that we may know them. Here is Luther's argument:

"God and His Scripture are two things, just as the Creator and His creation are two things. Now, nobody questions that there is a great deal hid in God of which we know nothing. Christ himself says of the last day: 'Of that day knoweth no man, but the Father' (Matt. 24.36); and in Acts 1 he says: 'It is not for you to know the times and seasons' (John 13.18); and Paul says: 'The Lord knoweth them that are his' (2 Tim. 2.19); and the like. But the notion that in Scripture some things are recondite and all is not plain was spread by the godless Sophists (whom you now echo, Erasmus)--who have never yet cited a single item to prove their crazy view; nor can they...I certainly grant that many passages in the Scriptures are obscure and hard to elucidate, but that is due, not to the exalted nature of their subject, but to our own linguistic and grammatical ignorance; and it does not in any way prevent our knowing all the contents of Scripture...If words are obscure in one place, they are clear in another. What God has so plainly declared to the world is in some parts of Scripture stated in plain words, while in other parts it still lies hidden under obscure words. But when something stands in broad daylight, and a mass of evidence for it is in broad daylight also, it does not matter whether there is any evidence for it in the dark. Who will maintain that the town fountain does not stand in the light because the people down some alley cannot see it, while everyone in the square can see it?...

When you quote Paul's statement, 'his judgments are incomprehensible,' you seem to take the pronoun 'his' to refer to Scripture; whereas the judgments which Paul there affirms to be incomprehensible are not those of Scripture, but those of God. And Isaiah 40 does not say: 'who has known the mind of Scripture?' but: 'who has known the mind of the Lord?' (Paul, indeed, asserts that Christians do know the mind of the Lord; but only with reference to those things that are given to us by God, as he there says in 1 Cor 2...the distinction of persons in the Godhead, the union of the Divine and human natures of Christ, and the unpardonable sin. Here, you say, are problems which have never been solved. If you mean this of the enquiries which the Sophists pursue when they discuss these subjects, what has the inoffensive Scripture done to you, that you should blame such criminal misuse of it on to its own purity. Scripture makes the straightforward affirmation that the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the unpardonable sin are facts. There is nothing obscure or ambiguous about that. You imagine that Scripture tells us how they are what they are; but it does not, nor need we know...

In a word: The perspicuity of Scripture is twofold, just as there is a double lack of light...If you speak of internal perspicuity, the truth is that nobody who has not the Spirit of God sees a jot of what is in the Scriptures...The Spirit is needed for the understanding of all Scripture and every part of Scripture. If, on the other hand, you speak of external perspicuity, the position is that nothing whatsoever is left obscure or ambiguous, but all that is in Scripture is through the Word brought forth into the clearest light and proclaimed to the whole world."

Secondary Epic

2009-05-13T07:24:00.002-05:00

Secondary Epic
by W.H. Auden

No, Virgil, no:
Not even the first of the Romans can learn
His Roman history in the future tense.
Not even to serve your political turn;
Hindsight as foresight makes no sense.

How was your shield-making god to explain
Why his masterpiece, his grand panorama
Of scenes from the coming historical drama
Of an unborn nation, war after war,
All the birthdays needed to pre-ordain
The Octavius the world was waiting for,
Should so abruptly, mysteriously stop,
What cause could he show why he didn't foresee
The future beyond 31 B.C.,
Why a curtain of darkness should finally drop
On Carians, Morini, Gelonians with quivers,
Converging Romeward in abject file,
Euphrates, Araxes and similar rivers
Learning to flow in a latinate style,
And Caesar be left where prophecy ends,
Inspecting troops and gifts for ever?
Wouldn't Aeneas have asked:--'What next?
After this triumph, what portends?'
As rhetoric your device was too clever;
It lets us imagine a continuation
To your Eighth Book, an interpolation,
Scrawled at the side of a tattered text
In a decadent script, the composition
Of a down-at-heels refugee rhetorician
With an empty belly, seeking employment,
Cooked up in haste for the drunken enjoyment,
Of some blond princeling whom loot had inclined
To believe that Providence had assigned
To blonds the task of improving mankind.

...Now Mainz appears and starry New Year's Eve
As two-horned Rhine throws off the Latin yoke
To bear the Vandal on his frozen back;
Lo! Danube, now congenial to the Goth,
News not unwelcome to Teutonic shades
And all lamenting beyond Acheron
Demolished Carthage or a plundered Greece:
And now Juturna leaves the river-bed
Of her embittered grievance--loud her song,
Immoderate her joy--for word has come
Of treachery at the Salarian Gate.
Alaric has avenged Turnus...

No, Virgil, no:
Behind your verse so masterfully made
We hear the weeping of a Muse betrayed.
Your Anchises isn't convincing at all:
It's asking too much of us to be told
A shade so long-sighted, a father who knows
That Romulus will build a wall,
Augustus found an Age of Gold,
And is trying to teach a dutiful son
The love of what will be in the long run,
Would mention them both but not disclose
(Surely no prophet could afford to miss,
No man of destiny fail to enjoy
So clear a proof of Providence as this.)
The names predestined for the Catholic boy
Whom Arian Odovacer will depose.

And Then There Was Silence

2009-05-11T07:05:00.003-05:00

Written by Hansi Kursh of Blind Guardian, this song tells the the story of the fall of Troy, combining elements from both the Odyssey and the Aeneid. The striking thing about this song is that it takes place as Paris is returning to Troy with Helen, and is told entirely by Cassandra. The song veers into the past where we see Paris giving the golden apple to Aphrodite (Out of three you've chosen misery. Power and wisdom you deny) as well as to the future, foretelling Hector's defeat by Achilles and the Trojan horse and Fall of Troy. The soaring heights and plummeting depths of the music reflect Cassandra's feverish visions, and the entire song is imbued with a deep feeling of despair as we see the destiny of the great city. The only hope the song offers are the lines "Revenge will be taken by Rome," and "In decay, the flame of Troy will shine bright," both pointing to the glory of Rome that will ascend from the ashes of ruined Troy. This is both a beautiful and powerful song.

The Early History of Rome

2009-04-29T07:01:00.004-05:00

Over the course of teaching this year, I feel I've been inundated with ancient histories. I've read The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides, The Histories by Herodotus, and, currently on the side, Plutarch's Lives. For readability and clarity, none of these has come close to Livy's The Early History of Rome. Beginning with the legendary deeds of Romulus around 800 B.C. and ending with Camillus' breathtaking deliverance of Rome from the Gauls in 386 B.C., there is not a dry moment in the book.

Livy focuses on individual people and their families throughout his history, providing human interest in the midst of great political movements and wars. Certain names are reused within families, giving the reader the ability to easily follow family trees and relationships. "Oh no, here comes another Appius!" or "Yay, another Valerius!" It is this interest in telling stories that makes Herodotus such a lively read. However, unlike Herodotus, Livy organizes his material in a clear and chronological format without skipping back and forth between countries and centuries. Plutarch is great because of his focus on individuals, great men with virtues to imitate and flaws to avoid. Livy accomplishes the same thing but weaves it into a continuous narrative rather than a series of unrelated mini-biographies. Finally, like Thucydides, Livy is concerned with accuracy and seeks to (as best as he can) relay the actual events that occurred. If we don't have the actual speeches of the men, at least Livy tries to give us the gist of what must have been said. However, Livy constantly has his eye on the dramatic. He knows where the human drama is to be found and he highlights and emphasizes it giving the impression of an epic rather than a list of events.

Of the histories I've read this year, Livy's is the most accessible to the modern reader, and I recommend it for anyone interested in Greek or Roman history.

What He Must Be

2009-04-24T15:21:00.007-05:00

I just finished the book, What He Must Be...if He Wishes to Marry My Daughter by Voddie Baucham, Jr. It was an excellent book on so many levels that it's hard to know precisely how to recommend it. Ostensibly it is a book for fathers concerning what traits to look for in a future son-in-law. In reality it is much more.

Parents should read this book in order to consider how to raise their boys to be godly husbands and fathers. They should also read to find out how to raise daughters who will desire such men as husbands. Young men should read this book to think about what type of men they need to be to measure up as a godly husband and father. Young women should read this book in order to consider what to look for in a husband. I found this book particularly helpful in reminding me of my own duties as a husband to my wife, and what roles I must fulfill for her.

Voddie Baucham writes with such a conversational voice that reading his book feels like getting advice from a friend. Along the way he confronts many of the problems that cause broken marriages in our culture today, attacks our culture's disdain for the blessing of children, and deals with racism among Christians. I find myself hard pressed to think of anyone for whom this book would not be a good call to action or reminder of duty.

Save the Gods!

2009-04-22T06:57:00.002-05:00

"Friends and citizens, ... though you feel no concern for your city or yourselves, fear at least your gods whom the enemy hold captive! Jupiter, Lord of all, Juno the Queen, Minerva, and all the company of heaven are beleaguered; an army of slaves hold in their hands the divinities who guard your country."
-Livy, The Early History of Rome

"Their idols are silver and gold,
The work of man’s hands.
They have mouths, but they cannot speak;
They have eyes, but they cannot see;
They have ears, but they cannot hear;
They have noses, but they cannot smell;
They have hands, but they cannot feel;
They have feet, but they cannot walk;
They cannot make a sound with their throat.
Those who make them will become like them,
Everyone who trusts in them."
Psalm 115:4-8

Self-Reliance

2009-04-20T06:58:00.005-05:00

"People nowadays can't imagine how self-reliant someone can be if they have a cow, a couple hogs and a huge garden."
-Clyde G. Sarver

Why Study History?

2009-04-16T08:29:00.004-05:00

I'm currently reading Livy's Early History of Rome, and I love his introduction about the study of history. Here is a great quote:

"The study of history is the best medicine for a sick mind; for in history you have a record of the infinite variety of human experience plainly set out for all to see; and in that record you can find for yourself and your country both examples and warnings; fine things to take as models, base things, rotten through and through, to avoid."

He is Risen Indeed!

2009-04-13T07:25:00.001-05:00

"They took the body down from the cross and one of the few rich men among the first Christians obtained permission to bury it in a rock tomb in his garden; the Romans setting a military guard lest there should be some riot and attempt to recover the body. There was once more a natural symbolism in these natural proceedings; it was well that the tomb should be sealed with all the secrecy of ancient eastern sepulchre and guarded by the authority of the Caesars. For in that second cavern the whole of that great and glorious humanity which we call antiquity was gathered up and covered over; and in that place it was buried. It was the end of a very great thing called human history; the history that was merely human. The mythologies and the philosophies were buried there, the gods and the heroes and the sages. In the great Roman phrase, they had lived. But as they could only live, so they could only die; and they were dead

On the third day the friends of Christ coming at daybreak to the place found the grave empty and the stone rolled away. In varying ways they realized the new wonder; but even they hardly realized that the world had died in the night. What they were looking at was the first day of a new creation, with a new heaven and a new earth; and in a semblance of the gardener God walked again in the garden, in the cool not of the evening but the dawn."

-G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man

Nibelungenlied Review

2009-04-11T13:38:00.007-05:00

Well, I finally finished The Nibelungenlied. All I can say is, "Wow, what a bloodbath!" Prior to this, I've read the Volsungasaga which conveys basically the same legend but written in Iceland rather than Germany, so I knew what to expect. And though my expectations were pretty high, I was not disappointed.

That being said, there were a few things that caught me by surprise. First of all, the way Attila the Hun is portrayed in the two versions is extremely different. In the Volsungasaga, Atli (Attila) is a bloodthirsty barbarian who wants the famous treasure and cuts out hearts and throws men into a pit of snakes to get his way. In the Nibelungenlied, Etzel (Attila) is one of the most Christian characters in the story, despite the fact that we are told he is not a Christian. He is honorable and noble in all of his dealings with others, and shows mercy and restraint when others hunger for blood.

The main female protagonist is likewise very different. In the Volsungasaga, Atli's wife Gudrun warns her brothers not to come to Atli's court. Though they were responsible for her husband Sigurd's death, she would rather side with them than her new husband Atli. She takes up arms and fights Atli when he launches an attack against her brothers to get the treasure. After her brothers die, she kills her own children by Atli and feeds them to him for dinner.

In the Nibelungenlied, her character is the opposite. Kriemhild invites her brothers to come to Etzel's court so that she may get revenge for her husband Sigfried's death and learn the location of the treasure. It is she who brings about the death of her brothers, while King Etzel is blissfully unaware that anything is amiss until it is too late.

It's difficult to compare the two, as their worldviews are so different. The worldview of the Volsungasaga is that of the pagan, pre-Christian era. Fate determines all things, and the characters are portrayed as amoral. Often their destinies are not earned by their actions, but are the result of intervention by Odin, who wants to kill whom he does not like. The Nibelungenlied, on the other hand, portrays everything that happens as a result of unchecked sin, from the deception of Brunhild to the final gory climax. Sin begets sin, and sinners always get their due. In this way, the Nibelungenlied is a far more Christian story than the Volsungasaga. However, as a piece of literature, I think that the Volsungasaga comes out ahead. It is clear from internal inconsistencies that the Nibelungenlied was pieced together from a large number of ballads and songs, and that one editor did not sit down and attempt to harmonize all the different accounts. The Volsungasaga is much more unified, though it too is pieced together from many of the same stories and legends.

I would recommend both of these books to anyone interested in the mythology and folklore of Northern Europe, as well as to any fan of Tolkien. For in these works can be found many of the seeds of Middle Earth that would come to fruition in Tolkien's epic Lord of the Rings.

Good Friday

2009-04-10T08:29:00.004-05:00

I’ve done quite a bit of reading during this Lent about the purpose of Lent as well as some of the traditions and customs surrounding the build-up to Easter. However, my wife recently found something that I had never encountered before, the Triduum. Most people know the history of Lent. In the early Church, new converts were often baptized on Easter. In preparation for their baptisms, these catechumens observed a 40-day fast recalling Jesus’ 40-day fast in the wilderness. It wasn’t terribly long before this customary fast began to be observed by others in the Church leading up to Easter, and the tradition of Lent developed.

What I didn’t know is that before Lent became a season of the Church Year, the three days leading to Easter, beginning with the evening of Maundy Thursday, were days of celebration. Jesus’ death and descent into Hell were celebrated, leading up to the ultimate celebration of the Resurrection on Easter morning. These days were known as a Triduum, one of several 3-day feasts throughout the Church Year. The celebration of the Resurrection Triduum waned, as Lent became a more universal observance.

The Vatican II council of the Roman Catholic Church reinstituted the Triduum as a celebration, but up until now, the Vatican has never actually explained how this affects the last three days of Lent, leaving many Catholics confused. In Mexico, many churches light the bonfires and start the parties on Thursday, going right up until Easter. As a Protestant discovering this ancient Church feast, I’m not concerned that the Pope hasn’t ruled on it yet. What I’m more concerned with is what we may be saying theologically by choosing to feast rather than fast during the last 3 days of Lent.

In his Palm Sunday sermon this year, my pastor was talking about how, for the disciples at the time, Good Friday wasn’t so good; it was tragic. However, in light of the resurrection and the understanding of God’s plan of redemption, Good Friday is indeed good. For us to look back on it with sorrow and sadness as if it was all a mistake is to misunderstand the gospel itself. Jesus even gently rebuked the men on the road to Emmaus for not understanding the significance of his death: “What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?…O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?”

This got the wheels turning in my mind as I thought about it. All of these ideas tie into our view of Communion as well. When we show the Lord’s death in communion, is it a gloomy occasion? Is the Eucharist a time for somber reflections and sad rememberings? Of course not! The early Christians celebrated it in the context of a feast, and it remains a feast today, when we come to the Lord’s Table without fear because of the death of Christ. The Eucharist is solemn, but solemn doesn’t mean somber or gloomy. The Middle English word solemne, from which we get our solemn, simply means customary or ritualized. An exceedingly joyous event can be solemn, and the Eucharist is one such event. However, Good Friday is a longer celebration of the same thing we solemnize in the Eucharist. Christ’s death is a thing of joy to Christians, not a thing of sorrow. We sorrow for our sins, but not for our salvation.

So here’s to the Triduum. Our family began our celebrations last night by letting the kids stay up really late and making homemade pretzels (a custom I can perhaps write about another time). Tonight we’re breaking out the wine and celebrating the death of our Lord, Jesus the Christ. It is still Lent, but the sorrowing is over. It is time to remember Christ’s death on our behalf, and rejoice in the remembrance.

Why We Have the Bill of Rights

2009-04-02T07:28:00.004-05:00

The anti-federalists were realists. They knew that power hungry opportunists existed in America as well as the rest of the world. Thus the Federal Government made certain promises and guarantees to the states to limit the power of the central government. For example, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This was not to "separate church and state" as we're often told. Rather, at the time at least 5 of the states had state churches, and didn't want the federal government interfering with them. Another example "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "Well, we have a national military now, so we don't need militias today," many people argue. I'll grant that we have a national military, and that might be part of the problem. However, this amendment guarantees that citizens have the right to keep arms and form state Militias for the "security of a free state." This one was added to guarantee that if the Federal Government overstepped its authority, the People could rise up and overthrow the tyrannical rule, just as they overthrew the tyrannical rule of the English Parliament and King George.

One of the anti-Federalists, under the pseudonym Cato, explained the need to restrain the power of the central government:

"It is a duty you owe likewise to your own reputation, for you have a great name to lose; you are characterized as cautious, prudent and jealous in politics; whence is it therefore, that you are about to precipitate yourselves into a sea of uncertainty, and adopt a system so vague and which has discarded so many of your valuable rights. Is it because you do not believe that an American can be a tyrant? If this be the case you rest on a weak basis; Americans are like other men in similar situations, when the manners and opinions of the community are changed by the causes I mentioned before, and your political compact inexplicit, your posterity will find that great power connected with ambition, luxury, and flattery, will as readily produce a Caesar, Caligula, Nero, and Domitian in America, as the same causes did in the Roman empire."

Because It Doesn't Hurt to Be Prepared

2009-04-01T12:19:00.002-05:00