Posts
Wednesday this week marked the last Bible study at church for the
summer. We will reconvene in late August or early September. This
Wednesday, we studied Luke 24 and Acts 1. Here are some items:
A. Scholars debate whether Luke was a Hellenized Jew or a God-fearing
Gentile. A God-fearer was a Gentile who accepted the authority of the
Old Testament but had not been circumcised or washed away his Gentile
self through Jewish baptism. An argument in favor of Luke being a
God-fearer is that, in Colossians 4, Paul mentions names of people who
are of the circumcision (vv. 10-11), then he mentions Luke later, in v.
14. The implication is that Luke is distinct from those who are of the
circumcision, the Jewish Christians. That would make him a Gentile, and
his intimate knowledge of the Old Testament may point to him being a
God-fearer.
B. On the topic of Hellenized Jews, the pastor said that the
Sadducees (the priestly party) were Hellenized Jews, so they believed in
the immortality of the soul but not the resurrection of the dead. The
pastor seemed to be treating the Sadducees’ belief on the afterlife as
an importation from Hellenism, which held to the immortality of the soul
while dismissing bodily resurrection because it saw the body as
corrupt. I wondered about this, though, because I have read scholars who
suggest that the Sadducees were actually the conservative party on the
afterlife, for they reflected the Hebrew Bible, which largely lacks a
rigorous concept of the afterlife. Indeed, Ben Sira, a priest, talks as
if there is no afterlife at all. Josephus in Antiquities 18:16 and
Jewish Wars 2:165, it turns out, denies that the Sadducees believed in
the immortality of the soul. The pastor is not getting his depiction of
the Sadducees from nowhere, for there are secondary sources that say that they were Hellenized. The question would be how, and to what extent.
C. The pastor said that eating is prominent throughout Luke and Acts.
Meals are times of fellowship and of hearing Christian teaching, but
they are also places to meet Christ, as when the risen Christ in Luke 24
breaks bread and eats fish before disciples. Some scholars argue that
the emphasis on eating points to the Eucharist. That is not to suggest
that those meals are all communion ceremonies, but the meals are
harbingers of, or comment on, the Eucharist, where Christ meets his
people.
D. To quote from the handout: “For Luke, the out-pouring of the
Spirit at Pentecost is through the exalted/ascended Christ—-as opposed
to John, who has a version of the Spirit being given in John 20 after
His resurrection.” Christians have tried to reconcile these things. One
explanation that I have heard is that Christians in John 20 are
receiving the Holy Spirit to dwell inside of them, whereas they are
being empowered for mission in Acts 2. Does this entirely work? Well,
John 14-16 does portray the Spirit as one who continues Jesus’s presence
among the disciples and brings to their remembrance the things that
Jesus taught them; the Spirit is there for the benefit of the disciples.
The Book of Acts, however, depicts the Spirit moving the church and
empowering the apostles to preach the Gospel to outsiders. But there are
arguably similarities between John and Acts. In John 16, the Spirit
convicts the world of the sin of not believing in Christ; in Acts, as
the pastor noted, the Spirit testifies to Jesus and the truth of the
Gospel before the world. In John 20:23, Jesus, after breathing on his
disciples and instructing them to receive the Holy Spirit, tells them
that they can forgive and retain sins; this may refer to their Gospel
proclamation, which carries with it forgiveness for those who acceptance
and unforgiveness for those who reject it. The disciples in Acts,
empowered by the Holy Spirit, proclaim repentance and the forgiveness of
sins through Christ (Acts 5:31; 13:38; 26:18).
E. The pastor noted examples of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke
beginning and ending with common themes. The Gospel of Matthew begins
with Jesus being called Immanuel, which means “God with us” (Matthew
1:23), and it ends with Jesus promising to be with his disciples always
(Matthew 28:20). Luke’s Gospel begins in the Temple, with Zechariah the
priest, and it ends with the disciples praising God in the Temple. In
Luke 2, angels bring tidings of peace before shepherds; in Luke 24, the
risen Christ greets his disciples with “peace.” In Luke 1:35, Gabriel
promises Mary that the Holy Spirit will come on Mary and the power of
the Most High shall overshadow her; in Luke 24, Jesus tells his
disciples that the Spirit will come upon them and they will be clothed
with power from on high. In Luke 1, Zechariah and Mary respond to God’s
promise with worship and joy and bear witness in song; in Luke 24, the
disciples also respond with worship and joy, but they will bear their
witness in the Book of Acts.
F. In Acts 1, the disciples ask the risen Jesus if he at that time
will restore the kingdom to Israel, and Jesus responds that it is not
for them to know the times or the seasons. The pastor said that this was
probably included in Acts because people in Luke’s day were discouraged
that Jesus had not yet returned, since Jesus had promised to return in
“this generation” (Luke 21:32). I asked the pastor how he interpreted
“this generation.” The pastor interprets it, not as forty years, but in
reference to the time between Jesus’s birth and second coming. When
Jesus speaks against the faithless generation, he is not just talking
about his contemporaries but is saying that many will be trapped in
unbelief until the second coming.
G. At the end of Acts, in Acts 28, Paul is preaching in Rome, the
capital of paganism, to which and from which all roads go. Paul quotes
Isaiah 6:9-10, applying it to Jews who will hear and shall not listen or
understand, and Paul proceeds to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles,
saying they will listen. The pastor seemed to be trying to interpret the
holy seed of Isaiah 6:13 as Christ: through Christ, the curse of
Isaiah, and later of Christ when he preached in Luke 8, would be lifted,
for the seed would be planted among the Gentiles; the Gospel would find
a receptive audience. I am not sure if that works, since Isaiah 6 seems
to imply that the Israelites will begin to hear after they are desolate
and there is a holy seed. It does not mention the Gentiles. Perhaps
more needs to be unpacked here. After all, Romans 11 ties the
Israelites’ receptivity to the Gospel to the inclusion of the Gentiles
into the church.
Thursday, May 30, 2019
Monday, May 27, 2019
Book Write-Up: Christ’s Call to Reform the Church, by John MacArthur
John MacArthur. Christ’s Call to Reform the Church: Timeless Demands from the Lord to His People. Moody, 2018. See here to buy the book.
In Christ’s Call to Reform the Church, pastor John MacArthur goes through Christ’s instruction to the seven churches in Revelation 2-3, while issuing a jeremiad against the impurity, shallowness, and “seeker sensitivity” of contemporary churches. Here are some items:
A. MacArthur attempts to reconcile aspects of Christ’s instruction in Revelation 2-3 with his own belief in eternal security, the doctrine that Christians cannot and will not lose their salvation. When Christ promises to remove the Ephesian church’s candlestick if she fails to repent (Revelation 2:5), therefore, that does not mean she will lose her salvation, but rather that the church will be destroyed in a temporal, historical sense. Indeed, as MacArthur observes, some churches were destroyed in the first century, while others survived for centuries thereafter. This is an impressive attempt to resolve the problem, but does it work? Christ declares in Revelation 2-3 that the overcomers will be the ones who shall rule with Christ and escape the second death, which are aspects of salvation. MacArthur argues that the overcomers are simply those who believe in Christ, for I John 5:4 affirms that believers overcome the world through their faith; Christ in Revelation 2-3, in short, is merely asserting that people are justified by faith. Would Christ need to exhort the seven churches to do what they are already doing as believers, however, namely, believing? Could not overcoming mean following Christ’s exhortations, notwithstanding opposition from the world? As a TULIP-committed Calvinist, MacArthur holds that “Christians” who do not persevere in the faith or produce spiritual fruit are not true believers; MacArthur thinks that this actually is the case with the church of Laodicea, for Christ essentially exhorts her to get saved, to be clothed in white and to get her eyes opened. The implication is that those things were not true of the Laodicean church before, meaning they were unsaved. MacArthur is aware that he cannot say that about the other churches in Revelation 2-3, for Christ affirms that, initially, they were on the right track, meaning they were truly saved. MacArthur, therefore, seeks a way to explain how Christ’s threats of judgment against them do not entail a loss of salvation, for, according to his doctrine, they as saved people cannot lose their salvation.
B. This is one of those books that does not give me a “feel-good” sentiment about my religion and spirituality. What exactly pleases God, according to MacArthur? MacArthur says “purity” and holds that Christ demands that his church be pure and discipline sin. But how far does that extend? Should Christians be disciplined if, say, they lack a positive attitude, since I am sure that some could string together Bible verses and declare that this is a sin. The Reformed are especially sensitive to the innate sinfulness of people: many have said that humans, even Christians, cannot go even a moment without sinning, for sinfulness is their state. Is it practical or even possible, then, to effect formal church discipline against “impurity,” wherever it may exist in the church? On the Laodicean church, MacArthur interprets Christ to be saying that it would be preferable for that church to be unsaved and spiritually dead (“cold”) than to be where she is: somewhat Christian (“lukewarm”). The reason is that, if she is cold, there is at least the possibility that she can realize that she is totally on the wrong path and can repent; if she is nominally Christian, however, she thinks she is on the right path when she is not. How, then, can Christians know that they are on the right path? According to MacArthur, good deeds of service to the community is not enough, for Sardis was dead, even though she had a reputation for being living. Attending church services is not enough, for all of the instructed in Revelation 2-3, even the bad ones, attended church. Finding assurance and comfort in MacArthur’s scenario may be a challenge, though I am aware that he has written a book that addresses this topic (Saved without a Doubt). My struggle may be not only with MacArthur, but also with Revelation 2-3.
C. Related to (C.), I think an appeal to Lordship Salvation is that is presents the Christian faith as something that has substance. Pop evangelical sermons about the latest movies and “God loves you just as you are” messages can sound good, but after a while listening to them can feel like eating air. Many are drawn to a God who is tough, one with standards who challenges people and gives them a significant mission. But taking that to an extreme can present its own set of problems: beating oneself up for being imperfect, beating up others for being imperfect, or serving God out of guilt or fear rather than love.
D. MacArthur says that the church that he pastors goes extensively through the Gospels to learn and to highlight the character of Christ. The character of Christ, after all, can inspire Christians to worship him and provide content to their worship. I like this insight. One can easily get the impression from a book like this that MacArthur wants churches to preach messages that chew people out: that call for repentance, stress God’s justice, and speak of the reality of hell. MacArthur may very well believe that churches should do this more than they are, but he also wants churches to offer something edifying: the character of Christ.
E. In Revelation 3:10, Christ states to the Philadelphian church: “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth” (KJV). MacArthur ultimately interprets that in reference to the pre-tribulational rapture, as he analyzes different Christian views on this topic. At the same time, MacArthur acknowledges the possibility that there was a first century fulfillment of this verse that affected the historical church of Philadelphia: “It’s entirely possible that there was a wave of persecution or natural disaster that occurred in the area, or some other catastrophe during which the Lord protected and preserved the church” (page 151). That is a helpful insight, especially if one wonders how Revelation 3:10 may pertain to the first century church in Philadelphia, without wanting to say that Revelation inaccurately posited that the eschaton would occur in the first century. But does such an insight undermine the idea that Revelation 3:10 grammatically speaks of a pretribulational rapture, which is what MacArthur argues? It presents God, after all, preserving a group of Christians on earth, even as God permits other Christians to be persecuted.
F. MacArthur offers interesting historical details. The story about the city of Philadelphia’s loyalty to Rome because Rome helped her rebuild after an earthquake is beautiful. MacArthur also says that Luther wrote his ninety-five theses before he became aware that justification was by grace through faith alone. That would make sense, for the ninety-five theses stress repentance and proper spirituality, which Luther believed the sale of indulgences undermined; as far as I can recall, they lack the emphasis on God’s loving grace that is characteristic of so many of Luther’s writings.
Notwithstanding my questions and possible areas of disagreement, I still give this book five stars because it is vintage MacArthur: well-written, informative, and meaty.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.
In Christ’s Call to Reform the Church, pastor John MacArthur goes through Christ’s instruction to the seven churches in Revelation 2-3, while issuing a jeremiad against the impurity, shallowness, and “seeker sensitivity” of contemporary churches. Here are some items:
A. MacArthur attempts to reconcile aspects of Christ’s instruction in Revelation 2-3 with his own belief in eternal security, the doctrine that Christians cannot and will not lose their salvation. When Christ promises to remove the Ephesian church’s candlestick if she fails to repent (Revelation 2:5), therefore, that does not mean she will lose her salvation, but rather that the church will be destroyed in a temporal, historical sense. Indeed, as MacArthur observes, some churches were destroyed in the first century, while others survived for centuries thereafter. This is an impressive attempt to resolve the problem, but does it work? Christ declares in Revelation 2-3 that the overcomers will be the ones who shall rule with Christ and escape the second death, which are aspects of salvation. MacArthur argues that the overcomers are simply those who believe in Christ, for I John 5:4 affirms that believers overcome the world through their faith; Christ in Revelation 2-3, in short, is merely asserting that people are justified by faith. Would Christ need to exhort the seven churches to do what they are already doing as believers, however, namely, believing? Could not overcoming mean following Christ’s exhortations, notwithstanding opposition from the world? As a TULIP-committed Calvinist, MacArthur holds that “Christians” who do not persevere in the faith or produce spiritual fruit are not true believers; MacArthur thinks that this actually is the case with the church of Laodicea, for Christ essentially exhorts her to get saved, to be clothed in white and to get her eyes opened. The implication is that those things were not true of the Laodicean church before, meaning they were unsaved. MacArthur is aware that he cannot say that about the other churches in Revelation 2-3, for Christ affirms that, initially, they were on the right track, meaning they were truly saved. MacArthur, therefore, seeks a way to explain how Christ’s threats of judgment against them do not entail a loss of salvation, for, according to his doctrine, they as saved people cannot lose their salvation.
B. This is one of those books that does not give me a “feel-good” sentiment about my religion and spirituality. What exactly pleases God, according to MacArthur? MacArthur says “purity” and holds that Christ demands that his church be pure and discipline sin. But how far does that extend? Should Christians be disciplined if, say, they lack a positive attitude, since I am sure that some could string together Bible verses and declare that this is a sin. The Reformed are especially sensitive to the innate sinfulness of people: many have said that humans, even Christians, cannot go even a moment without sinning, for sinfulness is their state. Is it practical or even possible, then, to effect formal church discipline against “impurity,” wherever it may exist in the church? On the Laodicean church, MacArthur interprets Christ to be saying that it would be preferable for that church to be unsaved and spiritually dead (“cold”) than to be where she is: somewhat Christian (“lukewarm”). The reason is that, if she is cold, there is at least the possibility that she can realize that she is totally on the wrong path and can repent; if she is nominally Christian, however, she thinks she is on the right path when she is not. How, then, can Christians know that they are on the right path? According to MacArthur, good deeds of service to the community is not enough, for Sardis was dead, even though she had a reputation for being living. Attending church services is not enough, for all of the instructed in Revelation 2-3, even the bad ones, attended church. Finding assurance and comfort in MacArthur’s scenario may be a challenge, though I am aware that he has written a book that addresses this topic (Saved without a Doubt). My struggle may be not only with MacArthur, but also with Revelation 2-3.
C. Related to (C.), I think an appeal to Lordship Salvation is that is presents the Christian faith as something that has substance. Pop evangelical sermons about the latest movies and “God loves you just as you are” messages can sound good, but after a while listening to them can feel like eating air. Many are drawn to a God who is tough, one with standards who challenges people and gives them a significant mission. But taking that to an extreme can present its own set of problems: beating oneself up for being imperfect, beating up others for being imperfect, or serving God out of guilt or fear rather than love.
D. MacArthur says that the church that he pastors goes extensively through the Gospels to learn and to highlight the character of Christ. The character of Christ, after all, can inspire Christians to worship him and provide content to their worship. I like this insight. One can easily get the impression from a book like this that MacArthur wants churches to preach messages that chew people out: that call for repentance, stress God’s justice, and speak of the reality of hell. MacArthur may very well believe that churches should do this more than they are, but he also wants churches to offer something edifying: the character of Christ.
E. In Revelation 3:10, Christ states to the Philadelphian church: “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth” (KJV). MacArthur ultimately interprets that in reference to the pre-tribulational rapture, as he analyzes different Christian views on this topic. At the same time, MacArthur acknowledges the possibility that there was a first century fulfillment of this verse that affected the historical church of Philadelphia: “It’s entirely possible that there was a wave of persecution or natural disaster that occurred in the area, or some other catastrophe during which the Lord protected and preserved the church” (page 151). That is a helpful insight, especially if one wonders how Revelation 3:10 may pertain to the first century church in Philadelphia, without wanting to say that Revelation inaccurately posited that the eschaton would occur in the first century. But does such an insight undermine the idea that Revelation 3:10 grammatically speaks of a pretribulational rapture, which is what MacArthur argues? It presents God, after all, preserving a group of Christians on earth, even as God permits other Christians to be persecuted.
F. MacArthur offers interesting historical details. The story about the city of Philadelphia’s loyalty to Rome because Rome helped her rebuild after an earthquake is beautiful. MacArthur also says that Luther wrote his ninety-five theses before he became aware that justification was by grace through faith alone. That would make sense, for the ninety-five theses stress repentance and proper spirituality, which Luther believed the sale of indulgences undermined; as far as I can recall, they lack the emphasis on God’s loving grace that is characteristic of so many of Luther’s writings.
Notwithstanding my questions and possible areas of disagreement, I still give this book five stars because it is vintage MacArthur: well-written, informative, and meaty.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.
Church Write-Up: Discerning God’s Call
At church last Sunday morning, the pastor preached about Paul’s call to go to Macedonia instead of Bithynia in Acts 16.
Paul was somehow prevented by the Spirit to go to Bithynia. The pastor speculated that Paul may have been praying and seeking God, and the Spirit guided him away from Bithynia. In the case of Macedonia, Paul had a vision to go there. The pastor said that we as humans like to be in charge, and Paul himself may have wanted to be in charge of where to preach the Gospel. But Paul ended up submitting to God.
How can we know God’s will? Many Christians do not have visions. The pastor said that, whether we become a veterinarian or a truck driver, we should glorify God in what we do. But other ways to discern God’s will may be to consult others, which the pastor admitted had limitations. We may want to join what God already is blessing rather than starting something new. Or, if we see a need that is not being met, we can start something ourselves. As examples, the pastor mentioned moms gathering together to pray for the preschool, or people volunteering to play cards with Intel employees who are far away from home.
Another helpful measure is our passions: what do we like doing? But passion needs to be supplemented with skills. Maybe the skills can catch up with the passions.
Paul was somehow prevented by the Spirit to go to Bithynia. The pastor speculated that Paul may have been praying and seeking God, and the Spirit guided him away from Bithynia. In the case of Macedonia, Paul had a vision to go there. The pastor said that we as humans like to be in charge, and Paul himself may have wanted to be in charge of where to preach the Gospel. But Paul ended up submitting to God.
How can we know God’s will? Many Christians do not have visions. The pastor said that, whether we become a veterinarian or a truck driver, we should glorify God in what we do. But other ways to discern God’s will may be to consult others, which the pastor admitted had limitations. We may want to join what God already is blessing rather than starting something new. Or, if we see a need that is not being met, we can start something ourselves. As examples, the pastor mentioned moms gathering together to pray for the preschool, or people volunteering to play cards with Intel employees who are far away from home.
Another helpful measure is our passions: what do we like doing? But passion needs to be supplemented with skills. Maybe the skills can catch up with the passions.
Saturday, May 25, 2019
Double Church Write-Up: God’s Wife; Acts 16
I have been moving this week, so I lacked access to the Internet
until now. Consequently, I did not write my customary Church Write-Ups
for Sunday and Wednesday. That one post that appeared on Monday was
scheduled several weeks in advance. A lot of my book reviews will be
like that over the next several months.
In any case, I am back online now, so here is a double Church Write-Up! The following items largely convey the pastor’s thoughts, with some of my own added.
A. The youth pastor was saying that, even when he is bored in reading the Bible because he has heard the stories numerous times before, the word of God still has its effects on him. That is an interesting, even a comforting, thought: that the word is working its healthy, cleansing effects in me, even when my reading of it is lacking in quality. But is such an idea consistent with the Parable of the Sower (Mark 4:3f.): the word of God only produces fruit for a person with a good heart, while it seems to be nullified in the hearts of those with materialistic or hardened hearts?
B. The Sunday service celebrated the church’s preschools. Incidentally, the pastor said that the LCMS denomination has the second largest church school system, after the Catholics. Speakers shared stories about the schools. The principal of one of them told about a boy with extreme social anxiety. The boy would throw things out of his room when his family had company, hoping to encourage the visitors to leave. As he attended the preschool, however, he came out of his shell and started giving visitors tours of the house. Another speaker shared that many families who have their children in the preschools are not Lutheran themselves but want their kids to receive a Christian education; some of the parents have become Christians as a result of their children’s influence.
C. In the Sunday school class, the pastor talked more about Hosea. His focus was on the marriage imagery in the Book of Hosea: the idea that God and Israel were married to each other. The pastor said that such imagery was prominent in the eighth century, for it is present in Hosea and in Isaiah 61-62. Prior to that, the primary image of Israel’s relationship with God was that of a legal covenant, modeled on ancient Near Eastern covenants between kings and their subordinates. The pastor was assuming a certain chronology of biblical sources, even though he conveyed awareness of alternative perspectives. He assumed that the Pentateuch came first and dated to the time of Moses, that the Song of Solomon was composed by Solomon in the tenth century, and that Isaiah 61-62 was by Isaiah of Jerusalem in the eighth century. Many biblical scholars advance different dates for these sources. Still, the pastor made an intriguing observation: God’s relationship with Israel is likened to a legal covenant in some sources, but as a marriage in others. Both themes carry over into the New Testament, he noted, with Hebrews emphasizing covenant and Revelation and the Gospels depicting a marriage between Christ and his bride. I recall that rabbinic literature likens the Sinaitic covenant with a marriage.
D. Hosea 2:15 states that the Valley of Achor will be a door of hope. The Valley of Achor occurs in Joshua 7. Achan, the Israelite, is stoned to death for taking a Babylonian garment, in violation of the cherem. God in Hosea is reminding Israel of her faithlessness from the beginning, even as God promises to rewrite Israel’s history, changing the negative to a sign of hope. God will also take the name of the Baals from Israel’s mouth, such that Israel will remember them no more; neither will they conflate the LORD with Baal, ascribing to God aspects of Baal (i.e., “Yahweh and his Asherah,” as occurs in Israelite inscriptions). The LORD is married, not to Asherah, but to Israel, and God is Israel’s husband, not merely her lord (Baal). God gives Israel a new beginning.
E. Related to (C.) and (D.), biblical scholarship, as I understand it, largely tends to contrast Hosea’s wilderness traditions with those of the Pentateuch. Hosea 2:14 depicts the wilderness as a place where God will woo and speak tenderly to Israel, as part of her spiritual restoration. The Pentateuch traditions, by contrast, present Israel in the wilderness as rebellious against God and Moses, and God as continually ticked off at her. The pastor said that, even in the Pentateuchal traditions, Israel becomes closer to God in the wilderness, notwithstanding the bad times. In the wilderness, they depended on God day by day for guidance and provision.
F. The pastor speculated that the mountain from which John beheld the new Jerusalem, the bride of Christ, in Revelation 21:9-10 was Mount Hermon, which overlooks Jezreel. In that case, there would be further overlap between Revelation and Hosea: a marriage between God and God’s people, and the prominence of Jezreel as a place of restoration (Hosea 1:11; 2:22).
G. Hosea in Hosea 3 purchases back his wife Gomer for fifteen pieces of silver and a homer-and-a-half of barley. The pastor said that chomer is the Hebrew word for donkey and is used as a unit of measurement to convey the amount of barley that a donkey can carry; actually, the word for donkey is “chamor,” but I do not know if “chamor” is related to “chomer.” In the ancient Near East, grooms paid a price to the bride’s father. Similarly, Christ bought Christians with his blood.
H. The Wednesday Bible study focused on Acts 16:1-15. The Spirit, in some manner, prevents Paul from going to Bithynia in Asia Minor, and Paul was called instead to go to Macedonia, a rugged territory; this, according to the pastor, is the first recorded incident of the Gospel going to Europe. The Gospel still arrived at Bithynia, however, as I Peter 1:1 indicates. Perhaps Christians in Acts 2, who were from different countries, carried the Gospel there. The pastor likened that to a situation in the LCMS: the pastor thought that two candidates would be excellent pastors for nearby LCMS churches, but these pastors decided instead to remain with their own churches. He also compared it to how his message is sometimes different in the second service from in the first, because someone in the second service needs to hear a particular message. God knows who needs what, when, and from whom.
I. Timothy had a Greek father and a Jewish mother. He was uncircumcised, perhaps for the sake of peace in the family, but Paul had him circumcised because they were visiting Jewish-Christians. The church council in Acts 15 decided that people did not have to become Jews before becoming Christians, and that decision was spread throughout the churches. The pastor said this goes against the scholarly view that the church lacked doctrinal unity in the first century, for here Paul is, spreading a decision to the churches he visits. At the same time, the pastor said that the Jewish-Christians in Acts 16 were not entirely comfortable with the Acts 15 decision, so Paul at the very least was meeting them where they were. I do not think that, in Acts at least, Paul in Acts 16 is contradicting the Acts 15 decision. Acts 15 affirmed that Gentiles did not have to become Jews to become Christians, but Acts 21:20ff. seems to deny that this entailed that Jews were expected to abandon their own customs when they became Christians. Jewish Christians may have seen Timothy as Jewish, or as somewhat Jewish, and thus they thought that he should be circumcised.
J. Acts 15:20 forbids Gentile Christians from things strangled and from blood, which probably means eating blood. The pastor said this may relate to the importance of consuming Jesus’s blood at the Eucharist. I am unsure what he thought the precise connection is: maybe that Christians are not to eat animal blood, and that reminds them that Christ shed his own blood for them.
K. Lydia in Acts 16 was a seller of purple, a lucrative business because purple was worn by royalty. She led a prayer meeting by the river because the group was not a synagogue, which required ten men to be official; this group was predominantly women. Lydia became a Christian as she heard the word of God, under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
In any case, I am back online now, so here is a double Church Write-Up! The following items largely convey the pastor’s thoughts, with some of my own added.
A. The youth pastor was saying that, even when he is bored in reading the Bible because he has heard the stories numerous times before, the word of God still has its effects on him. That is an interesting, even a comforting, thought: that the word is working its healthy, cleansing effects in me, even when my reading of it is lacking in quality. But is such an idea consistent with the Parable of the Sower (Mark 4:3f.): the word of God only produces fruit for a person with a good heart, while it seems to be nullified in the hearts of those with materialistic or hardened hearts?
B. The Sunday service celebrated the church’s preschools. Incidentally, the pastor said that the LCMS denomination has the second largest church school system, after the Catholics. Speakers shared stories about the schools. The principal of one of them told about a boy with extreme social anxiety. The boy would throw things out of his room when his family had company, hoping to encourage the visitors to leave. As he attended the preschool, however, he came out of his shell and started giving visitors tours of the house. Another speaker shared that many families who have their children in the preschools are not Lutheran themselves but want their kids to receive a Christian education; some of the parents have become Christians as a result of their children’s influence.
C. In the Sunday school class, the pastor talked more about Hosea. His focus was on the marriage imagery in the Book of Hosea: the idea that God and Israel were married to each other. The pastor said that such imagery was prominent in the eighth century, for it is present in Hosea and in Isaiah 61-62. Prior to that, the primary image of Israel’s relationship with God was that of a legal covenant, modeled on ancient Near Eastern covenants between kings and their subordinates. The pastor was assuming a certain chronology of biblical sources, even though he conveyed awareness of alternative perspectives. He assumed that the Pentateuch came first and dated to the time of Moses, that the Song of Solomon was composed by Solomon in the tenth century, and that Isaiah 61-62 was by Isaiah of Jerusalem in the eighth century. Many biblical scholars advance different dates for these sources. Still, the pastor made an intriguing observation: God’s relationship with Israel is likened to a legal covenant in some sources, but as a marriage in others. Both themes carry over into the New Testament, he noted, with Hebrews emphasizing covenant and Revelation and the Gospels depicting a marriage between Christ and his bride. I recall that rabbinic literature likens the Sinaitic covenant with a marriage.
D. Hosea 2:15 states that the Valley of Achor will be a door of hope. The Valley of Achor occurs in Joshua 7. Achan, the Israelite, is stoned to death for taking a Babylonian garment, in violation of the cherem. God in Hosea is reminding Israel of her faithlessness from the beginning, even as God promises to rewrite Israel’s history, changing the negative to a sign of hope. God will also take the name of the Baals from Israel’s mouth, such that Israel will remember them no more; neither will they conflate the LORD with Baal, ascribing to God aspects of Baal (i.e., “Yahweh and his Asherah,” as occurs in Israelite inscriptions). The LORD is married, not to Asherah, but to Israel, and God is Israel’s husband, not merely her lord (Baal). God gives Israel a new beginning.
E. Related to (C.) and (D.), biblical scholarship, as I understand it, largely tends to contrast Hosea’s wilderness traditions with those of the Pentateuch. Hosea 2:14 depicts the wilderness as a place where God will woo and speak tenderly to Israel, as part of her spiritual restoration. The Pentateuch traditions, by contrast, present Israel in the wilderness as rebellious against God and Moses, and God as continually ticked off at her. The pastor said that, even in the Pentateuchal traditions, Israel becomes closer to God in the wilderness, notwithstanding the bad times. In the wilderness, they depended on God day by day for guidance and provision.
F. The pastor speculated that the mountain from which John beheld the new Jerusalem, the bride of Christ, in Revelation 21:9-10 was Mount Hermon, which overlooks Jezreel. In that case, there would be further overlap between Revelation and Hosea: a marriage between God and God’s people, and the prominence of Jezreel as a place of restoration (Hosea 1:11; 2:22).
G. Hosea in Hosea 3 purchases back his wife Gomer for fifteen pieces of silver and a homer-and-a-half of barley. The pastor said that chomer is the Hebrew word for donkey and is used as a unit of measurement to convey the amount of barley that a donkey can carry; actually, the word for donkey is “chamor,” but I do not know if “chamor” is related to “chomer.” In the ancient Near East, grooms paid a price to the bride’s father. Similarly, Christ bought Christians with his blood.
H. The Wednesday Bible study focused on Acts 16:1-15. The Spirit, in some manner, prevents Paul from going to Bithynia in Asia Minor, and Paul was called instead to go to Macedonia, a rugged territory; this, according to the pastor, is the first recorded incident of the Gospel going to Europe. The Gospel still arrived at Bithynia, however, as I Peter 1:1 indicates. Perhaps Christians in Acts 2, who were from different countries, carried the Gospel there. The pastor likened that to a situation in the LCMS: the pastor thought that two candidates would be excellent pastors for nearby LCMS churches, but these pastors decided instead to remain with their own churches. He also compared it to how his message is sometimes different in the second service from in the first, because someone in the second service needs to hear a particular message. God knows who needs what, when, and from whom.
I. Timothy had a Greek father and a Jewish mother. He was uncircumcised, perhaps for the sake of peace in the family, but Paul had him circumcised because they were visiting Jewish-Christians. The church council in Acts 15 decided that people did not have to become Jews before becoming Christians, and that decision was spread throughout the churches. The pastor said this goes against the scholarly view that the church lacked doctrinal unity in the first century, for here Paul is, spreading a decision to the churches he visits. At the same time, the pastor said that the Jewish-Christians in Acts 16 were not entirely comfortable with the Acts 15 decision, so Paul at the very least was meeting them where they were. I do not think that, in Acts at least, Paul in Acts 16 is contradicting the Acts 15 decision. Acts 15 affirmed that Gentiles did not have to become Jews to become Christians, but Acts 21:20ff. seems to deny that this entailed that Jews were expected to abandon their own customs when they became Christians. Jewish Christians may have seen Timothy as Jewish, or as somewhat Jewish, and thus they thought that he should be circumcised.
J. Acts 15:20 forbids Gentile Christians from things strangled and from blood, which probably means eating blood. The pastor said this may relate to the importance of consuming Jesus’s blood at the Eucharist. I am unsure what he thought the precise connection is: maybe that Christians are not to eat animal blood, and that reminds them that Christ shed his own blood for them.
K. Lydia in Acts 16 was a seller of purple, a lucrative business because purple was worn by royalty. She led a prayer meeting by the river because the group was not a synagogue, which required ten men to be official; this group was predominantly women. Lydia became a Christian as she heard the word of God, under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
Monday, May 20, 2019
Book Write-Up: The Creature from Jekyll Island, by G. Edward Griffin
G. Edward Griffin. The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. 5th edition. American Media, 2010. See here to purchase the book.
G. Edward Griffin enrolled in the College of Financial Planning in Denver and received a Certified Public Planner (CFP) designation in 1989. He is affiliated with the conservative John Birch Society and has served as the Contributing Editor of its New American magazine. This book criticizes the Federal Reserve System.
Here are some items:
A. As Griffin notes, bankers make money from interest, and this occurs when they lend money out. Interest accumulates on the debt and is paid to the bankers. But there are problems with banks loaning out a lot of money. For one, the money that they are lending out is other people’s savings. If there is ever a run on the bank and depositors are demanding their money right then and there, the bank will not be able to give it to them. As George Bailey said in It’s a Wonderful Life, the money is not stored in a safe but has been loaned out to other people. Second, banks take a risk when they loan out money, namely, that it will not be paid back. According to Griffin, one motive behind the creation of the Federal Reserve was to enable banks to loan out money with more impunity, thereby allowing bankers to make more money from interest. More reckless banks can be bailed out by the Federal Reserve, which receives money from all of the member banks. The government can also bail the reckless banks out. Or, if the debtors fail to pay off their debts, the Federal Reserve can print out more money and lend that out to the debtors.
B. The problem that occurs when the Federal Reserve prints more money or releases more money into the system is inflation: the already existing dollars become debased. Griffin acknowledges that, as he writes, the United States is not experiencing hyperinflation. He believes that is due to foreigners taking American dollars out of the system when Americans buy their products, and foreigners buying up American debt. If this were to cease, hyperinflation would occur.
C. Historically, Griffin argues, bankers have profited from war because they get to loan out money to both sides in the conflict. Ultimately, Griffin contends, their desire is for a one-world government. Griffin refers to documents that appear to promote a one-world government. Griffin prominently features an enigmatic 1966 document entitled the “Report from Iron Mountain.” This document rhapsodizes about how war has historically consolidated nations, and the author is looking for a different way to control people. As Griffin acknowledges, nobody knows who wrote this or if the author was being serious. Griffin believes it comes from within the government establishment. Griffin also refers to environmentalist documents that lament the existence of humanity and promote a worldwide redistribution of wealth. Griffin doubts that the rich and powerful promoters of environmentalism seriously care about the environment. They invest in industries that pollute the environment; in the case of Gorbachev, he presided over the Soviet Union’s horrible environmental policy. For Griffin, they are merely using the environment as an excuse for moving towards a one-world government: if people fear environmental disaster, they will support a global government to redress the problem.
D. Griffin responds to standard historical scenarios. Against the charge that the Federal Reserve was created to add stability and to prevent the sorts of panics that preceded its creation, Griffin contends that many banks prior to the Federal Reserve were behaving irresponsibly by printing out money and further detaching its value from metals. They were moving in the opposite direction from the sound money system that Griffin supports, in short. Moreover, financial disasters have continued to exist even after the creation of the Federal Reserve. Against the charge that prominent Wall Streeters feared and opposed the creation of the Federal Reserve, Griffin contends that this was all for show, for prominent financiers helped to create the Federal Reserve. According to Griffin, Teddy Roosevelt and J.P. Morgan shared more common ground than people think! Griffin challenges conventional explanations for why financiers financed the Bolshevik Revolution—-e.g., to help one country over another in World War I—-showing that the financiers were inconsistent in that case. Griffin seems to think that financiers supported the Bolsheviks to create a formidable international enemy, which would result in wars and higher defense budgets; bankers would provide the money for that. (The Communists, meanwhile, accept capitalist money for the sake of their own survival, but they hope to hang the capitalists with the rope that the capitalists provide; Griffin provides quotes to that effect.) Against the charge that easy credit was necessary to finance the early economic development and expansion of the U.S., Griffin speculates that this could have occurred through economically responsible means, had they been tried. Griffin also offers some Civil War revisionism. Some of that resembled contemporary defenses of the Confederacy: that, through tariffs, the North was trying to reduce the South to economic servitude and dependence on the North, that the South invested a lot of capital in slavery, and that the South did not really want slavery, anyway, since people who are paid to work are more motivated. Griffin is far from being pro-Confederacy, however, for he states that bankers were also financing the Confederate cause: some of them supported the creation of a southern empire that would unite with Latin American nations. Napolean also gets a cameo as a rebel against the financial establishment, albeit for self-serving reasons.
E. Griffin also responds to what is considered to be conventional knowledge. For example, the conventional view is that the IMF and World Bank pressure countries to embrace free market capitalism and austerity in government spending. Griffin observes, however, that they have lent to communist countries, and he notes that these lenders give to governments; such a policy contributes to statism, not a free market.
F. Griffin is critical of various proposals to redress the problems that he discusses. One proposal is to eliminate the Federal Reserve and to have the federal government itself print the money. There are also the proposals of Milton Friedman and supply-side economists, which try to limit the money supply but still presume that the government should print out money. The Balanced Budget Amendment will not work because the Congress can circumvent it in case of an “emergency,” whatever it defines that to be. What Griffin seems to advocate is a privatized money system, as people trade in the money that they choose. He thinks people should trade in metals, however, as that provides more stability. Griffin also offers a solution as to how banks can store up money while also lending some out for business development. Griffin is not overly optimistic that his plans will be effected, for the establishment fiercely guards its power, but he thinks that reform can come, sometime down the road. People can throw out the big spenders from Congress, and they can store up metal coins in case of an emergency.
G. There were parts of this book that were difficult for me to understand, since I can improve my knowledge of economics. One point that Griffin reiterates is that debt backs up today’s money and, if that debt were repaid, the money supply would vanish; therefore, bankers do not really want the debt to be repaid. I did not entirely follow that.
H. There are some indications in Griffin’s book that things are more complex than his overall scenario indicates. He acknowledges that the Federal Reserve wants to limit inflation, since bankers do well when the economy does well. He states that a significant amount of the federal debt is owed, not to the Federal Reserve, but to Americans who have bought bonds; to default on that would hurt their savings. That differs, somewhat, from his scenario in which the Fed prints out a bunch of money for the government and would rather that money not be paid back.
I. I have been watching Robert Shiller’s Yale class on financial markets, the 2011 one. Shiller states that, prior to the FDIC, there really was no insurance of banks. Griffin argues, however, that people will naturally gravitate towards banks that are insured, without the government stepping in. Griffin is highly optimistic about the ability of laissez-faire capitalism to resolve problems.
J. This is the fifth edition. It has new sections on the 2008 financial crisis. Much of the book focuses on the 1980’s, however, plus there is one part of the book in which Saddam Hussein is presumed to be in power in Iraq, and Griffin doubts that will end anytime soon! Some may have a problem with this format, as it is chronologically disjointed. I had no problem with it, but I cite it as something to remember in reading this book.
In conclusion, this book is interesting and well-documented. Griffin does well to argue that there are people who act for their self-interest and influence policy to do so; he did not successfully explain, however, how a one-world government would serve these financial interests. The book has a lot of the typical John Bircher tropes but goes deeper and provides more nuance. Each chapter ends with a lucid summary, which is helpful.
I checked out this book from the library. My review is honest.
G. Edward Griffin enrolled in the College of Financial Planning in Denver and received a Certified Public Planner (CFP) designation in 1989. He is affiliated with the conservative John Birch Society and has served as the Contributing Editor of its New American magazine. This book criticizes the Federal Reserve System.
Here are some items:
A. As Griffin notes, bankers make money from interest, and this occurs when they lend money out. Interest accumulates on the debt and is paid to the bankers. But there are problems with banks loaning out a lot of money. For one, the money that they are lending out is other people’s savings. If there is ever a run on the bank and depositors are demanding their money right then and there, the bank will not be able to give it to them. As George Bailey said in It’s a Wonderful Life, the money is not stored in a safe but has been loaned out to other people. Second, banks take a risk when they loan out money, namely, that it will not be paid back. According to Griffin, one motive behind the creation of the Federal Reserve was to enable banks to loan out money with more impunity, thereby allowing bankers to make more money from interest. More reckless banks can be bailed out by the Federal Reserve, which receives money from all of the member banks. The government can also bail the reckless banks out. Or, if the debtors fail to pay off their debts, the Federal Reserve can print out more money and lend that out to the debtors.
B. The problem that occurs when the Federal Reserve prints more money or releases more money into the system is inflation: the already existing dollars become debased. Griffin acknowledges that, as he writes, the United States is not experiencing hyperinflation. He believes that is due to foreigners taking American dollars out of the system when Americans buy their products, and foreigners buying up American debt. If this were to cease, hyperinflation would occur.
C. Historically, Griffin argues, bankers have profited from war because they get to loan out money to both sides in the conflict. Ultimately, Griffin contends, their desire is for a one-world government. Griffin refers to documents that appear to promote a one-world government. Griffin prominently features an enigmatic 1966 document entitled the “Report from Iron Mountain.” This document rhapsodizes about how war has historically consolidated nations, and the author is looking for a different way to control people. As Griffin acknowledges, nobody knows who wrote this or if the author was being serious. Griffin believes it comes from within the government establishment. Griffin also refers to environmentalist documents that lament the existence of humanity and promote a worldwide redistribution of wealth. Griffin doubts that the rich and powerful promoters of environmentalism seriously care about the environment. They invest in industries that pollute the environment; in the case of Gorbachev, he presided over the Soviet Union’s horrible environmental policy. For Griffin, they are merely using the environment as an excuse for moving towards a one-world government: if people fear environmental disaster, they will support a global government to redress the problem.
D. Griffin responds to standard historical scenarios. Against the charge that the Federal Reserve was created to add stability and to prevent the sorts of panics that preceded its creation, Griffin contends that many banks prior to the Federal Reserve were behaving irresponsibly by printing out money and further detaching its value from metals. They were moving in the opposite direction from the sound money system that Griffin supports, in short. Moreover, financial disasters have continued to exist even after the creation of the Federal Reserve. Against the charge that prominent Wall Streeters feared and opposed the creation of the Federal Reserve, Griffin contends that this was all for show, for prominent financiers helped to create the Federal Reserve. According to Griffin, Teddy Roosevelt and J.P. Morgan shared more common ground than people think! Griffin challenges conventional explanations for why financiers financed the Bolshevik Revolution—-e.g., to help one country over another in World War I—-showing that the financiers were inconsistent in that case. Griffin seems to think that financiers supported the Bolsheviks to create a formidable international enemy, which would result in wars and higher defense budgets; bankers would provide the money for that. (The Communists, meanwhile, accept capitalist money for the sake of their own survival, but they hope to hang the capitalists with the rope that the capitalists provide; Griffin provides quotes to that effect.) Against the charge that easy credit was necessary to finance the early economic development and expansion of the U.S., Griffin speculates that this could have occurred through economically responsible means, had they been tried. Griffin also offers some Civil War revisionism. Some of that resembled contemporary defenses of the Confederacy: that, through tariffs, the North was trying to reduce the South to economic servitude and dependence on the North, that the South invested a lot of capital in slavery, and that the South did not really want slavery, anyway, since people who are paid to work are more motivated. Griffin is far from being pro-Confederacy, however, for he states that bankers were also financing the Confederate cause: some of them supported the creation of a southern empire that would unite with Latin American nations. Napolean also gets a cameo as a rebel against the financial establishment, albeit for self-serving reasons.
E. Griffin also responds to what is considered to be conventional knowledge. For example, the conventional view is that the IMF and World Bank pressure countries to embrace free market capitalism and austerity in government spending. Griffin observes, however, that they have lent to communist countries, and he notes that these lenders give to governments; such a policy contributes to statism, not a free market.
F. Griffin is critical of various proposals to redress the problems that he discusses. One proposal is to eliminate the Federal Reserve and to have the federal government itself print the money. There are also the proposals of Milton Friedman and supply-side economists, which try to limit the money supply but still presume that the government should print out money. The Balanced Budget Amendment will not work because the Congress can circumvent it in case of an “emergency,” whatever it defines that to be. What Griffin seems to advocate is a privatized money system, as people trade in the money that they choose. He thinks people should trade in metals, however, as that provides more stability. Griffin also offers a solution as to how banks can store up money while also lending some out for business development. Griffin is not overly optimistic that his plans will be effected, for the establishment fiercely guards its power, but he thinks that reform can come, sometime down the road. People can throw out the big spenders from Congress, and they can store up metal coins in case of an emergency.
G. There were parts of this book that were difficult for me to understand, since I can improve my knowledge of economics. One point that Griffin reiterates is that debt backs up today’s money and, if that debt were repaid, the money supply would vanish; therefore, bankers do not really want the debt to be repaid. I did not entirely follow that.
H. There are some indications in Griffin’s book that things are more complex than his overall scenario indicates. He acknowledges that the Federal Reserve wants to limit inflation, since bankers do well when the economy does well. He states that a significant amount of the federal debt is owed, not to the Federal Reserve, but to Americans who have bought bonds; to default on that would hurt their savings. That differs, somewhat, from his scenario in which the Fed prints out a bunch of money for the government and would rather that money not be paid back.
I. I have been watching Robert Shiller’s Yale class on financial markets, the 2011 one. Shiller states that, prior to the FDIC, there really was no insurance of banks. Griffin argues, however, that people will naturally gravitate towards banks that are insured, without the government stepping in. Griffin is highly optimistic about the ability of laissez-faire capitalism to resolve problems.
J. This is the fifth edition. It has new sections on the 2008 financial crisis. Much of the book focuses on the 1980’s, however, plus there is one part of the book in which Saddam Hussein is presumed to be in power in Iraq, and Griffin doubts that will end anytime soon! Some may have a problem with this format, as it is chronologically disjointed. I had no problem with it, but I cite it as something to remember in reading this book.
In conclusion, this book is interesting and well-documented. Griffin does well to argue that there are people who act for their self-interest and influence policy to do so; he did not successfully explain, however, how a one-world government would serve these financial interests. The book has a lot of the typical John Bircher tropes but goes deeper and provides more nuance. Each chapter ends with a lucid summary, which is helpful.
I checked out this book from the library. My review is honest.
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Church Write-Up: I Corinthians 15:1-11
At Bible study this week, the text was I Corinthians 15:1-11. Here are some items. This is what the pastor said, but I will make clear where I am adding my own thoughts.
A. Paul cites what appears to have been an early Christian creed, a declaration of what Christians believe that is affirmed in the churches. The creed states that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he rose again on the third day, and that he then appeared to people. Paul cited this creed for at least three reasons. First, Paul was responding to the incorporation of Hellenistic ideas into Christianity. These ideas embraced the spiritual over the material, so Paul stressed that Christ was crucified and resurrected bodily, then appeared physically to people. Second, the Corinthian Christians were engaging in spiritual one-upsmanship, with some of them acting as if they were superior on account of their visions, ecstatic experiences, and deeper level of knowledge. Some may even have held that these spiritual experiences marked them off as saved. Paul, however, draws their attention to the Gospel: people are forgiven on account of Christ’s death and resurrection. Third, Paul is defending his own apostleship. People questioned that Paul was a true apostle because he had not followed the earthly Jesus. Paul responds, however, that the same Jesus who appeared to the apostles also appeared to him.
B. This item reflects my meandering thoughts. On that first reason in (A.)—-Paul responding to Hellenistic ideas—-why, if Paul were refuting anti-materialism, did he stress that Jesus rose with a spiritual body? Even if the spiritual body is a physical body, why would Paul muddy the waters by calling Jesus’s resurrection body a spiritual body? What is more, why would Paul deny that flesh and blood shall enter the kingdom of God (I Corinthians 15:50)? And, in contrast with the Gospel accounts that scholars cite as a refutation of Docetism (i.e., the belief that Jesus lacked a material body), Paul in I Corinthians 15 does not emphasize Jesus’s physicality at all. Paul does not present Jesus eating fish (Luke 24:42), showing people his nail-scarred hands (John 20:27), or denying that he is a spirit while pointing to his flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). One could argue, of course, that even the Gospel accounts muddy the waters, a bit. Christian apologists have pointed out that, if the Gospel authors were inventing those resurrection stories to combat Docetism, they had an odd way of going about it. Why, if their goal was to present the risen Jesus as physical and human, would they depict him vanishing into thin air (Luke 24:31), or suddenly appearing in his disciples’ midst in a locked room (John 20:26). Regular humans do not do that! If the Gospel accounts and I Corinthians 15 have Docetism in mind, they are not going to the opposite extreme from Docetism by saying that the risen Jesus was physical in the ordinary sense. They are responding to Docetism, not by going to the opposite extreme, but by citing the truth, which transcends both extremes. Was the risen Jesus physical or spiritual? Paul’s answer, I think, is “yes!”
C. I asked the pastor why Paul says that the risen Jesus appeared to Cephas, then the Twelve, etc., whereas the Gospels depict the risen Jesus appearing first to the women. The pastor replied that he does not think that Paul was being strictly historical but started with Peter on account of the authority and respect that Peter had in the early church. Paul was establishing his own apostolic credentials by linking them with Peter. Similarly, Paul in Galatians 1 stresses his association with Peter after his conversion, whereas Acts 9 depicts Ananias as the first Christian whom Paul encountered after Christ appeared to him.
D. Paul in I Corinthians 15:8 likens himself to one who was stillborn. Saul of Tarsus was going about his merry way, trying to earn a gold star by arresting those heretics (i.e., Christians), when Christ ripped him away from that and made him an apostle.
E. Paul in I Corinthians 15:2 states that the Corinthian Christians are being saved. Why the present tense? The pastor said that Lutherans believe in two levels of salvation. There is an objective level: the person becomes legally justified before God right at the initial moment of faith. Then there is the subjective level, or sanctification: “this salvation works itself out in faith and life practice, changing our relationships and our lifestyles” (pastor’s handout). Sanctification starts at the initial moment of faith, but this aspect of salvation is progressive: it continues past the initial moment of faith. Paul in his writings treats Christians as being already saved, forgiven, and justified, and as belonging to God as God’s children. There is a completed aspect to salvation. Yet Paul also regards salvation as something that is still going on: Christians are still in the process of being saved.
F. The pastor said that one indication of sanctification is when something stands out to us in a Bible passage that did not stand out to us before. He did not say that people who do not experience this are unsaved, but rather that noticing something new in a Bible passage may indicate that the Spirit is growing your believing. Also, Christians may find themselves getting to the point where they do not do the things that they used to do, because they find that those things are unhelpful to their faith.
A. Paul cites what appears to have been an early Christian creed, a declaration of what Christians believe that is affirmed in the churches. The creed states that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he rose again on the third day, and that he then appeared to people. Paul cited this creed for at least three reasons. First, Paul was responding to the incorporation of Hellenistic ideas into Christianity. These ideas embraced the spiritual over the material, so Paul stressed that Christ was crucified and resurrected bodily, then appeared physically to people. Second, the Corinthian Christians were engaging in spiritual one-upsmanship, with some of them acting as if they were superior on account of their visions, ecstatic experiences, and deeper level of knowledge. Some may even have held that these spiritual experiences marked them off as saved. Paul, however, draws their attention to the Gospel: people are forgiven on account of Christ’s death and resurrection. Third, Paul is defending his own apostleship. People questioned that Paul was a true apostle because he had not followed the earthly Jesus. Paul responds, however, that the same Jesus who appeared to the apostles also appeared to him.
B. This item reflects my meandering thoughts. On that first reason in (A.)—-Paul responding to Hellenistic ideas—-why, if Paul were refuting anti-materialism, did he stress that Jesus rose with a spiritual body? Even if the spiritual body is a physical body, why would Paul muddy the waters by calling Jesus’s resurrection body a spiritual body? What is more, why would Paul deny that flesh and blood shall enter the kingdom of God (I Corinthians 15:50)? And, in contrast with the Gospel accounts that scholars cite as a refutation of Docetism (i.e., the belief that Jesus lacked a material body), Paul in I Corinthians 15 does not emphasize Jesus’s physicality at all. Paul does not present Jesus eating fish (Luke 24:42), showing people his nail-scarred hands (John 20:27), or denying that he is a spirit while pointing to his flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). One could argue, of course, that even the Gospel accounts muddy the waters, a bit. Christian apologists have pointed out that, if the Gospel authors were inventing those resurrection stories to combat Docetism, they had an odd way of going about it. Why, if their goal was to present the risen Jesus as physical and human, would they depict him vanishing into thin air (Luke 24:31), or suddenly appearing in his disciples’ midst in a locked room (John 20:26). Regular humans do not do that! If the Gospel accounts and I Corinthians 15 have Docetism in mind, they are not going to the opposite extreme from Docetism by saying that the risen Jesus was physical in the ordinary sense. They are responding to Docetism, not by going to the opposite extreme, but by citing the truth, which transcends both extremes. Was the risen Jesus physical or spiritual? Paul’s answer, I think, is “yes!”
C. I asked the pastor why Paul says that the risen Jesus appeared to Cephas, then the Twelve, etc., whereas the Gospels depict the risen Jesus appearing first to the women. The pastor replied that he does not think that Paul was being strictly historical but started with Peter on account of the authority and respect that Peter had in the early church. Paul was establishing his own apostolic credentials by linking them with Peter. Similarly, Paul in Galatians 1 stresses his association with Peter after his conversion, whereas Acts 9 depicts Ananias as the first Christian whom Paul encountered after Christ appeared to him.
D. Paul in I Corinthians 15:8 likens himself to one who was stillborn. Saul of Tarsus was going about his merry way, trying to earn a gold star by arresting those heretics (i.e., Christians), when Christ ripped him away from that and made him an apostle.
E. Paul in I Corinthians 15:2 states that the Corinthian Christians are being saved. Why the present tense? The pastor said that Lutherans believe in two levels of salvation. There is an objective level: the person becomes legally justified before God right at the initial moment of faith. Then there is the subjective level, or sanctification: “this salvation works itself out in faith and life practice, changing our relationships and our lifestyles” (pastor’s handout). Sanctification starts at the initial moment of faith, but this aspect of salvation is progressive: it continues past the initial moment of faith. Paul in his writings treats Christians as being already saved, forgiven, and justified, and as belonging to God as God’s children. There is a completed aspect to salvation. Yet Paul also regards salvation as something that is still going on: Christians are still in the process of being saved.
F. The pastor said that one indication of sanctification is when something stands out to us in a Bible passage that did not stand out to us before. He did not say that people who do not experience this are unsaved, but rather that noticing something new in a Bible passage may indicate that the Spirit is growing your believing. Also, Christians may find themselves getting to the point where they do not do the things that they used to do, because they find that those things are unhelpful to their faith.
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Church Write-Up: Psalm 23; Hosea 10:8 and Luke 23:30
Here are items from last Sunday’s church activities:
A. It was Good Shepherd’s Sunday, and the pastor was preaching about Psalm 23. One point that he made was that the valley of the shadow of death was extremely deep darkness. In the midst of the deepest darkness, God is with the Psalmist and comforts him. Another point that the pastor made was that, when v. 6 says that goodness and mercy shall follow the Psalmist, the Hebrew word translated “follow” (rdph) actually means to chase, or to pursue. God’s love not only follows us but chases us, as is evident in Jesus’s death on the cross. Later that day, I came home and read from C.S. Lewis’s Miracles, and Lewis was arguing that many like pantheism over traditional theism because the impersonal pantheistic “God” leaves people alone rather than pursuing them.
B. The Sunday school class was about Hosea 10:8 and its interpretation in the New Testament. The pastor first interpreted Hosea 10:1-8. One observation that he made was that Hosea 10:1 affirms that the Northern Israelites prospered but bore fruit for themselves. Sin, as Luther said, is turning inward. The Northern Israelites were bearing fruit solely for themselves but not for God. The pastor also observed that Hosea 10:5 refers to the Northern Israelite sanctuary at Bethel, the site of one of Jeroboam’s calves, as “Beth-Aven,” which means “house of vanity” or “house of nothingness.” The point is that God is not present at that worship site: nobody is home, so worship there is futile. Holladay actually says that “aven” can mean “wickedness,” not just vanity, but I like the concept that idolatry is a flat-out waste of time. Third, the pastor commented on Hosea 10:7, which, in the KJV, likens the king of Samaria to the foam on the water. The pastor contrasted that to God’s promise that Abraham’s seed would be like the sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; 32:12). Sand is permanent, whereas foam vanishes away. Other translations actually render that verse to say that the king of Samaria will be like a stick that God throws on the water. They translate as “stick” what the KJV renders as “foam.” Holladay goes with “twig broken off,” but the only verse that he cites for this Hebrew word is Hosea 10:7.
C. A student astutely noted that there were over a hundred years between the Assyrian destruction of Northern Israel and the fall of Jerusalem. Would not one expect the Southern Judahites to learn from the example of the Northerners and to repent rather than continuing in their refusal to worship God alone? The pastor replied that, indeed, one might expect the ruins of Samaria to serve as a lesson to the Judahites. Perhaps, deep down, that did remind them that there is a God, and they are not him. But the pastor said that the Judahites probably dismissed the Northerners and had a sense of superiority over them, seeing the Northerners as the wayward younger brother who didn’t even have the right sanctuary.
D. Jesus quotes Hosea 10:8 in Luke 23:30. Women are weeping for Jesus on the Via Dolorosa, and Jesus tells them to weep, not for him, but for themselves and their children, for there will come a time when they will prefer to have the mountains fall upon them than to experience God’s wrath. That part about the mountains is from Hosea 10:8. The pastor said that Jesus was likening Israel of his day to the Northern Israelites, the wicked younger brother of the Old Testament. Indeed, as far as the Gospels are concerned, there are parallels between the Jewish religious establishment of the first century and what Hosea says about the Northern Israelites. The Northern Israelites bore fruit for themselves but not for God. Similarly, there were Pharisees who loved money (Luke 16:14), and Jesus affirmed that Israel of his day was not bearing fruit for God (Luke 16:3-9). The Northern Israelites worshiped at a sanctuary of vanity, where nobody was home. Similarly, Jesus told the Pharisees that they worshiped God in vain through their human-devised commandments (Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7), and he lamented that Jerusalem failed to recognize him as the visitation of God (Luke 19:44). The pastor also said that the women weeping for Jesus, whom Jesus rebuked, were not Jesus’s followers but rather were professional mourners, of the sort that appear in the story of Jairus’s daughter in Mark 5:38.
A. It was Good Shepherd’s Sunday, and the pastor was preaching about Psalm 23. One point that he made was that the valley of the shadow of death was extremely deep darkness. In the midst of the deepest darkness, God is with the Psalmist and comforts him. Another point that the pastor made was that, when v. 6 says that goodness and mercy shall follow the Psalmist, the Hebrew word translated “follow” (rdph) actually means to chase, or to pursue. God’s love not only follows us but chases us, as is evident in Jesus’s death on the cross. Later that day, I came home and read from C.S. Lewis’s Miracles, and Lewis was arguing that many like pantheism over traditional theism because the impersonal pantheistic “God” leaves people alone rather than pursuing them.
B. The Sunday school class was about Hosea 10:8 and its interpretation in the New Testament. The pastor first interpreted Hosea 10:1-8. One observation that he made was that Hosea 10:1 affirms that the Northern Israelites prospered but bore fruit for themselves. Sin, as Luther said, is turning inward. The Northern Israelites were bearing fruit solely for themselves but not for God. The pastor also observed that Hosea 10:5 refers to the Northern Israelite sanctuary at Bethel, the site of one of Jeroboam’s calves, as “Beth-Aven,” which means “house of vanity” or “house of nothingness.” The point is that God is not present at that worship site: nobody is home, so worship there is futile. Holladay actually says that “aven” can mean “wickedness,” not just vanity, but I like the concept that idolatry is a flat-out waste of time. Third, the pastor commented on Hosea 10:7, which, in the KJV, likens the king of Samaria to the foam on the water. The pastor contrasted that to God’s promise that Abraham’s seed would be like the sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; 32:12). Sand is permanent, whereas foam vanishes away. Other translations actually render that verse to say that the king of Samaria will be like a stick that God throws on the water. They translate as “stick” what the KJV renders as “foam.” Holladay goes with “twig broken off,” but the only verse that he cites for this Hebrew word is Hosea 10:7.
C. A student astutely noted that there were over a hundred years between the Assyrian destruction of Northern Israel and the fall of Jerusalem. Would not one expect the Southern Judahites to learn from the example of the Northerners and to repent rather than continuing in their refusal to worship God alone? The pastor replied that, indeed, one might expect the ruins of Samaria to serve as a lesson to the Judahites. Perhaps, deep down, that did remind them that there is a God, and they are not him. But the pastor said that the Judahites probably dismissed the Northerners and had a sense of superiority over them, seeing the Northerners as the wayward younger brother who didn’t even have the right sanctuary.
D. Jesus quotes Hosea 10:8 in Luke 23:30. Women are weeping for Jesus on the Via Dolorosa, and Jesus tells them to weep, not for him, but for themselves and their children, for there will come a time when they will prefer to have the mountains fall upon them than to experience God’s wrath. That part about the mountains is from Hosea 10:8. The pastor said that Jesus was likening Israel of his day to the Northern Israelites, the wicked younger brother of the Old Testament. Indeed, as far as the Gospels are concerned, there are parallels between the Jewish religious establishment of the first century and what Hosea says about the Northern Israelites. The Northern Israelites bore fruit for themselves but not for God. Similarly, there were Pharisees who loved money (Luke 16:14), and Jesus affirmed that Israel of his day was not bearing fruit for God (Luke 16:3-9). The Northern Israelites worshiped at a sanctuary of vanity, where nobody was home. Similarly, Jesus told the Pharisees that they worshiped God in vain through their human-devised commandments (Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7), and he lamented that Jerusalem failed to recognize him as the visitation of God (Luke 19:44). The pastor also said that the women weeping for Jesus, whom Jesus rebuked, were not Jesus’s followers but rather were professional mourners, of the sort that appear in the story of Jairus’s daughter in Mark 5:38.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)