Cruciformity

2004-08-04T22:26:00.000-04:00

What do Money Ball and the New Perspective have in common?
Money Ball is a book that was written in 2003 about the 2002 Oakland A's. The basic premise of the book was to investigate how a team with a very small budget in baseball was able to compete year in and year out. The writer Michael Lewis followed the team's front office around, namely the G.M. Billy Beane. Well, anyway when the book came out it caused quite a stir. The stir was caused because Beane did not play by the "book," that is to say he based many of his decisions by using the unconventional methods of a man by the name of Bill James. He implemented some of those ideas of James and much of what he did as General Manager worked. Needless to say, Bill James has been viewed as an outcast by many in major league baseball. They believe that his statistical formulas do not conform to the tradition of the game etc... Needless to say the term Money Ball has become a pejorative in baseball. It has been treated as a monolithic movement. People, including the likes of Joe Morgan, have publicly ridiculed Billy Beane (usually a no no in that world) and accused him of not being a legitimate general manager. Suffice it to say, Money Ball has been maligned and disgarded by the baseball cliq. Money Ball can't win. The funny thing is this: people like Beane have never said the things that people accuse them of saying nor have people like Beane ever written a draft of what Money Ball is. Those who oppose the ideas have defined it for them and said essentially, "see this is what you believe!" Of course, you could see where my analogy is going. The big difference though is that one is taking place in major league baseball the other in the Church of the Living God.

2004-07-17T12:10:00.000-04:00

The doctrine of the Ascension is one of those doctrines that has been neatly tucked away under the"what does this have to do with anything" categories, filed away in the cabinet with all those old pieces of junk mail, located in the "what do I do with this" compartment. The Ascension is often viewed as Jesus' exaltion pertaining to his identity as God, as Augustine primarily understood it. What gets lost or at the very least gets thinned out in the equation, as Douglas Farrow has pointed out in his book,is Jesus' exaltation pertaining to his humanity. In the one person Jesus of Nazareth, there is manifested both the reign of God and the reign of humanity. In Jesus God excercises his reign as God and in Jesus humanity excercises their reign as the image of God. In Jesus God rules his world and orders all things and brings them to perfection as he always intended from the beginning through his image, which is humanity. In Jesus' Ascension to the Father's right hand we can say, without any reservation, there is a man in heaven, ruling and reigning and fulfilling the mandate of creation, and in the sending of the Holy Spirit, we his people participate in his Ascension (Col 3) bringing about in our bodies the realities of Jesus' reign over the world. Thanks be to God for the Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2004-07-15T21:01:00.000-04:00

I am back home in New York, I have been back home for about 7 weeks and a lot has happened in the last couple of months. I have been called as a Pastor of a Church in New York. I am currently working on my ordination requirements. Lord willing I will be ordained and officially installed as Pastor sometime in September. I have moved into the parsonage. It is such an honor and privilege to serve the people of God in the ministry. I have not blogged for various reasons, among them, I have had very little internet access, I have been studying for my licensure and ordination exams, and I have been getting my feet settled here at the Church. I visited Princeton today with my Pastor from my home Church. The campus is beautiful and the bookstore, if I had any money, would have left me poor. It was interesting to see that they had David Calhoun's Princeton Seminary on the shelves, as well as works by Murray, Vos, Keith Matthison's "Given For You" Mike Horton's "Covenant and Eschatology." We also visited the Center for Theological Inquiry on the campus. They had loads of free material and the people there were nice. They set us up with the opportunity to join a Pastor/Theological society, where the group gets together and reads a theological book and interacts with it. Anyway, I am going to study some more of the Book of Church Order and get ready to take my last licensure exam.

2004-03-31T22:44:00.000-05:00

"It's not what you say but what people hear" is one of the great truisms of life. How you communicate, such as clarity with words, and practice for instance that drives ideas home from the abstract to the practical. For instance, the Roman Catholic Church can say all that she wants about how she places a high premium on the Word and its exposition but the fact is her preaching (as Richard Neuhaus points out this month in First Things is abysmal). The communication the people hear; preaching isn't important. Many talk about the importance of the Lord's Supper, how it is of high value in the life of the Church but the practice overwhelmingly in Protestant and Evangelical Churches is once a month at best. The communication the people hear; the Lord's Supper is not really all that important. In the tradition I belong, the PCA, we talk about the importance of Baptism. We baptize infants and call them covenant children. Yet, in our worship services, baptismal language plays no role. When have you heard (I concede the possibility that some have) in the worship service the minister ever appeal to the fact of your baptism as a source of comfort and challenge as you seek to live out the life of Christ in the world? When has the liturgical language of the service ever pointed you and assisted you to look to and improve upon your baptism? When have you heard, however, during a Baptism of a child, the language that the Baptism is only a sign and that the "real" thing is that the child will have a conversion experience? If truth be told most of our Baptismal services are treated as Baby dedications. The communication the people hear; baptism is not that important. I am not surprised, for instance on the internet, to see that most of the "popular" reformed people out in cyber world see themselves as Reformed Baptists. They are Reformed because they believe in the 5 points and of course that makes them Reformed. And why is that? I propose that one reason has to do with the fact that we who are PCA (I have in view the leaders) etc... treat Baptism as an aside, something we do but not really sure why, but what matters most is the 5 points. The communication the people hear; the 5 points of Calvinism is Reformed theology.

2004-03-24T23:23:00.000-05:00

I am working on my Greek exegesis paper. I am doing Rom 1:1b-4, where Paul gives a three-fold summary of the gospel. It is of God, that is to say its source and possession belongs to God. It is rooted in the story of Israel, as contained in the Old Testament. It concerns God's Son.

2004-03-11T18:32:00.000-05:00

The following is part of an email I sent to my brother, who, by the way, is also in Seminary, a Roman Catholic Seminary. My brother belongs to Fraternity of St. Peter, a Papal order, which means it was established by the Pope.
I went to the Passion last night with the kids from our youth group. I thought the movie was very good. I found myself, during the Via Dolorosa, thinking to myself, "the story that Mel Gibson is telling about Jesus is the same story we tell and must tell every Sunday, indeed the whole of our lives. We tell the story of the One who gives his flesh and blood for the life of the world. We tell the story of the One in whom we participate in the ongoing story of the Incarnation and the cross by our being united to Him, in the power of the Holy Spirit to the glory of God the Father, with all His benefits and shall I dare say even the blessing of his sufferings (St. Paul Philippians 3 and Colossians 1). I read the article you sent by Woodward and he is right, so often in today's Evangelicalism and ironically in some sections of the Roman Catholic Church, the Suffering Servant who gives his flesh and blood for the life of the world, is strangely absent, the color of crimson blood replaced with a pleasant mauve or some other pastel color. The story that the Church tells is a most devastating, dramatic, and demanding story. It is to our peril if we ever try to domesticate the story of Jesus, God enfleshed and hung on a cross, dying the death of dereliction, in order that by His death He would destory death from the inside out.

2004-03-02T22:12:00.000-05:00

Anyway, this post will be a rant post. I was reminded today, for all the talk to the contrary, that if you are a conservative, evangelical believer, you need not apply to Princeton Seminary for Doctoral work. Why do I say this? Because a close friend of mine, who scored a 1560 on his GRE, scored a 3.98 at UNC Chapel Hill, has a 4.0 at RTS, as well as having been a Moorehead Scholar, who is tri-lingual, was turned down for admission into the program. I need this dose of reality, so as not to become deluded in my thinking, that despite the fact that I read some of the theologians that come from these types of instituitions, when push comes to shove, they think people like my friend are nothing more than "hayseed, backwater, fundamentalists" who bring nothing to the theological discourse. For all their talk at their conferences about ecumenical dialogue, for all their talk in their books about how the Church needs to be one, for all their talk about understanding, at the end of the day, they still think that you are nothing more of some imbecile, incapable of true theological and scholarly work. What saddens me is this; the endowment of Princeton, which hovers around 10 billion or so, was built from the great saints of the past who donated and gave. Princeton has what they have because it was built on the backs of the saints of old, who when push came to shove believed that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead in the power of the Holy Spirit. Saints who believed that God's word was true and it was important. Instead of my friend getting accepted into Princeton, they let in an individual who is intent on doing such deep and penetrating theological work on the idea that Jesus was a midget because Zaccheus had to climb a tree to see him (if you think I am making that up, I am not, I wish I was kidding or using hyperbole). Yes, realize, that despite some their great writing on ecumenical dialogue, the oneness of the Church, etc... at the end of the day they think you are nothing more than a "hayseed."

2004-02-25T13:59:00.000-05:00

Some scholars claim the idea that Israel saw herself in exile during the 2nd Temple period even after returning to the land is overblown. I have had one professor say that too much is made of that idea. I, however, am incredulous that anyone would think that Israel did not see herself in exile despite her being in the land. An excellent example of how Israel felt during this period is contained in the great prayer recorded in Nehemiah 9. Read this prayer and then say that Israel did not see herself in bondage in her own land.

“You are the Lord, you alone. You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them; and you preserve all of them; and the host of heaven worships you. 7 You are the Lord, the God who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and gave him the name Abraham. 8 You found his heart faithful before you, and made with him the covenant to give to his offspring the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite. And you have kept your promise, for you are righteous. 9 “And you saw the affliction of our fathers in Egypt and heard their cry at the Red Sea, 10 and performed signs and wonders against Pharaoh and all his servants and all the people of his land, for you knew that they acted arrogantly against our fathers. And you made a name for yourself, as it is to this day. 11 And you divided the sea before them, so that they went through the midst of the sea on dry land, and you cast their pursuers into the depths, as a stone into mighty waters. 12 By a pillar of cloud you led them in the day, and by a pillar of fire in the night to light for them the way in which they should go. 13 You came down on Mount Sinai and spoke with them from heaven and gave them right rules and true laws, good statutes and commandments, 14 and you made known to them your holy Sabbath and commanded them commandments and statutes and a law by Moses your servant. 15 You gave them bread from heaven for their hunger and brought water for them out of the rock for their thirst, and you told them to go in to possess the land that you had sworn to give them.

16 “But they and our fathers acted presumptuously and stiffened their neck and did not obey your commandments. 17 They refused to obey and were not mindful of the wonders that you performed among them, but they stiffened their neck and appointed a leader to return to their slavery in Egypt. But you are a God ready to forgive, gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and did not forsake them. 18 Even when they had made for themselves a goldencalf and said, ‘This is your God who brought you up out of Egypt,’ and had committed great blasphemies, 19 you in your great mercies did not forsake them in the wilderness. The pillar of cloud to lead them in the way did not depart from them by day, nor the pillar of fire by night to light for them the way by which they should go. 20 You gave your good Spirit to instruct them and did not withhold your manna from their mouth and gave them water for their thirst. 21 Forty years you sustained them in the wilderness, and they lacked nothing. Their clothes did not wear out and their feet did not swell.

22 “And you gave them kingdoms and peoples and allotted to them every corner. So they took possession of the land of Sihon king of Heshbon and the land of Og king of Bashan. 23 You multiplied their children as the stars of heaven, and you brought them into the land that you had told their fathers to enter and possess. 24 So the descendants went in and possessed the land, and you subdued before them the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, and gave them into their hand, with their kings and the peoples of the land, that they might do with them as they would. 25 And they captured fortified cities and a rich land, and took possession of houses full of all good things, cisterns already hewn, vineyards, olive orchards and fruit trees in abundance. So they ate and were filled and became fat and delighted themselves in your great goodness.

26 “Nevertheless, they were disobedient and rebelled against you and cast your law behind their back and killed your prophets, who had warned them in order to turn them back to you, and they committed great blasphemies. 27 Therefore you gave them into the hand of their enemies, who made them suffer. And in the time of their suffering they cried out to you and you heard them from heaven, and according to your great mercies you gave them saviors who saved them from the hand of their enemies. 28 But after they had rest they did evil again before you, and you abandoned them to the hand of their enemies, so that they had dominion over them. Yet when they turned and cried to you, you heard from heaven, and many times you delivered them according to your mercies. 29 And you warned them in order to turn them back to your law. Yet they acted presumptuously and did not obey your commandments, but sinned against your rules, which if a person does them, he shall live by them, and turned a stubborn shoulder and stiffened their neck and would not obey. 30 Many years you bore with them and warned them by your Spirit through your prophets. Yet they would not give ear. Therefore you gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands. 31 Nevertheless, in your great mercies you did not make an end of them or forsake them, for you are a gracious and merciful God.

32 “Now, therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who keeps covenant and steadfast love, let not all the hardship seem little to you that has come upon us, upon our kings, our princes, our priests, our prophets, our fathers, and all your people, since the time of the kings of Assyria until this day. 33 Yet you have been righteous in all that has come upon us, for you have dealt faithfully and we have acted wickedly. 34 Our kings, our princes, our priests, and our fathers have not kept your law or paid attention to your commandments and your warnings that you gave them. 35 Even in their own kingdom, enjoying your great goodness that you gave them, and in the large and rich land that you set before them, they did not serve you or turn from their wicked works. 36 Behold, we are slaves this day; in the land that you gave to our fathers to enjoy its fruit and its good gifts, behold, we are slaves. 37 And its rich yield goes to the kings whom you have set over us because of our sins. They rule over our bodies and over our livestock as they please, and we are in great distress. “Because of all this we make a firm covenant in writing; on the sealed document are the names of our princes, our Levites, and our priests.”

2004-02-22T23:32:00.000-05:00

Ecclessiology is nothing LESS than participatory Christology. That is to say, simply this, the Church, which is the Body of Christ, is tied organically to her head, which is Jesus Christ, our Lord. Just as in the Incarnation of the Son of God, where the Son becomes man, thus being both truly and fully God and truly and fully man, otherwise known as the Hypostatic Union, so to the Son of God is joined to his body, the Church, in hypostatic union. The body of Christ properly possesses all that belongs to Christ precisely because she particpates in the very life of Christ. When the body of Christ is wounded and persecuted, Christ is persecuted. Just as in the hypostatic union where the two natures of Christ are united yet distinct ( Jesus is not 50% God and 50% man but fully God and fully man), so to with the union between the body of Christ and her head, our Lord Jesus. The Church is not the Head but the body and thus is distinct in that she derives her identity from Christ and not Christ from her. In short, the Church is the present manifestation of Christ on earth empowered by the Holy Spirit uniting her in Christ to the glory of God the Father.

2004-02-22T23:13:00.000-05:00

Well it has been 82 days since my last blog post. That is a long time!!! Anyway, I am in my last semester at seminary. I only have three classes to take this semester, which amounts to seven credit hours. I was home in New York for 7 weeks and had the opportunity to preach at our Church plant four times, and I came under care while up there. Lord willing, ordination may take place in September.

2003-12-02T19:30:00.000-05:00

When scholars attempt to study the historical Jesus divorced from the ecclessiastical Jesus, the result is often unbelief. One of the reasons for this has to do with the fact that it is impossible to get at the historical Jesus apart from the ecclessiastical Jesus. The reason why it is impossible to get at the historical Jesus apart from the ecclesiastical Jesus has to do with the fact that the historical Jesus is only known because of the Church's confession about him. The historical Jesus was crucified, dead, buried, and rose from the dead. We know this because of the ecclessiastical witness to this historical event. The ecclessiastical witness must be trusted as a credible witness to the history of Jesus, in order to be able to study about him. The documents that record the history of Jesus, the Gospels, are written precisely because there is an ecclessia. Robert Jenson states it well, "For outside the church, no such entity as the Christian Bible has any reason to exist. It is not merely that exegesis of the Bible is likely to be mistaken in one way or another when done outside the church; interpretation of the Bible outside the church must be arbitrary, uncontrollable, and finally moot." The New Testament writings were written and then preserved by the Church to assist the Church in the keeping of her message, namely, that the God of Israel has raised his servant Jesus from the dead (Jenson pg.27 The Art of Reading Scripture). Jenson reminds us that much of academic exegesis has alienated itself from the Church. Richard Bauckham has pointed out that the Gospels were written to the ecclessia as a whole. Those scholars who attempt to do an end around the ecclessiastical Jesus to study the historical Jesus find themselves in nothing less than a quagmire of unbelief and cynicism. The difference between say a Tom Wright and a John Dominic Crossan or a Robert Funk is this: Wright humbly places his feet within the world of the Church, whereas, a Crossan and a Funk attempt to look at Jesus by going outside the Church and raising their heads above the Church. As Wright has said in a lecture, much of, "historical Jesus studies were undertaken originally to be a weapon against orthodox Christianity." This is where analogies like the Church as Mother really speak and shed light for us. Would it be improper to say that the faith I possess has been handed down to me by Mother Church, who has spoken to me as her son, and said, "he is risen, he is risen indeed!!!"

2003-11-18T01:40:00.000-05:00

Anyway, today I got stuck at a railroad crossing (why am I up at almost 2 am blogging about this, I don't know). As I watched the trains go by, I found myself thinking back to when I was a kid and how I used to love when the trains would go by. But then it dawned on me, where has the caboose gone?

2003-11-16T23:02:00.000-05:00

When the Sadducees come to Jesus and seek to trip him up with their question concering the nature of the resurrection, one can't help but notice, just how far removed they were from the Scriptural story of Israel. Now of course, it may seem a bit arrogant for a 21st century American to dare say that they were ignorant of the Scriptural story of Israel, considering that they would know their tradition much better than I would, but, it seems that they rejected much of the Scriptural story, accepting only the Torah. Why they did, who knows? Some suggest that because they tended to be an aristocratic group they liked the keeping of the status quo, because "freedom fighters" were more likely to believe in resurrection. Whatever their reason, the point is they denied belief in the resurrection. However, it seems strange that one who is Jewish would deny belief in the resurrection? Think of Israel's history, much of which was a tragic history. She had been given great promises and she had been promised that she, of all the nations and the peoples of the earth, would be Yahweh's light in the world. Yet, at almost every twist and turn, she is nothing more than a flickering light at best and a burnt out light at worst. Her father Abraham was promised that he would indeed be the father of a great nation and that his descendants would be more numerous than the stars in the sky. If death is the end of the story, how does Abraham have descendants more numerous than the stars in the sky? If only the here and now matters, then what does it matter if you keep Torah or accept Torah?

There are many out there today who are telling us that we need to rethink a plot for Jesus. One such individual is Robert Funk (of Jesus Seminar fame), "The plot early Christians invented for a divine redeemer figure is as archaic as the mythology in which it is framed. A Jesus who drops down out of heaven, performs some magical act that frees human beings from the power of sin, rises from the dead, and returns to heaven is simply no longer credible. The notion that he will return at the end of time and sit in cosmic judgment is equally incredible. We must find a new plot for a more credible Jesus." In another place, he states, "The resurrection of Jesus did not involve the resuscitation of a corpse. Jesus did not rise from the dead, except perhaps in some metaphorical sense. The meaning of the resurrection is that a few of his followers—probably no more than two or three—finally came to understand what he was all about. When the significance of his words and deeds dawned on them, they knew of no other terms in which to express their amazement than to claim that they had seen him alive." And again he writes, "The expectation that Jesus will return and sit in cosmic judgment is part and parcel of the mythological worldview that is now defunct. Furthermore, it undergirds human lust for the punishment of enemies and evildoers and the corresponding hope for rewards for the pious and righteous. All apocalyptic elements should be expunged from the Christian agenda." Yet, this same man writes, "Jesus advocates and practices a trust ethic. The kingdom of God, for Jesus, is characterized by trust in the order of creation and the essential goodness of neighbor. Jesus urges his followers to celebrate life as though they had just discovered a cache of coins in a field or been invited to a state banquet. For Jesus, the kingdom does not require cultic rituals to mark the rites of passage from outsider to insider, from sinner to righteous, from child to adult, from client to broker. In the kingdom, forgiveness is reciprocal: individuals can have it only if they sponsor it."

How Funk can talk about forgiveness is mind boggling to me. The slightest mention of it seems disingenuous. I mean, did he not state that the idea of a cosmic judgement is a now defunct idea? If you want to read more of Funk's "counsel" you can check it out under his 21 theses for a radical reformation at westarinstitute.org.

Funk may think that we need a new plot line to make Jesus and the story of Israel more credible, but to Funk and those who follow him, I say with the Psalmist, "To you, O Lord, I cry, and to the Lord I plead for mercy:What profit is there in my death if I go down to the pit? Will the dust praise you? Will it tell of your faithfulness? Hear, O Lord, and be merciful to me! O Lord, be my helper!” Indeed, though death may come and turn us to the dust, our God will bring us back from the dust and indeed resurrect us from the dead, for our Lord Jesus Christ has been raised. May we say with the ancient liturgy. He is Risen!!! He is Risen, Indeed!!!! Amen.

2003-11-11T23:58:00.000-05:00

I have just finished writing my Hebrew exegesis paper on Isaiah 48:12-20. The first half of the paper was dedicated to justifying my translation of the Hebrew text. I then wrote on the topic of Jewish monotheism in the passage through the lens of creational, covenantal, and redemptional monotheism. The following is my closing paragraph.

Closing Thoughts on Isaiah 48:12-20
As we have seen, Isaiah 48:12-20 reveals a monotheism that is anything but static. Yahweh, Israel's God, is revealed as the creator God, the covenant God, and the redeeming God. This message is not unique to our passage, as we have also seen, which further buttresses the argument that Jewish monotheism was dynamic, relational, and vibrant. Isaiah 48:12-20 fits within the paradigmatic framework of the meta-narrative of Judaism. The Jewish story is a story that tells the narrative of the one and only God who is the creator of the heavens and the earth, who has made a covenant with Israel, in order to redeem the world. It is a story for the world because it is a story that involves the one God who alone is the creator of the world. It is a story for the world because it is a story about a God who loves his world. It is a story about a God who eventually sent His unique Son into the world, in order to redeem the world, that the world might be saved through him. It is a story that finds its culmination in the Jewish man Jesus of Nazareth, who is the embodiment of both the Israel of God and the God of Israel. In Jesus of Nazareth we are confronted with the God who is the creator of the heavens and the earth, who made a covenant with Abraham and Israel, and who eventually redeemed his people by taking upon himself the sins of the world.

I also found out officially that I will graduate this May. Of course, I still have to pass my classes!!!!

2003-11-03T21:23:00.000-05:00

I hardly ever blog about anything personal. Every now and then I may post something. Tonight I just want to ask my brothers and sisters in Christ, most if not all who read this blog I have never met, to pray for my sister in law Susan. Susan was diagnosed about a month ago with stage 2 breast cancer that is very aggressive. She will begin a very intense chemotherapy program on the 20th of November. I thank you for your prayers. Your brother Tom.

2003-11-02T23:36:00.000-05:00

One of the most haunting pictures painted in Scripture is the Psamist lamenting over the destruction of Jerusalem andbeing taken into captivity by Babylon. As they were being sent off their captors required them to sing a song of Zion. I can't help but picture a Nazi soldier demanding a Jewish prisoner to sing for him under the threat of torture. I think of the scene in the Pianist when soldiers demand a song in order to be entertained by their prisoners. Anyway, what strikes me about Scripture is its concern to speak honestly and at times painfully about the pains and sufferings involved with living in this world.

Psalm 137
1 By the waters of Babylon,
there we sat down and wept,
when we remembered Zion.
2 On the willows there
we hung up our lyres.
3 For there our captors
required of us songs,
and our tormentors, mirth, saying,
“Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”

4 How shall we sing the Lord's song
in a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
let my right hand forget its skill!
6 Let my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth,
if I do not remember you,
if I do not set Jerusalem
above my highest joy!

7 Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites
the day of Jerusalem,
how they said, “Lay it bare, lay it bare,
down to its foundations!”
8 O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed,
blessed shall he be who repays you
with what you have done to us!
9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock

Lyrics by Boney M

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down
ye-eah we wept, when we remembered Zion.

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down
ye-eah we wept, when we remembered Zion.

When the wicked
Carried us away in captivity
Required from us a song
Now how shall we sing the lord's song in a strange land

When the wicked
Carried us away in captivity
Requiering of us a song
Now how shall we sing the lord's song in a strange land

Let the words of our mouth and the meditations of our heart
be acceptable in thy sight here tonight

Let the words of our mouth and the meditation of our hearts
be acceptable in thy sight here tonight

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down
ye-eah we wept, when we remembered Zion.

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down
ye-eah we wept, when we remembered Zion.

By the rivers of Babylon (dark tears of Babylon)
there we sat down (You got to sing a song)
ye-eah we wept, (Sing a song of love)
when we remember Zion. (Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah)

By the rivers of Babylon (Rough bits of Babylon)
there we sat down (You hear the people cry)
ye-eah we wept, (They need that ???)
when we remember Zion. (Ooh, have the power)

2003-10-31T22:41:00.000-05:00

What kind of a blogger am I? I mean, come on, I hardly ever get any comments on my blog and when I get one, someone named "ZMan" rips me a new one!!! I have to admit I loved reading his comment because he came at me in typical New York fashion "You don't have much of a clue."
That book I bought earlier in the week on the art of reading Scripture is going to be a great read. I can't wait to sit down and read Bauckham's article on the coherent story of the Bible.

2003-10-28T21:08:00.000-05:00

A classmate and I were talking about some of the things that are going on in the church today. Many of the Churches in this area, for instance, are "seeker sensitive." Seeker sensitive is the favorite phrase of many these days. Of course, to be seeker sensitive means, for many of these churches, that you play U2 or Coldplay during your worship service and you show video clips of the Matrix to explain some profound "eternal truth." You have to get the people where they are at is what they say. It is justified because they are being all things to all people. It is justified because they are evangelizing the un-churched (quite frankly, I wonder how many of their members are unchurched or are just disenchanted with their prior Church? I would love to know). The irony is this, if the goal is to make not just converts but disciples, these Churches will more than likely die out. Why, you say? Because how you GET them to come in, is HOW you keep them in!!!! Don't think for a second that the majoity of the people who were brought in the door with the hymnody of Coldplay and U2 are going to love it when you change and offer "Glorious things of Thee are spoken" or when you decide to give them sermons that don't show Keanu in action but instead speak of Golgotha with blood and nails and a wooden cross and the fact that our sins, the sins of the world, are why that had to happen. The methodology of the average, garden variety evangelical, is the methodology of the old liberal, who sought with great might to rid the church of old creeds, patriarchal language, and those somber confessions of sins. What is ironic is that in many cases the average evangelical of today is the liberal of yesterday. The difference between the liberal and the average evangelical is the liberal long ago stopped going to church.

2003-10-27T21:13:00.000-05:00

This is a poem written by a friend of mine.

I turned on the TV on that September day
My son had gone for his first job interview
“Ladies and Gentlemen a plane has just crashed…”
You know how it goes
Why God, Why did my only son have to die?

He came to my door today dressed in his finest clothes
I knew what he would say before I even opened to door
“The Secretary of the Army regrets to inform you…”
You know how it goes
Why God, Why did my only son have to die?

The phone rang late, I guessed who it was
My son had been out
“We need you to come to downtown…”
You know how it goes
Why God, Why did my only son have to die?

It has been nine months and the day has finally come
We have been at the hospital for hours
“We’re sorry, but…”
You know how it goes
Why God, Why did my only son have to die?

I have lived in the hospital with him for a year
No child should suffer like this
“You have to decide now…”
You know how it goes
Why God, Why did my only son have to die?

He was my beloved Son; the Son of a Virgin
I sent him to you and you killed him, but…
He has risen again…so your Son will live again
“It is finished…”
“Father forgive…”
You know how it goes

2003-10-27T20:58:00.000-05:00

I have an addiction to books (who doesn't when in seminary). Anyway, I walk into the RTS bookstore this morning and what do I see staring me in the face but "The Art of Reading Scripture" with contributors like Richard Hays, Richard Bauckham, Robert Jenson etc... I took my Ethics mid term today, so that means I have one major exam left to take this week, Greek 2. I, so far, have found Hebrew to be easier but maybe I am only saying that because I am still learning grammar, unlike my Hebrew.

2003-10-22T21:49:00.000-04:00

I have been very busy (like who isn't). Anyway, I did get hear Archbishop elect Orombi during Chapel on Tuesday. He spoke to us from Luke 5 and the story of the great catch of fish. Afterwards, he stayed and entertained a couple of questions from the students. I asked him this question (paraphrase). "I recognize that I my question may put you on the spot, so with all due respect, I understand if you cannot answer it." He laughed and said, "Ask it I will answer." So I continued, "How do you think the current situation in America with the Episcopal Church should be handled by the Anglican communion worldwide? and how does the Church in Africa feel toward the American Church, especially in light of the fact that a few decades ago it was the liberals like Bishop Spong who wanted Africa and Asia to have a voice and now it seems they really don't care what that voice has to say?" He answered and said that there is a real pain in their hearts because it was missionaries from England and America who came to Africa and brought the Gospel of Jesus Christ to his people. But now the American Church has lost that Gospel of Jesus Christ. He went on to say that the African Church does not understand why they have chosen to walk away from the Gospel and the Scriptures but they do know it has happened. That is why, he said, the African Bishops have supported the Anglican Mission in America because they are a witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He added, that it was ironic in their minds that the same Church that a number of years ago wanted the Third world Churches to have more of a voice are now not really caring what that voice has to say. It was a privilege to be able to listen to him and he exhorted us to stay faithful to the Gospel in our ministries. When he takes over in January he will oversee between 8-9 million Anglican Christians in a country of 24 million people. Currently, he has four parishes without Pastoral care because they are growing so rapidly. He will oversee some 4,000 ministers and he said to us, "Come to my country, if I may ask. We can use you." They have actually had to stop planting Churches for the time being because they cannot keep up with the growth of the Church.

2003-10-20T20:17:00.000-04:00

Bishop Henry Luke Orombi archbishop of the Church of Uganda will be at the campus tomorrow. He will speak during chapel and the students will have the opportunity to speak with him afterwards. I am looking forward to meeting him.

2003-10-18T20:25:00.000-04:00

The other day I was in the school parking lot when one of my prof's, Dr. Kik (the son of Marcellus Kik who wrote Eschatology of Victory), came running to me holding a bag. Dr. Kik, like me, is a Mets fan and he then handed me the bag and inside there was a Boston Redsox shirt. He told me to wear the shirt during the game. Well, I did and it still didn't work. The lousy Sox blew the game, with Pedro Martinez on the mound no less, they blew the lousy lead!!!! Anyway, its game 1 right now at the Stadium and the Marlins lead 1-0. The Marlins don't stand a chance, I think. This Series reminds me of the Padres when they played the Yanks in '98. But, maybe my pessimistic thoughts about the Marlins chances will be proven wrong. Ah, we can only wish!!! Yankee fans love to remind Mets fans of all their championships, the best we can do is remind them of Luis Gonzalez or Bill Mazeroski.

2003-10-12T15:08:00.000-04:00

What I like about great thinkers and writers is their ability to articulate "my" thoughts and ideas better than I could ever hope or dream to do. I often find myself unable to articulate what is I am thinking, especially when you throw in the fact that my grammatical skills are lacking. I have been thinking about the whole idea of what Torrance calls the collapsing of time and space in the person of Jesus in the power of the Spirit. One such thinker that is able to articulate what I have in mind is the theologian Stanley Hauerwas. He writes, concerning the significance of the new creation at Pentecost, "Creations are, after all, not everday affairs. They are dramatic in their power to make and consume time. For this new creation aborning through the power of the Spirit does not make irrelevant all that has gone before nor make indifferent all that comes after. Rather, this apocalyptic time places all history in a new time- the time made possible by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. . . to be a disciple of Jesus means that our lives must literally be taken up into the drama of God's redemption of his creation. That is the work of the Spirit as we are made part of God's new time through the life and work of this man, Jesus of Nazareth." Hauerwas' touches on the fact that God chooses to bring to completion the redemption of the world through the uniting of his people to His Son, thus the "In Christ" language, by the work of the Spirit. That is why Paul can use such strange and mysterious language as filling up in his body the afflictions of Christ (Col. 1). "We call this new creation, church. It is constituted by word and sacrament as the story we tell, the story we embody, must not only be told but enacted. In the telling we are challenged to be a people capable of hearing God's good news such that we can be a witness to others. In the enactment, in Baptism and Eucharist, we are made part of a common history which requires continuous celebration to be rightly remembered. It is through Baptism and Eucharist that our lives are engrafted onto the life of the one that makes our unity possible. Through this telling and enactment we, like Israel, become peculiarly a people who live by our remembering the history of God's redemption in the world. . . a people so formed by the Spirit that our humility is but a reflection of our confidence in God's sure work. Without such confidence no doubt the church is constantly tempted to self-righteousness and self-aggrandizement. But we have a sure check against such temptations by the very Savior who has made us what we are. For how can we be prideful when the very God we worship is most fully manifest on a cross?" This sense of what he calls "God's new time" is what struck me. He is not saying that time does not matter. What he is saying, or attempting to say, is that what happened to Jesus of Nazareth in real time and real space becomes ours in the power of the Spirit, who unites us to Christ, in God's new time. This conception of new time is is evident in Peter (his sermon at Pentecost) and Paul (Gal. 4:4 Paul says in the fulness of time God sent his Son. His use of the phrase fulness of time means that Paul redefined Jewish eschatological categories).

2003-10-07T19:56:00.000-04:00

The faith of the Church is tied to the One who has acted, is acting, and will act. The faith of the Church has a threefold perspective: the past, the present, and the future. Think of the Celebration of the Lord's Supper: the Church remembers the death of Christ, the Church participates in the present in the death of Christ(1Cor. 10:16), and the Church looks forward to that day when she will share the Supper with her Lord in the coming of the Kingdom in all its fulness (Matt. 26:29; Luke 22:16). This is reflected in the Eucharistic liturgy of the Church: "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again." Though, we are limited by such things as time and space, the One, who is the Lord of the Church, is not. Since, it is impossible to divorce the body of Christ from its head, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Church's faith, being linked to the faithfulness of Jesus, who in his act of faithfulness embodies both the faithfulness of God and man, is forever bound up in the Trinitarian life of God. The Spirit unites us to the Son to the glory of the Father. The Spirit dwells with us in the present, having united us to the past, leading us to the eschatological hope, the new creation (Rom. 8). The Scriptures, themselves, speak of Jesus Christ as the One who is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb:13:8), and Revelation speaks this way about God (Rev.1:4; 8; 4:8). The faith of the Church is not just a present faith detached from the past or without hope for the future. Rather, her faith is tied to the One who is not constrained by such things, and because of this, she can say with the saints who have gone before and the saints who will come after, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”

2003-10-04T21:12:00.000-04:00

We have reaced the mid way point of the semester and I am done with all of my papers except for Hebrew Exegesis, and I am going to begin working on that this week. The passage that I will attempt to exegete and write on is Isaiah 48:12-20a.
I will have to give a justification for the translation (word usage, grammar etc...) that I come up with in the Hebrew text and then I will take that and make theological arguments based on my study. Thus far, what I want to do is this: I want to focus 1) on creational monotheism, 2) redemptive monotheism, 3) covenantal monotheism 4) the doctrine of the Trinity lies at the heart of creational, redemptive, and covenantal monotheism. I admit that I may well be trying to bite off too much but I look at it this way, it will be an exciting and worshipful topic to explore. If you read the text (Isaiah 48:12-20a) notice what the speaker says in verse 16 about being sent by the LORD and His (the LORD's) Spirit. Hear, I believe, at least initially, we see that three are in view here. The speaker is indentified contextually as the one who is the first and the last (vs.12). He says that he knows all things before they come to pass (vs. 16). This speaker is none other than the LORD. Yet, this one who is LORD, says that the LORD God has sent Him and His Spirit. That is to say, I think, that the LORD God is the one who sends the Son and when He sends the Son he sends the Spirit with Him. Anyway, I am practically writing my paper. I enjoy writing papers like this, if only for the opportunity to study and understand the Scripture more. The grade is very low on the totem pole as far as I am concerned.

2003-10-03T23:22:00.000-04:00

I just got home from work, after working 15 hours, and I have to be back at it tomorrow morning at six. Today was one of those days at work where you wonder where the hidden camera of Candid Camera is. It started this morning at about 7 when I noticed that our show cases were not cold. Ok, you call the refrigeration guys and soon enough the problem will be fixed. No!!!! Not at all. They work at it all day but no cigar. Needless to say, we were not able to display our prepared food. Of course, this meant practically no sales. Then at about 8 p.m. tonight I go into the walkin refrigerator and I notice that the cooler does not seem so cold. Then I check the therometer and it reads 53 degrees. Oh no I say. Then we check our other coolers and they are running high and lo and behold, we head to the freezer and it is running at 25 degrees. So we scurried around and emptied out all our ice from our ice makers (we have two huge automatic ice makers) and just start placing all our product in the ice. Tomorrow morning should be an eventful morning at work. Hopefully, things will get rectified. I am off to bed.

2003-10-01T20:31:00.000-04:00

I just got home from work. What I find interesting when I am at work, for some reason, is I wind up interacting with theological thoughts in my mind. I don't know if it has anything to do with being away from the classroom but nonetheless, I mull ideas over in my mind. One such thought that I mulled over in my mind, is the reality of existence. The thought was this: the only existence that I have any interaction with is the moment. That is to say the only existence that I have any intimacy with is the present. The past is no longer and the future has not happened yet. In a very real way, my existence is stuck in the moment. I cannot overcome this reality. I cannot grab hold of the past and bring it into the present. I cannot run ahead and get to the future. I am stuck in the present. We are bound in our finiteness and as finite beings we are unable to get out of that situation. If all this sounds like "crazy talk", I pose one question: Have you ever heard people say, "how could the death of one man many years ago have any impact on my life now?" If you are like me, you have had some people say that to you. Heck, I have often wondered it myself. For instance, take the death of Jesus. Does God just say, "Well, my Son died on the cross as an example of how much I love the world and how much I hate sin and people just need to believe in Him." It doesn't strike me that is how the Apostle Paul views the work of the cross. He actually believes, or so it appears, that he actually participates in the cross of Christ (Gal.2:20). He seems to think that his life is a present manifestation in the life and, in particular, the death of Jesus (2nd Cor.4:10-12). He also seems to think that his present sufferings are the sufferings of Jesus because they fulfill or fill out the afflictions of Christ (Col. 1:24). Paul does not see the cross as some event off in the distant past. He does not see the cross as something that his life is removed from nor detached from. But, how could Paul say this? He too, like me and you is finite. His existence is not different from ours, despite the fact that he lived long ago. He is limited as we are. His existence is an existence that is stuck in the present. He had nothing at his disposal to overcome this obstacle. Ahhh, he may not, and we may not, but God can overcome this obstacle. Why? God is infinite. He is not bound by time or space (Psalm 139 makes this clear among many other passages). How does God do this? It seems that the witness of Scripture and Paul, himself, would say, by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God unites us to the past event of Jesus Christ on the cross. He unites us to the act of God in Christ and because of this, we can say with Paul, that we have been crucified with Christ. The Spirit, according to the writer of Hebrews, is the one through whom Jesus offered himself to the Father. The same Spirit through whom Jesus offered himself to the Father is the same Spirit who unites us to the same Jesus as a fragrant offering to the Father. The words of Torrance here are applicable, "The Holy Spirit is the transcendant freedom of God to be present to us in such a way as to realize our relationship with God. . .He is the sanctifying, life-giving, redeeming outreach of God toward us." The Spirit is the one who unites us, people bound by time and limited by space, into communion with the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and with the Body of Christ, the Church. The Holy Spirit indwells us and is the very presence of God with us and working through us. Anyway, as I began saying, these are thoughts that run through my mind at work and I realize they may have loose ends. I better go study my vocalbulary words for my Greek quiz.

2003-09-25T23:53:00.000-04:00

Hello but what's the point, when goodbye is just around the bend. Faceless faces that slip into some endless oblivion.
One thing about life that I find tough to swallow is the sad fact that many of the people you meet and get to know often don't wind up staying in your life. The reasons are many and often they don't involve conflict, just the fact that people move on, whether it be a job or some other reason. There is something that really stings about this reality. Who among us has not felt this? Who among us has not wondered at various times about all the people they have met along the path of life? I know that my mind will often wander to the many people I once knew only to have not seen in years, from childhood, to school, the workplace. I was talking about this today with one of my friends from Seminary, Bill, who works in the bookstore. When I get in these moments of reflection, I am reminded and encouraged by the Scripture, especially how for the Apostle Paul time and space are no longer obstacles but instead they have collapsed, in some mysterious manner, for those who are "In Christ." There is something comforting, NO greatly comforting, about the fact that those who are in Christ share the same Spirit and are joined and united to Christ by the Spirit to the glory of the Father and by virture of this union with Christ participate in his very life living out in the body the life of Christ offered in the Spirit as a living sacrifice to the glory of the Father.

2003-09-22T02:17:00.000-04:00

About what I posted the other day concerning the Gospel writers and their knack for explaining the story of Jesus by how they place stories side by side, creating strange juxtapositions and paradoxes that give the reader an insight to the strange things that took place about 30 A.D. in the life of a Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth. I have in mind Matthew's Gospel, in particular from Chapters 15 -16 vs. 12. Now in this portion of Matthew's Gospel he tells the story of Jesus and the Pharisees getting into an exchange about the nature of holiness and what it meant. Jesus rebukes them for failing to understand what true holiness was and said that they ironically made the word of God void. The disciples report back to Jesus, as if to say to him that this made the Pharisees very upset at him. Jesus is not fazed by this report and tells the disciples that the Pharisees are blind. Just a bit later in the Gospel, Matthew places the story of the Pharisees and the Saducees coming to test Jesus demanding that he "authenticate" himself to them by showing them a sign from heaven. Of course, as the reader, your jaw drops thinking, "Are you kidding me. Show a sign from heaven. Hello!!! What have you seen taking place?" The Pharisees and Saducees live out, unknowingly, what Jesus had said of them concerning their blindness. Sandwiched in the middle of these stories about holiness and blindness and arrogance is the story of a Canaanite woman. Yes, that's right, a Canaanite woman. A woman who is not clean. A woman who is not considered to be human or at least truly human. In fact, there appears to be a sense in which Jesus plays off this by speaking of not giving the children's bread to dogs (15:26). Now, it can be said, I think, that Jesus is playing off this depiction not so much because he believes this to be the case (though he could I suppose) but to make a point to the disciples who more than likely aghast that he has started talking to her. They demanded earlier that he tell her to leave them alone. Now think about this strange story. A Canaanite woman comes to Jesus and pleads for him to heal her daughter of a demon. She COMES to Jesus. She pleads with him to help her. He, at least in her mind, makes things difficult for her by first ignoring her by staying silent and then second telling her that he has come for the lost sheep of Israel. She is not detered but pleads "Lord help me." He tries again to make it difficult for her by saying it isnt right to give the children's bread to the dogs. So now as the reader you are thinking when is she going to give up and be on her way. She is unwavering in her request. She says that even the dogs get the crumbs that fall. She IS NOT BLIND!!! She can see. SHE IS NOT A DOG. She is not unholy but holy!!! Why? Because she sees Jesus for who he truly is: the One who has been sent by God into the world to heal and save and redeem. She is not arrogant nor is she trying to trap Jesus by demanding a sign but rather with great angst she requests and pleads for Jesus to heal her daughter because she knows that he can with one simple word. And Jesus blesses her, this Canaanite woman, and commends her for her Great Faith. This woman would not be denied. She knew that in Jesus there was indeed love and mercy. There was indeed as Matthew told us earlier meekness and lowliness of heart. She knew that in Jesus she had met the One who had come into the world to absorb onto himself the infirmities and failings of fallen humanity. She knew, she could see Jesus for who he truly was, the One sent to heal and save and fix what was broken. Tell me, that as you read these stories nestled together in Matthew's Gospel that Matthew has not purposely weaved these stories together. Like a good story teller or a good joke teller, he doesn't tell us the reader as the narrator how we should think per se, rather the stories themselves punch us in the stomach and awake us to see the strangeness of the whole thing. A Canaanite woman, she can see, she is not blind. Thanks be to God for the Glorious Gospel of Christ.

2003-09-21T15:06:00.000-04:00

This wasn't what I was going to post when I posted the other night about the Gospel writers and their knack for telling a story. But, this is my lecture tonight at Church on the letter to the Hebrews.
When we read Scripture, it is essential that we ask of the letter or the text that is before us this question: "Why this letter or this text?" By this I mean, we need to understand the Scripture in its historical context and setting. For example, think of it this way: Were it not for problems in the community of The Faith (whether it be Israel or the Church) we would have a very small Scripture. The Prophetic literature of Israel is written precisely because Israel had forgotten who she was as the people of God and had lost her way. The NT letters are written primarily because the Church had forgotten who she was and had lost her way. Most of the NT letters are written to address problems in the Church, whether they be of the doctrinal-theological or moral variety. Therefore, it is fair to say that the NT letters are corrective in nature. They are not written because the letter writer thought it would be nice to send a letter and say "hello." They are written to challenge, reprove, teach, edify, and correct the Church as she travels on her way to the New Heavens and the New Earth. It is, I believe, in understanding the text in its historical setting that we not only better understand what the text meant for the original audience but what it means for us today.
having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. For to which of the angels did God ever say,"You are my Son, today I have begotten you"?Or again, "I will be to him a father,
and he shall be to me a son"? And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,"Let all God's angels worship him." Of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire." But of the Son he says,"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions." And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed.But you are the same, and your years will have no end." And to which of the angels has he ever said, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"? Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation? (Heb. 1:4b-14 emphasis added).

Here the writer begins his "word of exhortation" by reminding the audience just who the Son is. This Son has inherited a more excellent Name. Just what is this Name that the Son inherited? Here you have a correlation with Paul's letter to the Philippians (2:5-11). The writer is jolting his audience with this reminder of who this Son is. The teaching method by way of reminder is a throughly Jewish way of teaching. Israel was to be absorbed in the story of God as he dealt with her, in particular, as God delivered Israel in the Exodus from Egypt (we will see these themes played out beginning in Chapter 3).
This reminder that the Son has a more excellent Name than the angels provides the springboard for him to drive the point home by posing rhetorical questions to them. He has no desire to seek an answer from them on "who the Son is" but rather he is driving home to them that they already know "who the Son is" (Heb. 2:1).
The Son in view here is not just any Son but the "first-born" Son (vs.6). Israel and the Jewish people had two ways of speaking about the "Son of God." One way was to speak of the nation as God's Son (Hos. 11:1). The other way was the King. Israel and in particular Israel's King were the embodiments of what it meant to be the "Son of God." Thus, when the writer employs the phrase "the first-born", we must understand how this phrase would be used in a 1st century Jewish culture. The first-born son was not just one son among many sons but the son to whom the inheritance was bestowed upon. The first-born son was unique. This theme is picked up in other places of the NT (Rom.8:29, Col.1:15;18, Rev.1:5). It also comes from the writer's use of Psalm 89:27, "And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth." In the Psalm, the original recipient of this promise was David and the Davidic King. The Kings did not rule apart from the line of David but in and through David. The Son, who are writer speaks of, also rules in the line of David but this Son is the true first-born Son, because, even though this Son rules in the line of David, he is not the Son of David but David's Lord. The writer ties this fact together by quoting Psalm 110:2, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"? (Ps. 110 is the most quoted OT passage in the NT and is the famous Psalm that Jesus used to question the Scribes Matt. 22:41-46, Mark 12:35-37). Unlike David and his line, this Son's throne has been forever and ever. Historic Trinitarian theology has understood that the Father makes the world for the Son, through the Son, in the power of the Spirit. The creation is given to the Son to rule and preside over as his gift from the Father and the Holy Spirit. Thus, Trinitarian theology will often say that the reason why it is the Son who comes to the world (and not the Father or the Spirit)and becomes man to redeem the world is tied to this fact that the created world was made for the Son and as such it is the Son who redeems his gift. Thus, the Son's kingship has been an everlasting kingship. The angels are seen as ministers in the King's court who do the King's bidding on behalf of the King's people (vs.14).
Therefore, our writer says, if these things are true of the Son and you know they are, if we turn away from this message then we will shall perish because God has accomplished in his Son what he always intended to accomplish, namely this; establish or coronate his Son for who he truly is: "The King of the World." I want us to realize this, tonight, that the message that we believe about God's Son, if it is true, is the most dramatic and devastating reality that has ever burst upon the world and if it is true it is the most important reality in the history of the world, and if it is true, it is what defines you for who you truly are, subjects of the King who participate in his kingdom by virtue of your union with him. I hope and pray that you believe this message and do not neglect it or see it as irrelevant. Our writer doesn't, those closet to the events that took place long ago didn't, and I hope you don't either. But as we continue our series, may our hope in Christ be strengthened as we seek to live out who we are in the Son of God, in the power of the Holy Spirit, to the glory of the Father. Amen.

2003-09-19T23:45:00.000-04:00

I will post tomorrow night on some reading I have done in the Gospel of Matthew. The more I read the Gospels, the more and more amazed and awed I become at the writers story telling. You see how they paint scenes and paradoxes. How they create these strange juxtapositions and weave back and forth, in and out. The Gospel writers are a lot like a good comedian telling jokes, if you have to explain the punch line you haven't told it very well. That is how I see some of the stories they tell in the Gospels. They don't explain them per se, but their explanation, if you will, is in how they put stories together, side by side and f the reader pays attention, the light bulb goes off and you get it!!!

2003-09-13T22:09:00.000-04:00

Today was one of those days where I am reminded as to why I am 1) In seminary and 2) love to be around people. The place that I work at is a very busy store. We have a steady stream of customers and at times an overwhelming number of customers that come into the store. We have people travel hours to just visit and check out the store and take in the atmosphere. To put it in perspective, the store I work at yesterday catered Vice President Cheyney's breakfast at the Charlotte Convention Center and later in the day catered the Mayor's fundraiser dinner. But back to my story. It took place about 1p.m. There were many people at the counter. I caught the young boy, about 12 years old, out of the corner of my eye. It was his face. I could tell there was something different about him. Amidst all these people my eyes could only look at him. As I watched him, it soon became apparent that he walked with a limp and his left arm hung low. My mind immediately rushed to a picture of my nephew Tony, who, after his brain tumor and subsequent brain surgery walks with a severe limp and has very limited control of his right arm. I knew enough to know that this young boy's facial expression spoke that he had Down's Syndrome. During this time, I kept hoping that I would be able to serve his family. As it worked out, I didn't have the chance to wait on them. However, the crowd soon dwindled and that gave me the chance to move away from the counter and I gravitated toward him. He was standing near the hot food table. I walked over and I made eye contact with him. He smiled a smiled from ear to ear and a lump grew in my throat. I said to him, "How are you today? What are you doing with mommy and daddy?" He said to me in slurred but understandable speech, "I am having fun. We are going to a picnic." At that moment, we shared a smile and in that little boy's smile I saw the smile of Jesus. It was a moment that this little boy, I am sure, was unaware that he had provided for me. But nonetheless, it was a moment that I was able to hold to, seeing in that child, no guile, no pride, no ego, no malice. There was no game to play. He was a child who was happy, he was going on a picnic with mommy and daddy. Thank you Lord Jesus for little ones such as these. Thank you for giving me that moment and may O Lord Jesus I exhibit by the working of the Spirit in my life the joy and love that this child exuded in his smile, to the glory of the Father. Amen.

2003-09-10T23:58:00.000-04:00

I have not posted much recently because I just started working a full time job. Thus, I am very busy as a full time student with a full time job, plus teaching and working at Church. I love the job. It is easy because I grew up in the deli/catering business. Dean and Deluca are a very upscale, professional company. If you watch the Today show Dean and Deluca can be seen when they head into the plaza at Rockefeller Center. What is amazing is that we get customers as far away as Raleigh to come down and shop the store. That is loyalty! Anyway, I will post when I can. My broadband connection has not been working, so I have to use dial up to go online, thus the internet is not always on anymore. It has been bad since the middle of August. I tell you, with customer service like that, it is no wonder that Time Warner AOL have been slumping!!!! Anyway, I am off to bed.

2003-09-01T12:39:00.000-04:00

I just got home from a "Lock In" at Church. Yesterday was a blast. I had the privilege of filling a pulpit at a PCA church here in the city. I had the privilege of leading the worship service at a local senior community home. There is something about getting together with the older saints in the Lord. Then we had our evening service at Church and then the "Lock In". Of course, I never learn my lessons. I have to play all the different games because I love to and then I wind up having my legs feel as though a Mack Truck barrelled over them LOL. I got a job the other day working for a major food establishment (a hint to which one is this: if you watch the Today Show, their store is located in Rockefeller Plaza, and its initials are "D" and "D"). They are a high end, high quality, deli/catering/prepared foods store. That kind of job is right up my alley considering my background in the deli/catering food business in New York. I love the whole idea of food, its presentation, the selling of it, the customers. It is the kind of place where you need to have "your dancing shoes" on because you move so fast to keep up with the customers. In fact, it can be said there are three things I love to do, 1) Preach, teach and serve the people of God in the body of Christ 2) radio, 3) the food business as it pertains to retail foods. Anyway, time for me to get some rest and study Hebrew. Enjoy your Labor Day!!!!

2003-08-27T22:52:00.000-04:00

I often wonder how many of us have felt at various times as if God was going to "battle" with us. By that I mean the sense that the Lord seemed either absent from us or that He was "making" life difficult and trying for us. Think of the story of Ruth. In this story a picture is painted of a woman, Naomi, who after experiencing horrible loss (the death of her husband and two sons and no dependents) expressed from the depths of her being the feeling that the Lord had gone to "battle" with her.

"So the two of them went on until they came to Bethlehem. And when they came to Bethlehem, the whole town was stirred because of them. And the women said, “Is this Naomi?” She said to them, “Do not call me Naomi; call me Mara for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me. I went away full, and the Lord has brought me back empty. Why call me Naomi, when the Lord has testified against me and the Almighty has brought calamity upon me?” (Ruth 1:19-21).

You could imagine her despair. She had lost everything, her family, her land, and as a widow in that world, with nobody to take care of her (especially in the days of the Judges when there was evil in the land) she was as good as dead. To make matters worse, she believed that the Lord had decided to go to court with her and she knew she had no chance. She could not stand against the Lord in court for He could not lose. There is no doubt, at least from the biblical witness, that there is a sense that God comes or at the very least allows His people to go through some awful and trying times. I also think from the biblical witness that it was not "impious" for his people to cry out "why Lord, why?" And that is what I am getting at. So often in Christian circles (and quite frankly I notice this more in the Reformed Camp though admittedly that is where I spend my most time) there is a knee jerk reaction, when a brother or sister cries out and expresses that they feel as though God has gone to "battle" with them or that their faith is being tested and they are struggling with trust, to set them straight. You know the cliches "oh you will have to pray through this" or "maybe God is testing you because your heart is not right" or "the Lord knows what's best for you" or "God is sovereign everything will work out." That is, however, often the quandry though isn't it? I mean it is precisely because you know God is sovereign that the angst comes. "Lord you are in control, therefore why am I going through this. You can take this away. Why don't you?" "Lord, how could it be good for me that my child has died?" Or that I have gone bankrupt and lost everything. There is a tyranny that I suspect we all feel (I don't like overstatements) so I will say that I have at times certainly felt (especially being a seminarian and wanting to Pastor the people of God I am supposed to have it all together. Right!!! All the "i's" dotted and the "t's" crossed) that tyranny to act like all is well with God and me. There are times that I have wondered to God, "why" or "what's the point". There are times I have felt as if God took up battle with me and let me tell you it is helpless feeling. I know it is "battle" I will lose. If the Lord decides to go to court with me and test me, I have no case to bring. I know there are some who may read this post (all three people LOL)and think to themselves, "This man is impious. How dare he even think of being a Pastor. He would lead people to doubt. How could a Christian say such a thing?" How do I know that? Just read some of the blogs when a person blogs about how hard things are for them at a certain time and read some of the "advice." Someone is just expressing themselves and boom the replies come in. "You need to pray." (Implying that the person isn't praying to God) "Well, maybe you need to get right with God." (Implying that the person isn't right with God). However, look at the biblical witness. You have Naomi, Asaph (Psalm 73), Job (and by the way it's the characters that had all the answers, who are said by the Lord to have spoken wrongly about God, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. "After the Lord had spoken these words to Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite: “My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. 8 Now therefore take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and offer up a burnt offering for yourselves. And my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly. For you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.” 9 So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went and did what the Lord had told them, and the Lord accepted Job's prayer" (Job 42:7-9)). What are we to say of Elijah who wanted his life to end (1st Kings 18), or the Apostle Paul who himself also said that he despaired of life itself (2nd Cor. 1:8) even though he knew that what God was actually doing was a good thing in and of itself. I don't know about you, but people don't ordinarily despair of life if they are enjoying what they are going through! Or what about Paul's cry to the Lord to heal him of his thorn in the flesh. He says he pleaded with the Lord, which again, I don't tend to think of people pleading who say, "Well Lord if you want you can heal me and if it be your will." No, I tend to think that a plead is more like an angstful cry from the depths of the heart. Again, Paul knows that these things do work for the good in some mysterious manner but that doesn't mean he is pleading, "Thank you, may I have another." Not at all. He is going through real pain and real despair. I could imagine that Paul wondered why many times in his labors for the Lord. Last of all though we have Jesus in the Garden and we have Jesus on the cross. The cry of Jesus from the cross resonates and haunts. The One who proclaimed the nearness of God and Kingdom of God, dies with a DEATH CRY that reverberates throughout the ages,"My God, My God, why have you Forsaken Me." Jesus dies as no stoic. Jesus dies with no grin and bear it attitude. No Jesus dies struggling and feeling abandoned. Jesus dies feeling in that moment that God had come to "battle" with Him. May we, who have been given the faith of Christ, persevere amidst the tears, the angst, the grief, the joys, the ups and the downs, that in all things we would say that I know that my Redeemer Lives and He shall take his stand upon the earth and in my flesh I will see God. Then and only then in the new heavens and the new earth will things be finally and totally the way they were meant to be. Amen.

2003-08-23T19:14:00.000-04:00

It is Saturday and that means the weekly barbeque. The chicken, which has been soaking in limes and herbs and who knows what else, is cooking up. Anyway, the weekly barbeque also means the weekly music. Tim and Seth, two thirds of the Gray Brothers, who by the way played the Double Door (the only true Charlotte music venue which has had Stevie Ray Vaughn, Clapton, Buddy Guy among others) last weekend will of course bring their talents and people like me will join in and drag them down!!! Well I will try not to drag them down but I will join in, I can't help myself when it comes to singing. One of the best nightime songs, after a good meal, good drink, and good conversation, is the following song from the Eagles.

There are stars in the southern sky
Southward as you go.
There is moonlight and moss in the trees
Down the Seven Bridges Road.

Now I have loved you like a baby...
Like some lonesome child,
And I have loved you in a tame way,
And I have loved you wild.

Sometimes there's a part of me
Has to turn from here and go...
Running like a child from these warm stars
Down the Seven Bridges Road.

There are stars in the southern sky.
And if ever you decide you should go,
There is a taste of time sweet and honey
Down the Seven Bridges Road.

2003-08-23T11:57:00.000-04:00

When the Jewish people, even to this day, celebrate the Passover they celebrate the meal not only as a memorial that is off in some distant past but they are to speak of it as a present reality. Though the Exodus from Egypt happened long ago, those who participate in the meal paticipate in the Exodus event (Exodus 13:8). Think of Jesus telling the disciples as he sits to eat with them on the night that he was betrayed, that he has earnestly desired to eat this Passover meal with them. He then tells them, in a manner reminiscent of the Lord to Israel concering the Passover feast, to do this in remembrance of himself. Could it be that the Eucharistic Meal that we celebrate in the present is a particpation in that night in which Jesus took bread and wine and said this is My Body, This is My Blood? Could it be that this is what Paul is getting at in 1st Corinthians 10:16, when he says rhetorically, "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"

2003-08-23T09:40:00.000-04:00

Here is a quote from T.F. Torrance:
"It was indeed in the course of the Old Testament revelation that nearly all the basic concepts we Christians use were hammered out by the Word of God on the anvil of Israel. They constitute the essential furniture of our knowledge of God even in and through Jesus. If the Word of God had become incarnate among us apart from all that, it could not have been grasped- Jesus himself would have remained a bewildering enigma. It was just because Jesus, born from above as he was, was nevertheless produced through the womb of Israel, mediated to us through the matrix of those conceptual and linguistic patterns, that he could be recognized as Son of God and Savior and his crucifixion could be interpreted as atoning sacrifice for sin. It was because God mediated his revelation to mankind in that patient, informing way through the history of Israel and within the interpretive framework of its relation with God in salvation and worship, that people were able iin that context to know God in Jesus and enter into communion with him, and proclaim him to the world. . . We have tended to abstract Jesus from his setting in the context in Israel and its vicarious mission in regard to divine revelation. . . That is to say. we detach patterns of thought from their embodiment in Israel as they presented in the Old Testament Scriptures, or even in the New Testament, and then schematize them to our own culture, a western culture, an african culture, an asian culture, whatever culture it may be. . . When we seek to interpret Jesus within the conditioning of, for example, our European culture, we inevitably lose him. The continued attempt to make Jesus relevant to modern ways of thought has the effect of obscuring him, for all the time we have been engaged in plastering upon the face of Jesus a mask of different gentile features which prevent us from seeing him and understanding him as he really is, as a Jew. . . we need Jewish eyes to help us see what we cannot see because of our gentile lenses, that is the cultural conditioned habits of thought and interpretation which we bring to Jesus and which makes us read into him the kind of observational images which have played such a dominant role in our literary culture and, until recent decades our scientific culture as well."

2003-08-22T00:46:00.000-04:00

It seems to me that a good number of people feel an overwhelming need to "justify" their actions. What do I mean by that? I mean there exists, as I see it, a pathos that compels people to make defenses and arguments for things that they like. I could think of many examples but entertainment comes to my mind in particular. Take movies, especially if they are of the potentially "offensive" variety. If one likes the movie, they feel the need to give a long well reasoned answer as to why they liked it. It's pro's and con's, it's sublime "theological message." I would love to have a nickel for every person who has reacted with "horror" because I didn't like "The Lord of the Rings." My answer, "I didn't like it" doesn't suffice, which makes me laugh. I have had at least 3-4 people tell me how I am not getting the metaphor and how Tolkien is showing the Gospel etc... He may well have done just that but I still didn't like the movie. I don't like movies like that, heck I hated Star Wars as a kid, I didn't like the Matrix. For me, when I go to a movie I like to shut my brain "off " and relax. I would be a horrible movie reviewer because it always seems as if I forget most of the movie 30 minutes or so after it ends. I saw a movie the other day, all I could say about it now is this: people got killed, it was campy which made it funny, and it did the most money at the box office over the weekend. This post probably makes no sense but it's late and I had a long day and I am rambling!

2003-08-19T18:25:00.000-04:00

I registered for the fall semester today. I have a good schedule. I have class on Monday 1-4, Tuesday 9-6, Thursday 8:30-5, and I am off Wednesday and Friday. It was a good feeling when I registered to be able to sign my name on the "Please sign if you are graduating in May '04" list. I had the privilege to preach Sunday evening at Church. The sermon was on John 5:30-47 "These Testify of Me" and it was about how the Scriptures are a servant of redemption, a line from Geerhardus Vos, that point beyond themselves to the Word made flesh, Jesus of Nazareth.

2003-08-16T12:11:00.000-04:00

Finally I am going to post the second part on righteousness.

So here we have the image of God entrusted with the task to bring to perfection the very good world made by God. To be man and woman means to participate in what the LORD has done, is doing, and will do. The story tells us that Adam and Eve failed in their fidelity to the LORD. They were not content to be under the LORD but to be equal to the LORD, deciding for themselves what was good and evil. They overstepped their bounds, if you will, and forgot that God is wholly other than them. They came from God, not God from them. Is that not the heart of sin; establishing for ourseleves what is good and evil and thus standing in judgement over good and evil, refusing to submit to what God deems is good and evil? Colin Gunton put it this way, "The essence of sin consists in wanting to be like God otherwise than in the way he invites and enables us to be like him." Adam and Eve fail in their vocation to live out the image of God and reflect in the world and by consequence back to God his glory and honor. God had made the world eschatologically, that is to say for salvation. Because of Adam and Eve's sin the only way for that eschatological, soteriological purpose to be realized is through redemption. I quote again the late Colin Gunton, "The purposed end of the story is the perfection of the 'work of art' to the glory of its creator." That is what redemption of the world is to produce. It is to set everything to rights, from the universe to human beings to ecogology, whatever exists that needs to be restored is included in the redemption. The New Testament informs us that Jesus Christ is the one in whom and through whom and for whom the world was created (e.g. John 1 and Col 1). This begs the question, would Jesus have come if there was no fall? We speak here where angels dare not tread, for it is dangerous to speculate on such matters but is it a stretch to say, since the world was created for the Son, through the Son, as a gift from the Father to be perfected in the Spirit, that Jesus would have come to the world even if there was no need of redemption? Though, I will say this: if the world was created for the Son, through the Son, by God to be perfected with the work of the Spirit, then two things need to be said, 1) that is why God does not DESTROY the world because to do so negates the gift of creation for the Son 2) it is appropiate that since the world was made for the Son that the Son would come to the world and become Man and not the Father or the Spirit. The eschatological purpose of God, to bring the world to perfection (salvation), is begun, or shall we say put back in place and brought back to course, in the life of Jesus. Israel's calling and election as the answer to Adam and Eve has come into the world in the man Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, the redemptive election of Israel is fulfilled in Jesus, who himself says, "salvation is of the Jews." Why is salvation of the Jews? Because they were the people entrusted to be the ones in whom God would set to right the world, in short the answer to Adam. That is why Paul calls Jesus the Second Adam. That is why Jesus calls himself the Son of Man. Think of what Paul writes concerning Jesus, "He is the image of the invisible God" (Col.1:15). Now our default setting when reading that is to think of this as pertaining solely to Jesus' deity. I propose that it is, however, a throughly Pauline way of saying Jesus is the true human. NT Wright says it best, "Humanity was made as the climax of the first creation (Gen. 1:26-27): the true humanity of Jesus is the climax of the history of creation, and at the same time the starting point of the new creation. . . the man Jesus fulfills the purposes which God had marked out both for himself and for humanity. Upon Jesus Christ, then, has come the role marked out for humanity, and hence for Israel." Ben Witherington puts it this way, "Jesus is the eschatolgical Adam. All of what Paul says has an eschatological flavor. In a sense, Jesus is starting a new creation, being firstfruits from the dead. But in another sense he is the end and the goal of the whole human race. . . He is bringing in the last age, the new creation, the end of God's plan. . . Jesus is the second human being." So what does all this have to do with righteousness and being righteous? Well for starters, those who are in Christ particpate in his righteousness. Those who have been grafted into the 2nd Adam share in his life. The purpose of Jesus' coming to redeem the world was to set the world back on course, we could argue that it is even better because of who Jesus is, but suffice to say, that at the very least Jesus came to overturn what Adam did restoring and refashioning (My imagination thinks of the image of God being broken in pieces and Jesus coming into that broken world and broken image and refashioning and remaking it from the inside out TF Torrance is excellent on this idea. Jesus does not come to the place where Adam started in the Garden of Eden but where Adam finished, cast into exile from the Garden, thus the body that Jesus receives is a broken body that is in the likeness of sinful flesh that he might destroy the fracturedness of this world from the inside out) humanity back to their rightplace as God's image bearers in the world. That is why the Church is the Body of Christ. The Church particpates in the Image of God as revealed in the Incarnate Son. We are united to him that we might particpate in the eschatolgical purpose of God. And what is that eschatological purpose of God: to perfect the very good creation of God and reflect God's glory into the world and back unto God. When Paul says that we are the righteousness of God, among the many things that he is saying is that we participate in the new creation, the new humanity (Eph. 2:15). We are participating in the eschatological, soteriological purpose of God as it has been manifested in the One who is both God and Man, Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, we who are in Christ must be a people who bring to bear upon the world this truth. We thus care about the arts. We care about populating the world. We care about the sciences. These are righteous endeavors that bring glory to God. They need NO JUSTIFICATION. We celebrate and worship the God who creates the world and yes restores the world by participating in the body of Christ and in turn live out in our spheres the Kingdom of God, wherever that might be.

2003-08-13T00:25:00.000-04:00

I should be sleeping because I have Greek class tomorrow and I need to get up early and study because I did not study that much today. It is one paradigm after another and to be honest it has been an easy but time consuming class. Like the Hebrew my grade though will not be indicative (good word for Greek!!!) of what I know. Yesterday got off to frustrating start as I was bit by mating ants (at least that's what it looked like) while I was sitting outside at school. I blame the incident for my failure to get a 100 on today's quiz, hey you always need an excuse! Today was a good day because my professor Dr. Harold O.J. Brown was back on campus. He has been feeling under the weather but he is doing much better. He and I went to lunch. I enjoy talking to him because he is a man who possesses not only great knowledge of Church history but who enjoys getting together with his students. His classes are great and are geared toward what I prefer in a class; participation. We hash out and tease out ideas in his classes which is what I like. In fact if I had my druthers there would only be two ways of testing; oral examination and papers. I don't like exams because I don't think you learn best that way. But I concede that is just my opinion because I know people who think I am nuts for prefering my way of testing. Anyway, I better get to bed I have a test in the morning.

2003-08-08T21:48:00.000-04:00

This will be the first of two parts that I am writing on Righteousness.

Righteousness is one of those words that is hard to define as to what it really is, despite the fact that it is used quite a bit in our vocalbulary. What does it mean to be righteous? How does one become righteous? Can we become righteous and if not, why even bother at all? It is essential for those of us who believe in the One who is Righteousness Incarnate to seek our understanding of what righteousness might look like according to the Scripture. In order to do this, we must go back to the creation of man and woman. Adam was created from the dust of the earth and formed by the Lord, "then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature" (Gen. 2:7). This creation by God was different from all his prior creation. This creation of man would be God's image in the world, "Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. . . So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen.1:26-27). It is VERY EASY to overlook the polemical nature of the story. While we know the Genesis account is written well after the actual creation, it is easy to forget that when we read the text. Genesis is written in a world that believed strongly in gods and they had a god for every situation. The gods were represented by frogs, gazelles, bulls, kings, mythic warriors etc... There would often be a statue (an IMAGE) of the god and the presence of the god was said to reside in some sense in the statue. Lest we make fun of the ancients for their strange and wicked beliefs, we know in our "so-called sophisticated" world that we have our gods. Think of Iraq and the ubiqitous images of Saddam Hussein spread throughout the country. Those images were not Hussein himself but to be sure they communicated his presence very well. I digress. Genesis is not originally written for the world, though it is the world's story, but for Israel. Who is Israel and why are they God's people? Genesis is the story that explains that to them. So Moses gives Israel the story that details for them how she came to be and why she has been chosen to be God's people. That story reveals, contrary to the pagan nations around them, that the image of God in the world does not reside in beasts or constellations or anything of the sort but in man and woman. God has his image in the world and it is humanity. Think back to images (idols); the image was not the god itself but the place in which the god's presence made its abode. The pagan nations did not view humanity, in and of itself, as the image of the gods but rather animals, or things in the heavens, or some kingly figure. In Genesis the opposite is true. Man is formed from the earth by God. The Lord has this image that he has just formed and he breathes His life into the image and the image comes to life. Is it a stretch to say that God's presence takes up residence within the man? That is to say the man as God's image is made to reflect God into the world. As one theologian commented, "If there is a sacramental reality, something uniquely or especially fitted to mirror the divine, it is the human race." In the midst of the story of man's creation we are told that it is not good for man to be alone. Here we have something that lies at the heart of being human; relationships with others. The man and woman are told to rule the world for God. They are righteous, that is to say they are in right relationship to their Creator the Lord God, with each other and they are to perform the tasks assigned to them. They are to cultivate the land, name the animals, populate the world and multiply themselves. This righteousness is not STATIC but fluid. It is creative (Doesn't Adam name the animals?), it is dynamic (They are to cultivate the land) it is eschatological. The Creation of the world is Eschatological, that is to say the world is to go somewhere and not stay put. The "Very Good" creation by the Lord is entrusted to his image to "perfect" the world. The man and woman are to bring to fruition what God had made. If this is an overstretch on my part, I would suggest why would the man and the woman be told "be frutiful and multiply?" Certainly the God who made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them could have just as easily made the world populated and full in an instant. But he doesn't. I propose that he doesn't do this because he is a patient God. He creates with a purpose. There is a telos to the creation. If I may be allowed to equivocate on the words "eschatological" and "soteriological" I think I could make the point this way; the creation was made with salvation in view. By this, I don't mean redemption. Redemption comes in to view after the fall. I mean prior to the fall God created with a purpose toward salvation, to take the world into perfection with his image, both man and woman at the very heart of that plan. This means that culture at its very core is to be engaged in the "ART" of perfecting that which was made "Very Good." To fail at that task is improperly reflect the image of God in the world. God, if you will, begins the work and entrusts his image to enage in the completion of that work. The Spirit of God is at work in the world through the image of God man and woman bringing glory to God shaping the creation toward the ends in which it was made.

2003-08-07T18:49:00.000-04:00

We are now starting on verbs. There are only five classes left of Greek I and we have already taken two of our three major exams and six of our ten quizzes. The apartment is decorated with paradigm charts hanging on the walls. It is hysterical. When our neighbors come over they immediately are drawn to look at them and their facial reactions are interesting. Something tells me that this is something only a couple of single guys could get away with doing to the walls of their home. I love the apartment complex where I live. The Lord's happy face of providence has definitely smiled on me here. Our neighbors (by that I mean about 20 people not just the people directly next door) are great and we have a real, bona fide community has been born here. Many of my neighbors are literally refugees. They are from Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, and Vietnam. They have been and continue to be a source of friendship where lasting bonds have been formed. I can't help but think that the English program that was established has been the instrumental cause of the community. I marvel at the fact that last June 2002 many of our neighbors (friends) were new arrivals to Charlotte. They were understandably nervous. Fast forward one year later and every Saturday we have the weekly barbeque. We bring out the homemade brew (which by the way is excellent) the guitar (I can't play a lick of music but Tim and Seth my friends who are in a band can) the food and sit out back for hours just talking, laughing, or singing. It's funny to hear a request from Verilojb that "Sweet Home Alabama" be sung. It may be even funnier to hear a New Yorker attempt to sing it! The Montagnards come to the barbeques and they love them. Their growth in the last year has been nothing short of remarkable. A couple of the guys now have their driver's license. I will never forget the first day that a few of the guys were in my car for the first time. They were scared to say the least. They had only been here for about a week and they had come from a world where it is not uncommon for you to go somewhere and not return. There reaction when they saw a police man for the first time was telling!!!! Those days are but a distant memory. Now, forget about it, Ngli or Tat will just nonchalantly come on over to the apartment sit down and talk. The conversations are still choppy and require some intent listening but considering what it was some 13 months ago is nothing short of amazing. There is nothing like sharing meals with other people to build community, friendship, love, and the list could go on and on. Boy, that sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it?

2003-08-05T15:47:00.000-04:00

Jacob Neusner's "Incarnation of God" has been one of the more influential books that I have read in the last year or so. Now a little needs to be said about Neusner. He is quite possibly the foremost Jewish scholar in the world. He is a professor at Bard College in New York and has written over 800 books. He was a classmate of Dr. Harold O.J. Brown, a professor of mine at the Seminary. Neusner is not a Christian and is not in the business of doing "apologetical work" for the Church's Christological claim. This is what makes the following quote all the more profound.

"The authorships of the Hebrew Scriptures would not have been surprised that in the final unfolding of the canonical writings of the Judaism dual Torah (Neusner defines Dual Torah from what we call the Old Testament and oral (also written) traditions of the 2nd Temple period up to the Rabbinic period) God gained corporeality and personality and so became incarnate. They had long ago portrayed God in richly personal terms: God wants, cares, demands, regrets, says, and does-just like human beings. God is not merely a collection of abstract theological attributes and thus rules for governance of reality. . .God is not a mere composite of regularities, but a very specific, highly particular personality, whom people can know, envision, engage, persuade, impress."

Neusner goes on to explain that when the Jewish teachers of the 2nd Temple period spoke of God coming to save Israel from her enemies and rule Israel, "they reentered that realm of discourse about God that Scripture had originally laid out." He adds, "Israel's Scripture's picture of God as incarnate, that personality who said to make us 'in our image, after our likeness.' "

Some of the ways that God made Himself Incarnate were in the creation of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve are the image of God. The idea of an image communicates that something represents another thing, in this case some one (humanity) represents another one (God). The Temple was another way that God would incarnate Himself to Israel. Maybe Jesus is working within this belief when referring to His body being the Temple.

18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. (John 2).

It seems pretty interesting that John records for us that when Jesus was resurrected the disciples remembered what Jesus had said and they believed the Scripture.

Now I just want to focus on two things here as it relates to some of what Neusener wrote. Now I admit, Neusner does not believe in the Messiah and Lord of the world Jesus of Nazareth. But as food for thought, think back to what Neusner says were some of the ways that Judaism spoke of God's Incarnation, the creation of humanity and the Temple. Think about this from the NT perspective and see if maybe this can make sense of what the NT writers write.
1. In Christ there is new creation. In Christ there is a new humanity. Does that not hearken us back to the creation of Adam and Eve? It sure does. 2. Those who are in Christ are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, thus Paul can say that we are the Temple of God. We are living stones and as such we participate in the redemptive work of God as He is recreating the cosmos. Does not the Psalmist say, "When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground" (104:30). Is it a stretch to say that we who are in Christ particpate in His Incarnation? Could it be that the Apostle has this running through his mind when he writes words that most exegetes are afraid of, for example:

24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, 25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, 26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. 27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. (Col. 1).

The first part of that great passage is what I had in mind when I mentioned that most exegetes were "afraid" of. It sounds to "Roman Catholic" I suppose but you know what, who cares? Paul seems to believe that, in his life, especially in his sufferings, participates in the redemption of Christ. That is to say that when he suffers it is Christ suffering. Considering Paul encountered what he encountered on the Damascus Road, is it any wonder that he would believe this? He knew first hand from Christ Himself that to persecute a Christian was to persectute Christ!!!!

Anyway, I only post as food for thought!!! I have my 2nd Greek Exam tomorrow. I better study for it!!!

2003-08-02T23:42:00.000-04:00

My friend Mark, from school, got married today. Mark is one of those people that you meet in my life that is what I call a "keeper", a friend that you meet that you know you will stay in touch with the rest of your life. I drove down to Greenville from Charlotte to attend the ceremony. I have been to many weddings and, while I admit it is impossible to know what is going through someone's mind, I have never in my life seen a Bride overflow with love the way that Mark's Bride Monica did during the service. It is almost impossible to explain it except to say that it was evident to me and my friend Ben. The language of the vows were beautiful based on the perichoretic (the mutual indwelling of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) relationship of the members of the Trinity. If anyone ever tells me that doctrine is impractical all I would have to do is show them the bulletin of today's wedding and show them the language of the vows. It was a great time and privilege to attend the wedding of my brother in Christ!!! As we say in Italian when we toast "cent'anni" (one hundred years) though in dialect it sounds more like "chen don"!!!!

2003-08-01T16:39:00.000-04:00

The first week of Greek I is over and there are now 9 classes left. We meet three hours a day for three weeks, which isn't bad. The Greek, at least in the beginning, has been easier than the Hebrew, especially the vocalbulary. We took our first major exam today and have two more left to take plus a daily quiz. What I like about taking the Greek at this point in Seminary is that I will graduate with the Greek fresh in my mind.

2003-07-30T14:45:00.000-04:00

I have recently written about the concept of death and resurrection that runs through the story of Israel. I wrote that death and resurrection are viewed through the lens of Israel's Exile and Exodus. Israel saw herself as the answer to Adam and the people that God had chosen to overturn the fracturedness of the world. Israel, however, is in a bit of a quandry; how can she be the answer to Adam and the people who overturn and restore the world to wholeness, if she is in exile? Enter the Pharisees. Who are the Pharisees and where do they come from? Why are they so integral to the Gospel story, unlike the Essenes, or the Saducees? One answer may be that the Pharisees see themselves proactively as an answer to the Exile problem. The Saducees were an aristocratic lot. If any group in 1st century Israel had an advantage over the rank and file it was them. Now in fairness to the Saducees we know next to nothing about them but they don't play a great role in the story of Jesus and outside of a couple of examples, they don't appear to have many conflicts with Jesus. The Essenes, it appears, may well have been related to the Saducees but withdrew from the larger community because they saw the Temple and the sacrifices as polluted and invalid. They awaited liberation from the pagans but were quietist (oversimplification) in their approach. The Pharisees, on the other hand, were active in their desire to overturn the exile. They wanted God to act and restore the world to rights. They did not like Herod and they were not afraid to voice their feelings (Gedalyahu Alon "The Attitude of the Pharisees to Roman Rule and the House of Herod"). The Pharisees' answer to the Exile problem was to extend the purity laws into the whole of daily life in Israel. The Pharisees also traveled abroad because they wanted to extend their sphere of influence to include Jewish people in the Diaspora and also make inroads in the Gentile world (Lawrence Schiffman FromText to Tradition). So, you could imagine, their anger at Jesus considering that their approach to being Israel conflicted with Jesus' approach to being Israel. The Pharisees want God to end their exile and Jesus is coming along and messing it up, in their minds that is! Jesus and the Pharisees are each offering themselves as answers to the problem of Israel and the world.

Anyway, I wrote that I wanted to look at Ephesians 2:1-15 through the lens of exile/exodus (death/resurrection) with Israel being the answer for the problem of both Israel and the world and see if what Paul says can make sense out of that paradigm.

1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. 11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

Paul is clearly writing to a Gentile community. 2:1 starts off talking about how they were "dead" in their tresspasses and sins. How could Paul use the word "death" if the audience was "alive?" Well, it's simply not a problem for a Jew to speak this way. Death did not mean ceasing to exist or anything of the sort but it meant to be forsaken by God. They, the Gentiles, were dead because at one time they were, "separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." In short, the Gentiles were in Exile every bit as much as Israel was in Exile. The Gentiles were abandoned by God because they had marred the image of God, in which they were made. The Gentiles were every bit as much of God's creation and people as Israel was. The difference, and quite a difference, between them and Israel was in the fact that it was to Israel that the promises and covenants were given to be the people in whom God would overturn the sin of Adam and the bondage of the creation.

Paul tells this Gentile community that God has made them alive with Christ and raised (resurrection exodus) them up with Christ in the heavenly places with Christ. Here again, Paul takes a term and defines it from within his Jewish worldview; resurrection. How can people who have not "died' (i.e. no longer living bodily) be resurrected? Well, a Jewish person, like Paul, would have the categories at his disposal to do that. He could say that they have been raised with Christ and not mean it in some meta-physical manner or some ontic category because he would borrow the Exodus narrative to explain it. It might look something like this; the Gentiles were in exile (dead) and without hope in overcoming that exile. But God in his great love, made them alive together with Christ and freed them from their exile by accomplishing an Exodus (resurrection). Why does God do this? Because of His great love and because they are His creation every bit as much as Israel. How does God do this? Through the people in whom the covenants of promise were given, Israel. The Gentiles have been incorporated into the commonwealth of Israel. But what Israel have they been incorporated into? The Israel that had its history devolve onto Jesus of Nazareth. In Christ a new humanity has been made. Both Jew and Gentile were under the curse of Adam. Israel was given the promise to be God's people in whom He would make a great nation and overturn the sin of Adam but she was unable to bring the problem to the final resolution. Why? Because she too was in Adam and thus part of the problem. In Christ a New Humanity has been ushered in and no longer is anyone to be defined by ethnic identity. What is the defining identity for the Apostle Paul? Read Ephesians 1 and see how often he uses the phrase, "In Christ", "in Him", "in the beloved". What matters to Paul is this; are you in Christ or are you not in Christ.

To be in Christ is to participate in His Resurrection, His Exodus that he accomplished at Jerusalem on the cross and by His resurrection from the dead. To be apart from Christ is to be in exile and alienation. To be apart from Christ is to be dead. To be in Christ is to live and be alive.

2003-07-28T15:45:00.000-04:00

Today I started Greek. This means that I will be busy because I will spend most of my time just trying to memorize everything that we learn in the class. The fall semester should be lots of fun since I will be taking Hebrew Exegesis and Greek 2 together. Taking the languages makes me wish I knew my English grammar.

2003-07-26T18:22:00.000-04:00

We are about to crack open the second batch of homemade brew. We just did the toast and it's Liquid Gold. Something tells me that this brew might be sweetly danegerous!!! Full body and smooth and goes down easily. Time for the weekly barbeque out back!!!

2003-07-26T18:07:00.000-04:00

My roomate Paul and I just got done redoing our apartment. Since we moved down here most of our books were in boxes because we did not have bookshelves and spending money was not an option. So we kept out our books that we knew we would always look at and kept what we wouldn't always look at in the boxes. Anyway, we were able to get our hands on a couple of bookshelves that are very big. So for the first time since living here, I am able to have access to about 90% of my books. For instance, I own the 38 volume Church Fathers set. That set was not accessible to me. I only own about 350 books, so my library is not that great, but it is nice to be able to get at most of my books. I don't know what it is about a book and its owner but there is a special bond!!! My roomate has access to 380 of his approximately 700 books. He was saying today how he can't wait until I graduate in May and head back home because then he can empty all of his books out of their boxes. The funny thing is we actually have more room in the apartment now because we were able to empty some of the boxes and put them in storage.

2003-07-24T11:02:00.000-04:00

Part 2 of Death and Resurrection of Israel.

The prophetic writings are loaded with language of Israel going into exile. The LORD will turn against His own people, coming against them in judgment and abandoning them to their enemies. They will be cast out from the land and plunged into exile. Again, if being cast into exile means "death" because at its heart, death is to have the LORD turn his face from you, withdraw His favor from you, in short, God forsakes you. Yet, death is not the final word in the prophetic writings. The regathering of Israel from her exile is always in view. Israel will not be forsaken by God forever. She will be restored and vindicated for who she really is, the chosen of God, the elect, indeed the son of God. Isaiah speaks of God coming to Israel and overturning her exile (death) and bringing her back to the land (life).

Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that her warfare is ended,
that her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received from the Lord's hand double for all her sins. A voice cries: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God." (40:1-3).

This voice is speaking of another Exodus that will take place. The language of wilderness would conjur up the wilderness that Israel traveled through on her way to Canaan after she had been delivered by the LORD from her bondage and exile in Egypt. God will be with Israel coming to her to lead her back home, bringing her to life.
The clearest passage, in my mind, about Israel being abandoned by God (exile) and being brought back by God (exodus) is in Isaiah 54.

For a brief moment I deserted you, but with great compassion I will gather you.In overflowing anger for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you,”
says the Lord, your Redeemer (54:7-8).

The LORD admits that he deserted Israel. He admits that he hid his face from them. Again, think back to the heart of death; to be forsaken by God. When God turned his face from Israel, she could not help but die, to be cast into exile. However, this is not the whole story. God will come in great compassion and gather (exodus) Israel unto himself. He will restore Israel back unto himself and place his face upon them once again with an everlasting love.

There are two stories in Scripture; the Israel story and the Jesus story. The story of Jesus should be understood in light of the Israel story. The Israel story is in desperate need for an ending. When those stories are read through the lens of the exile/exodus paradigm you cannot help but see how Jesus is treated by the New Testament writers as the answer to the Israel story. Thus, the story of Jesus, in their minds, is Good News to the Jew first and then the Greek. Why? Because Israel was the one in whom God would redeem the world. Israel was the chosen of God, if God did not act on her behalf there is NO GOOD NEWS for the world!!!!
Tomorrow I will take this approach and see if it can fit in Paul's letter to the Ephesians Chapter 2:1-15.

2003-07-22T17:40:00.000-04:00

I just got home after sitting in for a bit with John Frame. He is teaching this week at the Charlotte campus. I am not taking the class because I have already taken it with Dr. Kelly but I can sit in on the class as a student of RTS. Frame is very conversational as a professor. Very easy going and he doesn't fall into neat categories. We were talking about the existence and problem of evil. A few in the class were asking if we can explain the existence of evil from the various schools of thought such as natural law. I asked a question at the end of the discussion about evil. It went something like this: When push comes to shove, must we say that evil is something that must be defined by God. We do not stand in judgement on what is good or evil but God decides what is good or evil. For example, is there anything in "nature" that would say it is evil to eat a piece of fruit from a tree, unless God said do not eat the fruit from that tree? He answered that by saying that is exactly why we must get our understanding of what is good and evil not from nature but from what God has said because if we don't we end up with chaos. Tomorrow he will dicuss the attributes, the acts of God, and the Trinity.

2003-07-21T08:49:00.000-04:00

This post would be way too long if I post it all in one shot. Therefore, I will make this a two or three day project.

Israel must die, in order that she be resurrected.
When the Scriptures speak of the word "death", it often communicates the idea of God's favorable presence turned from you (think of the opposite of Numbers 6:24-26), having God forsake you, causing exile. Think of Adam and Eve in the Garden. God promised Adam and Eve that in the day they ate of the tree of knowledge and good evil they would die. However, Adam and Eve do not appear to "die" in the text. They are still alive. But if death means to be cast away by God causing exile then it appears that they most certainly "die." The text tells us , "the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life" (Gen. 3:23-24). They are cast out and exiled from the garden. The great redemption in Israel's history was the Exodus from Egypt. In fact, the Exodus from Egypt was the paradigm that Israel understood her future liberation from Pagan oppression. Think of how the prophet Ezekiel described Israel's state when God found her, "And as for your birth, on the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to cleanse you, nor rubbed with salt, nor wrapped in swaddling cloths. No eye pitied you, to do any of these things to you out of compassion for you, but you were cast out on the open field, for you were abhorred, on the day that you were born. And when I passed by you and saw you wallowing in your blood, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ I made you flourish like a plant of the field" (Ez. 16 4-7). In short, the prophet seems to be saying that Israel was dead (exile) but God made her alive! The prophets proclaim the death of Israel throughout their writings. Amos writes, "Hear this word that I take up over you in lamentation, O house of Israel 'Fallen, no more to rise,is the virgin Israel; forsaken on her land, with none to raise her up'” (5:1-2). God will go after the high places of Isaac and Israel's sanctuaries and He will come against the house of Jeroboam with the sword (7:9). Many other passages in Amos could be used as evidence to show that God will utterly destroy Israel and cast her into exile. Hosea seems to undo Israel's great salvation by saying that Israel shall RETURN to Egypt (8:13-14). Israel will be, according to Hosea, utterly destroyed by the Lord(13:7-9).

2003-07-17T23:53:00.000-04:00

My friends Tim, Seth, and Billy are playing a gig tomorrow night in town at a local bar. Tim and Seth teach english here at the apartment complex where I live. I have a link to their site. You can listen to a couple of their songs on MP3 on there as well. The Gray Brothers Home Page

2003-07-17T20:01:00.000-04:00

Don't you believe 'em when they tell you that if your knees land smack down on a harwood floor that it doesn't hurt!!! I went to a wedding on Saturday. It was my first southern wedding. Well, for some reason nobody danced. Back home a wedding is a huge celebration. Open bar, dancing (live band or dj), cocktail hour, entree, venetian hour and they last at least 6-7 hours. They are expensive but there are ways around that. You could rent a hall, buy your alcohol, cater it in, etc... Now I had never been to a wedding where there was no dancing, so I figured that the wedding had to be livened up on some level. Well I wind up dancing and everyone is looking at me like this guy has a malfunction(which is half the fun) and laughing (it may have had something to do with the fact that my tie was now functioning as a bandana). Anyway, I sought to end the dance with a bang. I was going to end by getting a bit of a lift dropping to my knees and ending with a split. Well the knees hit the floor way too hard but nobody noticed how hard they hit and they all started clapping. But son of a gun, I knew in a few short moments that my knees were in trouble. Well its been five days and the knees feel like someone twisted them three times behind my head. To make matters worse I had to help a friend move his stuff today!!!! If I was in the NFL I would be a doubtful on the injury report.

2003-07-15T18:57:00.000-04:00

Went to the homebrewery today and picked up more ingredients to make some more beer. Currently we have the first batch all ready to go. The second batch will be bottled next week and this next batch will get made tomorrow. It takes about 4 weeks total so it is important to get a batch up and ready when the fermentation bottle opens up. Who knew making beer would be a fun thing. Next on the agenda is to buy the soda making kit. That is not costly and once you buy the kit, your cost is about 4 bucks for the equivelent of 8 two liter bottles so it's a pretty good deal. I am reading two great books right now. One is on the Death and Resurrection of Israel in the Prophets and the other is the Resurrection of the Son of God, which I am finally getting around to after owning it since March. Now I am getting set to head out to see Vic Chesnutt perform at a local bar. He is definitely a man wrought with angst.

2003-07-14T09:55:00.000-04:00

What is fascinating when you look at the text in Luke concerning the Transfiguration is the fact of Moses and Elijah appearing on the mount with Jesus and conversing with Him. This story, with the appearance of Moses and Elijah, is so deep and vivid. Peter says something that he essentially gets rebuked for: let's build three tents for the each of you. Peter missed the point of the appearance of Moses (who embodies Torah) and Elijah (who embodies the Prophets) but in fairness to Peter he doesn't have any idea what was discussed and it isn't until God tells him to listen to Jesus that he has any idea of what may have been talked about.
As Peter is finishing his comments, a cloud engulfs them and a voice is heard and fear is all around. It is the voice of God the Father, "This is My Son" who else was God's Son? Israel (Hosea 11) and God's King (Ps 2). It's as if the Father is saying" this man in your presence, Peter, is My Israel, this Man, Peter, is My King." Then the Father adds, "My Chosen" who else was God's chosen? Israel. Why were they chosen? To overturn the sin and failure of Adam. Israel was God's chosen people to redeem the world. Think of Ezekiel 36 where despite the fact that Israel had shamed the Name of the Lord, the prophet declares that God would still work through Israel for the sake of His Name. The vocation of choseness is a difficult burden and it is dangerous. But God says, "Peter, in this Jesus, your teacher, your friend, I have My Chosen One to overturn the sin and rebellion and curse and bondage of the world. Peter it is in Him that the world will be set to rights and Peter you better listen to Him." God appears to be informing Peter of what was discussed by Moses, Elijah, and Jesus. As readers we have an advantage over Peter, James, and John because Luke tells us that they were discussing Jesus' Exodus that He was going to accomplish at Jerusalem. We are clued in to the story but Peter is not. Peter only saw the tail end of the encounter and was unable to make sense of what he had witnessed but he appears to have tried to make sense of it by wanting to build three tents, thus implying that he understood Jesus as one among many per se. He failed to see that in essence Moses and Elijah, if you indulge the ananlogy, are handing off the baton of Israel's history to Jesus. Think of a relay race. Israel has been running the first 2/3 of the race and Moses and Elijah, symbolizing Israel, hand off the baton to Jesus to finish off the race. The race is now in Jesus' hands to accomplish what Israel was unable to accomplish and finish. Jesus must finish it off (think of Romans 10 as Jesus being the end or telos of the law).
Therefore, when Peter, in a very well meaning way says that it is good for them to have witnessed what they witnessed and that they will build three tents for them, the Father voice enters the scene to tell Peter that would be to miss the whole point of the conversation of Moses, Elijah and Jesus that Jesus is Unique. God essentially tells Peter that it is to Jesus the story of Israel will reach its climax, its goal. He will accomplish this New Exodus and finish the course and overturn the plight of the world.
And notice what Luke does just after this encounter, he writes of Jesus beginning His march to Jerusalem, and setting His face like a flint toward Jerusalem. The Exodus that Jesus is about accomplish at Jerusalem is about to begin. I can't help but have the imagery of an athlete walking down the entrance way on his way into the stadium to compete. It's as if Luke is saying, "I want you to get this. This march to Jerusalem is it, it is nascent. Jesus' march toward Jerusalem is the beginning of the end of the race, it is drawing near and He is heading down the final turn."

2003-07-12T11:43:00.000-04:00

Our Church has a children's chat, and as worship leader (I just started last week, my roomate and I) I am to give the message. Now a little background needs to be stated. We work in a PCA church that has more in common with garden variety evangelical, baptistic culture than with Covenantal, historic, ancient catholicity. Essentially we try to outdo the baptists. Anyway, my desire at the Church is to assist the people of God in some small way to understand the covenant, and the way I am trying to do this is get a vocalbulary of Covenant language into the Church. You know start small and let it happen and see where God by His Spirit takes it. The following post is my little message to the children at Church tomorrow. The text for the sermon is Micah 5, so the children's message follows that.

You know the song that we sing at Christmas time, O little town of Bethlehem. Well that song talks about the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ.

O little town of Bethlehem, how still we see thee lie!
Above thy deep and dreamless sleep the silent stars go by.
Yet in thy dark streets shineth the everlasting Light;
The hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight.

This is one of the things that Pastor will talk about in his message. You see Bethlehem was a very small town. Yet it was in Bethlehem that Jesus was born. And notice what the song said about what happened in Bethlehem that night; the hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight.
You see we believe that in Jesus God has done a great thing. He has redeemed His people. And in order for God to do this great thing He sent His Son Jesus to be born and become just like you and me, except he never sinned, so that Jesus would be able to die for us on the cross.

Another thing that Pastor will talk about is that Jesus is the Shepherd. Now a shepherd took care of sheep because sheep were not very good at taking care of themselves. If sheep had no shepherd they would not be able to survive very long. But guess what? Jesus is our Shepherd. And that means that He will take care of us. . . He will guide us. . .He will lead us to God. You see when you were baptized God made a promise to you. That promise is that He will be your God and you will be His people. God made you a part of His covenant and your baptism into the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, sets you apart as His covenant people, His covenant children. You are different. Your Mom and Dad teach you the Bible and they teach you about Jesus. Not only does your Mom and Dad teach you about Jesus but Pastor Steve also. And not only Pastor but the Church also teaches you. And you know what we teach you? We teach you that Jesus is your Shepherd, He is your Lord, He is your Savior, and you are to believe in Jesus and live out the Covenant Promise that God made to you in your baptism.

Let us pray. . .
Gracious Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we thank you for your faithfulness. We thank you that you delivered on your promise to redeem the world. We thank you for what you did through your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. We ask now that you would be pleased to lead us, your people, set apart by you in baptism, to trust in your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the True and Faithful Shepherd, in the power of the Holy Spirit. We ask this through that Great Shepherd, our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God world without end. Amen.

2003-07-12T01:15:00.000-04:00

Just got back from my friend's house (my neighbors across the way) and the homemade beer tastes excellent. I was suspicious about the whole thing but I have to say that what was produced tased a lot like Guiness and a heck of a lot cheaper. The initial cost for the kit was 175 bucks but the cost for each batch made from here on out will be about 2 dollars a six pack. The beer has been named Prometheos Cervaza and the labels are ready to go on the bottles. This is stuff you do when you have too much time on your hands I guess. Earlier today, I went to the tobacco store. I bought what I needed but on my way out the door I noticed an ashtray. You can always use another ashtray because they are like lighters, when you need one you can't find one. Anyway, I look at the ashtray and it says "Scented Ashtray." Are you kidding me a scented ashtray!!!! There is a market for everything!!! Before the trip to the tobacco store, I had an interesting conversation with someone. I was sitting outside drinking coffee at a coffee shop reading a book on Death and Resurrection in the Prophetic Writing of Israel. So this person notices me reading this book and asks me what I was reading. Anyway, long story short I tell her I study theology at Seminary. So she sits down at the table and starts talking to me about life. For some reason, my experience has been that when people ask me about what I do, they ask me questions about life and/or God. So anyway she said that her life has been so bad and how her life is now a mess and that she figures that she needs to make the best of a bad situation because the way she figures we are all gonna die anway. So she asked me what I thought about dying. Without missing a beat, it was like I was in my default setting, I said, "Death utterly repulses me. I despise it, the thought of it makes me sick and there is an intuitive unrightness about it." She was surprised that I said that because I was studying to be a preacher. I then told her that death is the last enemy that will be destroyed according to the Bible. I told her that Christians believe that the great hope is not to rid ourselves of our bodies, but that someday there will be an end to death and that all who believe in Jesus Christ will be resurrected with our bodies on the last day. It was a neat conversation.

2003-07-10T20:52:00.000-04:00

With Major League Baseball's All-Star game about to be played this Tuesday at Chicago's Comiskey P. . .oooops, I meant Chicago's U.S. Cellular Field, I have some observations as to why the game will NOT generate any significant (I am inclined to say I don't think there will be any) jump in ratings despite Bud Selig and Fox's "This Time It Counts" promotion, with the winning league getting home field advantage in the World Series (a move that I think is stupid). For starters, the lure of the All-Star game used to be that you could watch players that you did not normally get to see. Back in the 70's, 80's, and even early 90's, the All-Star game gave you the opportunity to watch players play that you were lucky to see a couple of times a year if at all. For instance, take Mark McGwire in 1987. He had 31 homers at the break but he played with the A's, so most of his games were played after someone on the east coast was long in bed. He played before ESPN's contract with MLB to broadcast games. Thus, as a fan you knew of Mark McGwire's accomplishments mainly from the boxscore (a favorite pastime) or Sportscenter. Dwight Gooden is another example. When the Mets rookie hurler made his appearance in the 1984 game at Candlestick, you could feel the buzz in the air. Dr. K struck out the side and it was exciting for the many fans who did not normally get to see him pitch (oh what a year he had and '85 was even better). If ESPN had a national contract in 1984 you could be sure that the All-Star game would not have been the first time that many fans saw Gooden pitch. The list could go on and on. Compare that with today. Take Ichiro for example. Now there was excitement with his All-Star appearance but it wasn't the same as the aforementioned stars. The reason is that if you were a baseball fan chances are you had seen his "funky quasi-running down the first base line while I swing" swing, his blazing speed, and his rifle arm on ESPN during it's Wednesday night baseball or Sunday night baseball, or if you owned Directv you may have had MLB Extra Innings and be able to catch many of his games. Prior to ESPN your opportunity to watch teams play from outside your market was limited to NBC and its National Game of the Week and ABC and its Monday Night Baseball. You kept up with the game by watching TWIB (This week in baseball) with Mel Allen and the boxscore in the newspaper and Sportscenter (and that didn't come until 1979). You did not have Baseball Tonight with in-game cut ins. So, the first reason why I believe there will be no ratings jump is that there is an oversaturation. I don't think there is anything wrong with the many chances that we fans now have to watch our favorite stars and teams but that definitely has impacted the ratings of the All-Star Game.
The second reason is the fact of more competition on television. That is a no brainer. I remember when we had cable when I was a kid. You had HBO and you got better reception and that was about it. I remember when we got WTBS from Atlanta on our cable system. It was like I had died and gone to heaven. As a ten year old aspiring broadcaster, I said to my dad, "wow, you mean we can watch stuff from Atlanta!!!" Compare the television channels of yesterday with today. Let's see, just with basic cable there are 60-70 channels and that's just basic cable, let alone all the premium channels that are available. There is no shortage of options for the television viewer. They are not tied to a few options and no remote control. So, of course, the market share obviously thins out and that means ratings go down.
The third reason is the advent of inter-league play. Now I don't think this has had a major affect on the ratings but it has taken away some of the rooting interest and the bragging rights that come along with cheering for the winning league. For example, as a Mets fan I am a National League fan so when the All-Star game is played I root for the National League, and yes I was very happy when back in the late 70's and 80's the National League dominated.
So, why this silly and long-winded post about the ratings of the 2003 All-Star Game? Because I think it is stupid to make the game count. I think it is dumb to have the winning league get home field advantage in the World Series. It is and should remain an exhibition game and nothing more. Why have so much riding on the game when you have decisions being made that wouldn't ordinarily get made in a regular game. How many managers would take out a starting pitcher who has set down the side in order over his first two innings and has his curveball working and is able to locate his fastball, in short he has his "good stuff", in a regular season game that really counted? Not one!!! But guess what, chances are it will happen Tuesday night. How many managers will take out a batter who is in the "zone" in the fifth inning of a regular season game? But guess what, chances are it will happen Tuesday night. What if there is a play at the plate and the runner is barrelling down the third base line heading for home, full speed ahead and the catcher is vulnerable with his left leg out there, as he attempts to catch the ball and slide the glove across the plate all in one motion. What does the runner do? Does he come in shoulder first attempting to knock the catcher down and cause him to drop the ball? If you say "no" realize that that would not happen in a regular season game, and have admitted that the game is after all just an exhibition. If you say "yes" and the catcher breaks his leg or ankle or whatever and is injured and out for the season, a team has just lost a key player in the All-Star Game. By the way, before you say "Yes" I ask you to remember two names Pete Rose and Ray Fosse. Rose essentially knocked Fosse into another world when he collided with him at the plate. And to this day baseball people debate the legitmacy of what Rose did. You could be sure if the game were not an All-Star Game, nobody would question what Rose did. Or what about the time that Yankee slugger Dave Winfield played the whole game. George Steinbrenner was ticked off by that decision. Why was he ticked off? Because his star player was risking injury in a game that was an exhibition and if he got hurt it would have impacted his team's ability to compete in the regular season. I say keep it the way it is with the World Series, let the American League champion host in the even numbered years and the National in the odd-numbered years. If you are so inclined for change, then maybe give it to the team with the best record or even the League with best inter-league record, at least those games count in the standings.

2003-07-09T20:21:00.000-04:00

One of the things that I wish I knew better is the arts. I am clueless when it comes to things like Literature (though I like to read) Classical Music (though I love to listen Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition) and other aspects of culture. I couldn't tell you the first thing about a piece of music and why I like it. I just like it or I don't like it. Anyway, this is a long introduction to a question. My question is to those who are familiar with both Flannery O'Connor and Southern culture. What does she mean by this quote:

"I think it is safe to say that while the South is hardly Christ-centered, it is most certainly Christ-haunted. The Southerner, who isn't convinced of it, is very much afraid that he may have been formed in the image and likeness of God."

I think I have an idea but I am not positive in my idea. When I first moved down to Charlotte, if I was told once I was told 10 times by the locals that in the South you have to convince people that they are not Christian (the word of choice by them was "saved"). To be honest, I had never in my life heard that before (and I tell you being an Italian New Yorker I have heard some things). I thought to myself, "that seems strange, why would I go out of my way to convince church goers that they are not believers?" I am wondering if that mindset of the locals touches on some of what O'Connor meant. Am I way off base for thinking along these lines? If anyone has any idea what the quote means or how to interpret it (and it is a darn good quote) your insight would be welcome. Thanks.

2003-07-09T13:08:00.000-04:00

Emeth had an interesting post the other day about being denied the Lord's Supper because she was a visitor in the Church. These were some of the reflections that I had concering that situation. I am saddened but not surprised by the barring of visitors from the Lord's Table. Many, many leaders in the Church believe it is their "duty" to police the Supper. To be sure, there is a responsibility but that could be handled in a couple of ways, 1. Just do a faithful job of fencing the Table, for example in the PCA we are supposed to fence the Table by saying baptized members of an Evangelical Church or 2. Have visitors speak privately to the elders or leaders and give a credible profession of faith (though to be honest I don't know how practical that really is). When push comes to shove, these leaders fail to realize that ultimately it is the Holy Spirit's job to police the Supper. The denying of the Lord's Supper to a visitor comes from the same exact mindset that, sadly, many in my denomination (PCA) use to argue for infrequent Communion. They claim that they don't want the Supper to get "old" and become a "routine" and thus risk that people will eat and drink judgement on themselves. God forbid that the Lord Supper become a habit (as if habits are intrinsically bad)! In making the argument, they fail to recognize that the way to prevent that (as in the aforementioned case) is by a clear fencing of the Table (BCO Chapter 58-4). I also believe that there are other factors at work regarding the Lord's Supper, among them is the conception of the Supper as something "I do." Ironically, many appear to me to treat the Lord's Supper, as they do baptism, as an act of faithfulness on our part. But is it really an act of faithfulness on my part or is it a pledge of God's faithfulness to me by His ordained means to bring life to me? Think of the whole idea of the presence of Christ. The whole point of what Paul says to the Corinthians is based on the fact that Christ is present whether they know it or not. The ability to discern or think doesn't make Christ present in the Supper. It's almost as if people treat the passage as saying, "well if I think right about this then Christ will be present." Another thing is this, we claim to "celebrate" the Lord's Supper but does our body language communicate that? Notice the way most Churches practice the distribution of the bread and wine. The people are in the pew and they have their heads buried in their hands, eyes shut with that eye squint thing going on, seeming to me as if they are trying really hard to think or conjur up "good thoughts." The posture appears to be anything BUT celebratory. God forbid our eyes be open, looking at the bread and the wine, smelling and tasting the forgiveness of sins and beholding in our hands the presence of our King, saying with the Psalmist "taste and see that the LORD is good!" It's almost as if the "material" act (eating and drinking) of the Supper just gets in the way of the "immaterial" act (the right emotional or thinking state) of the Supper. I believe that most of us view the Supper from a morbidly introspective perspective instead of from an outwardly focused perspective. May our brothers and sisters throughout the world recognize in the Supper of our Lord we give thanks and Celebrate The Feast of the Victory of God. We partake through bread and wine and share in the story of our Lord. We are the people who eat of the flesh and drink of the blood of the One who though He was rich became poor so that in Him, we might become rich. My prayer is for us as the body of Christ to receive this great gift, give thanks, and rejoice. For once, Rejoice!!!!

2003-07-05T16:32:00.000-04:00

I want THEIR Life
One of the things that fascinates me about humanity is our proclivity to want what other people have or percieve them to have. I am struck by Seinfeld for that reason. People loved that show, as did I, but I often wonder why we did. I mean it was four people basically hanging out in an apartment yet they made it seem like so much fun. How many shows could have an episode where the whole thing takes place in a restauraunt waiting for a table? My life in my apartment isn't that much fun. In fact, sometimes I feel myself going crazy as I look at the four walls staring me in the face. Would we have loved Seinfeld so much if it portrayed life as it often really is, like Jerry in his underwear just sitting watching television, popping in a movie, or just reading a book and that's all he did, chores left undone, time wasted away (I mean he did say it was a show about nothing and to me that is nothing). What is so fascinating with entertainment and the love affair with it, is that we sit and live vicariously through fabricated, cliched characters thinking "oh if I only had their life". What are we to make of the fact that we have cable television shows and magazines dedicated only to the latest gossip of such and such star? We watch and read and get fascinated, intrigued and think "oh if I only had their life". We don't live our lives, so often, we live them through the stars, and the celebrities. We know more about Demi and Ashton than we do about Bob and Jennifer who live next door. And that is so darn weird and pathetic. That is why I love barbeques and friends and friends who play music in small neighborhood bars. That is why I love to have people over the apartment just to talk over coffee, enjoy some tobacco, good conversation, including the discussion of the story of Jesus, our Lord. We were made for community and we were made for direct interaction and involvement in the lives of others. That is why I love the imagery that the writer of the Hebrews portrays for the Church (Heb 10). I picture when I read that passage a community nestled together, huddled side by side moving forward toward the new heavens and the new earth. They need each other, they are tied to each other. Yet, so often, especially in contemporary suburban America, our Church life is anything but. We see each other once a week and say "Praise the Lord" and that's about it. That's one reason why I find Luke's Gospel so interesting, he writes of Jesus sharing meals with people. They sit down and break bread and smile and talk and laugh and interact. In fact, there is dispersion cast upon Jesus for eating these meals with tawdry characters, "how dare He break bread with these types of people." "How dare He be present at these gatherings and get close to these people." Isn't it an utter tragedy that that same Luke tells us that the post-resurrected Jesus is recognized, not in the reading of the Scripure but in the breaking of the bread (to be sure after the breaking of the bread the reading of the Scripture made sense to them, "did not our hearts burn") yet so many Churches decline an "invitation" to the one who is supposed to be the host? I thank God for the community of the saints. I thank God for food and drink, and smiles, laughs, and even tears. I thank God that I, with my brothers and sisters, have been given the privilege to participate in the life of Christ. That is the life I want, one that shares in the very life of God as manifested in the Man, Jesus of Nazareth, in the power of the Holy Spirit. That is Living!!!

2003-07-03T13:12:00.000-04:00

When I read the Gospels, I find myself marveling about how they tell the story of Jesus. Like how Mark begins by telling his readers that Jesus is the Son of God at the start of his Gospel and when does a human character finally get the fact that Jesus is the Son of God? At the cross in the death cry of dereliction, a hardened Roman Centurion utters the words that Mark has wanted you to see all along, "Surely this man is the Son of God!" Luke tells us Jesus is recognized on the road to Emmaus in "breaking of the bread" and there can be NO DOUBT of the Eucharistic implications of Luke's account. But it is to John that I want to turn attention to and how he describes for us the event when Jesus is rightly recognized for who He is. John begins the Gospel by inviting us in as readers and listeners to who Jesus is. He plays on the Genesis account as if to say "you know of the beginning but let me tell you of the beginning before the beginning." He draws on the Jewish literature that spoke of God creating the world by His "Word" and says that Jesus is that "Word" by whom God created the world. He then tells us that that "Word" is God and that the "Word" has manifested (incarnated) Himself and dwelt among His people. So he has already told those who will hear or read this Gospel who Jesus is, He is God. So the reader/listener has an advantage over the characters in the story. So here is my point: when does a character in the story recognize that Jesus is indeed who John claims He is? It is Thomas and he recognizes Jesus for who He is when Jesus says to Him "put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side." He doesn't dare touch the wounds but exclaims "My Lord and My God!" Thomas recognizes Jesus for who He is in His wounds, His pierced side, this Jesus, flesh of flesh and bone of bone, is recognized for who He is not in His greatest of outward miracles but in His battle scars. The Jesus who was crucified and buried in the tomb, abandoned, has been raised but Thomas recognizes Jesus in the torn flesh and pierced side! Anyway, I just find myself amazed by it all.

2003-07-02T10:23:00.000-04:00

We lost power over night and it is raining out right now. We have had an incredible amount of rain. I am getting set to go out for coffee. There is nothing like having a good cup of coffee, the Book of Common Prayer opened up and good company!

One of the things that is frustrating about many of the Bible translations is that they often take a word that is very clear and decide to use another word that makes things less clear. A case in point of this is the Transfiguration account in Luke's Gospel (9:28-36). Luke records for us the story of Jesus on the mountain and how Moses and Elijah appear and begin to converse with Him talking about what Jesus was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. Herein lies our example: Bible translations use the word "departure" giving the impression that they were talking about either 1. Jesus' death or 2. Jesus leaving this world. However, the word in the Greek is "Exodus". Now it is true that the word can refer to a departure. Sometimes we use the words interchangeably in English. We may say "there was a mass exodus from. . ." or "many people departed from. . ." and we mean the same thing with either phrase. However, we must not forget that when Luke is recording this event he is not writing in a cultural vacuum. He is writing in a world where Jewish expectation is for God to do another "Exodus" just like He had done in the past. Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner writes, " what God did to the Egyptians foreshadows what God will do to the Romans at the end of time. What we have here is the opposite of cyclical history; here history conforms to a pattern." In the narrative story world of the 1st century the word "Exodus" was wrought with pregnant meaning. Talk to an Orthodox Jewish person today (or most Jewish people for that matter) and ask them what "Exodus" means. Translating "Exodus" with the word "departure" would be akin to translating "four-score and seven years ago" as "eighty seven years ago" while technically accurate the narrative story world is deconstructed. If I were to mention "nine eleven" and asked you what that meant, you WOULD NOT be thinking that I mean "well it can either mean 1. emergency services 2. shorthand for the calendar as in September 11th." You would know that I mean that horrific day when planes were bombs and much death was caused! So what does all this mean? I propose for starters that at the very least Jesus has accomplished a New Exodus. The longing of Israel has devolved on Him and He has taken Israel's history as far as it could have gone. Here Jesus lives out Israel's story of exile and exodus and absorbs it onto Himself. The promises to Israel had come true in Jesus; in His death He had taken the exile as far as it could go. . . in His resurrection He had inaugurated the real return from that real exile. It means that even now when God acts in bringing someone to faith in Christ, a new exodus takes place, there is new creation.

2003-07-02T00:30:00.000-04:00

Considering I have posted about three times in the last couple of months (Though I have not stopped checking out many of my favorite blog sites. I have to say, I am amazed at how prolific so many bloggers are I wonder where do they find the time to post so much!) much has happened in that time. I finished my second semester at school and am now taking summer classes. This means that I will graduate next May, Lord willing. I came to school with 28 transfer credits and since last June I have added 52 credits for a total of 80. Needless to say, I am a little tired of the class room and am desiring to be done! I will need only 26 credits over the next school year to get to the required 106 for graduation. I was just recently hired on as a Pastoral intern at the Church I attend. It is such a privilege to be able to assist the people of God in worship to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. My home Church, back in New York, has been a real blessing. I will come under care sometime in September. I look forward to posting on a more regular basis.

2003-05-20T23:13:00.000-04:00

It has been a long time since I have posted. I have been very busy with school, as well as, my mother having been sick for awhile back home, so I just have not had time to post. What I have posted is some of the work I have done for my paper on the Letter to the Hebrews.

Supremacy over the High Priest
The closest that the author gets to criticizing Israel's past history is his discussion on the Levitical priesthood.
Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? (Heb 7:11)

The writer has no desire to dismiss the old system as something that was bad but rather as insufficient (7:11;8:7). The Levitical priesthood was never intended by God to be the remedy for the forgiveness of sins because the priests who administered the sacrifices, were themselves sinners, therefore their sacrifices could not take away sins (9:7; 10:11). Thus, the priest that was to come did not and could not have come from the tribe of Levi. The king, on the other hand, had to be a descendant of David from the tribe of Judah (2nd Sam 7:14; Heb 7:14). There was no more corporate personality in Israel than her King. In a recent article, Deborah Rooke has pointed out that the monarchy in Israel was tied to the priesthood. The characteristics of Jesus's priesthood which are detailed in the description of him as ‘priest after the order of Melchizedek' (7:17) are those not merely of the high priesthood but of the royal priesthood; in other words, rather than being the description of a high priest, the picture of Jesus depicts what modern scholarship would call a sacral king. Space does not permit us to spend time teasing out this interesting suggestion, but it is sufficient to say that the writer does not root Jesus' priesthood after the order of Aaron and his descendants. This priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek, which in the author's view was necessary (7:11). This appeal to Melchizedek, which was not without precedent in Second Temple Judaism, for the superior priesthood of Jesus, therefore, means that Jesus' priesthood is permanent, thus Jesus is able to save all those who draw near to God through him (7:24-25).

Rooke, D.W. 1998. Kingship as Priesthood: The Relationship between the High Priesthood and the Monarchy, King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East. JSOTSS 270 187-208. Rooke, who did her PhD on the high priesthood in the OT, writes that the priesthood undertaken by the monarch arose from his being understood as the son of God in some sense, and this did not merely link him to the sanctuary but actually gave him a privileged relationship with God. Unlike the ordinary priests around him, for whom it was possible to be of priestly descent and yet not actually function as priests (cf. Deut 18,6-8; Lev 21,17-23), the monarch had no choice as to whether or not to fulfil the priestly responsibility of mediation laid upon him; he was a priest for ever, whether he liked it or not, because of the sonship granted to him by God. The tradition of sacral kingship, teaches that united in the one person are the dual honors of royalty and priesthood. We do see on a few occasions in the Old Testament where King David and King Solomon offered sacrifice to the Lord on behalf of the people and blessed them (2nd Sam 6:12-18; 24:25, 1st Kings 3:4; 8:62-64). Philo believed that Melchizedek was made by God to be a king worthy of his own priesthood. Vermes, Geza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. New York: Penguin Putnam, 1997, pp. 500-02. The Dead Sea Scrolls have produced a text, called 11 QMelchizedek which presents him as the agent of liberation in the Jubilee.

2003-04-13T13:29:00.000-04:00

Matt posted a good question as to whether or not we are still in the wilderness. It would seem to me that on a reading of Hebrews the writer would say that yes we are in a type of the wilderness. If there is not a sense of the wilderness, then the writer's analogy to it would make not much sense. The writer (or preacher) seems to be employing a creative imagining of the Exodus story to make his point to the Hebrews that they must not be like the generation in the wilderness. Like Israel after their liberation from Egypt (Exodus Good thing) on their way (wilderness) to the promised land (Good thing) those who believe in Jesus have been delivered by His Cross (good thing) on their way (wilderness) to the promise (new heavens and new earth the heavenly Jerusalem from above). If I can be forgiven for employing this eschatological scheme on the Exodus story, it seems that the writer of Hebrews might say that the wilderness motif works under an already (liberated from Egypt) and not yet (on their way to the promised land) system. The New (Exodus) overlaps and inbreaks the Old (bondage to slavery in Egypt) in the wilderness jouney to Canaan. Therefore, the wilderness should not neccesarily be seen pessimistically because there is great promise attached to it, the Promised Land. Anyway, time to eat and relax.

2003-04-12T12:49:00.000-04:00

I am working on a paper for a Summer Class on Hebrews-Revelation. The paper will essentially be on The Reimagining of the Exodus Narrative in the Letter to the Hebrews. One of the more fascinating aspects of the letter is the "benediction" of Hebrews 13:20, "Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant" (ESV). Now the words "brought again", while not off base, does not communicate the full imagery that the writer is employing with the use of anagagon literally "led up" (read Wright Resurrection of the The Son of God p 460 f.22; DeSilva Perseverance in Gratitude pp 508, 511). Here the writer uses the imagery of the Exodus story in Isaiah, "Then he remembered the days of old, of Moses and his people. Where is he who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his flock?" (Is 63:11). The story goes back to the Exodus and in paticular the inagugarating of the Covenant at Sinai, "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." Here Jesus is identified with the story of Moses and Israel in the Exodus. Just as Israel had been led up out from Egypt by God, so to has Jesus been led up from the dead (death is often equated in the Scriptures with exile) by God. Just as Israel's being led out from Egypt inagugarted the Covenant at Sinai, so to has Jesus' being led up out from death inaugarated the Covenant but this Covenant is an Eternal Covenant rooted in Jesus' blood ( As for you also, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit. Return to your stronghold, O prisoners of hope; today I declare that I will restore to you double Zech 9:11-12). This closing benediction serves as a pregnant reminder to the reader that it is in Jesus that Israel's hope is to be found. To turn your back on Jesus is to turn your back on the God of Peace (rest) and thus be like the generation in the wilderness who never entered the rest of God but rather, tragically, died in the wilderness. To go back to the Temple system is to be like the generation in the wilderness who wanted to go back to Egypt because at least in Egypt, they reasoned, they had bread to eat. May we, who believe in Jesus, stay firm in our allegiance to Him as we live out our lives in the wilderness of life.

2003-04-04T00:05:00.000-05:00

So often in life, we make conclusions about God's presence based on outward appearances. For example bad things happen, therefore, God was absent. We often forget that first Good Friday when, from all outward appearances, it seemed pretty evident that God was absent from the life of Jesus, especially manifested in his death cry from the cross. Yet it was there, at that moment, that God was intimately active in the life of Jesus, doing in and through him what he had promised long ago to Abraham. It was there that God was bringing to a close the world's long night of exile and overturning the sin of Adam. Jesus climatically lives out in his death Israel and the world's exile and destroys it from the inside out. It is in light of this truth that I wrote this prayer knowing full well my proclivity to struggle with the often deep and distrubing realities all around us.

We O God darken your counsel and often question your ways...we tend to doubt your goodness and call into question your integrity...we observe much of life and make conclusions about you based on what we see...as we look at the world we so much suffering and evil...so much pain and despair and we grow weak and wearied...we often look at our circumstances and, of all things, dare to charge you with failing us...we ask where are you in all of this...but O God you have answered us out of the whirlwind...you sent forth your Son into the world and he entered the world...he has shared in humanity's plight...the One through whom all things are...the One through whom all things are held together...the One whose glory Isaiah beheld...he has come to us and shared in our humanity...who are we to doubt your ways O God...you have not despised the world that you made... you have not left us to ourselves...O God you have not abandoned us...your great loved moved you to send your Son to us and he made his dwelling among this world... O God He was faithful to his mission to be Israel's Messiah and the world's rightful Lord and it pleased you to reconcile the world through him...for you were in Christ reconciling the world to yourself...because of your Son's faithfulness to your will he has become our great high priest sitting with you in the holy of holies making intercession for us, your people...because he has shared in our humanity he is able to sympathize with us in our weakness and temptations, yet, unlike us he was without sin...like your servant Job we are left speechless by your actions...what you have done in Christ leaves us groping for words to express how awesome and wonderful it all is...all we can do is keep silent before you... O God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit may our voices join with that great cloud of witnesses gathered above and sing with the angelic choir your unending hymn of praise...Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord...God of power and might...Hosana in the highest...heaven and earth are full of your glory... Hosana in the highest...Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord...Hosana in the highest.

2003-04-03T23:39:00.000-05:00

These are the lyrics to the Dylan song which plays over the credits at the end of "God's and Generals"

CROSS THE GREEN MOUNTAIN

I cross the green mountain, I sit by the stream
Heaven blazin' in my head, I dreamt a monstrous dream
Somethin' came up out of the sea
Swept through the land of the rich and the free

I look into the eyes of my merciful friend
And then I ask myself, is this the end?
Memories linger, sad yet sweet
And I think of the souls in heaven who will meet

Altars are burnin' the flames far and wide
The foe has crossed over from the other side
They tip their caps from the top of the hill
You can feel them come, more brave blood to spill

Along the dim Atlantic line
The ravaged land lies for miles behind
The light's coming forward and the streets are broad
All must yield to the avenging God

The world is old, the world is gray
Lessons of life, can't be learned in a day
I watch and I wait, and I listen while I stand
To the music that comes from a far-better land

Close the eyes of our captain, peace may he know
His long night is done, the great leader is laid low
He was ready to fall, he was quick to defend
Killed outright he was, by his own men

It's the last day's last hour, of the last happy year
I feel that the unknown world is so dear
Pride will vanish and glory will rot
But virtue lives and cannot be forgot

The bells of the evening have rung
There's blasphemy on every tongue
Let 'em say that I walked in fair nature's light
And that I was loyal to truth and to right

Serve God and be cheerful, look upward, beyond
Beyond the darkness of masks, the surprises of dawn
In the deep green grasses of the blood stained world
They never dreamed of surrenderin', they fell where they stood

Stars fell over Alabama, I saw each star
You're walkin' in dreams, whoever you are
Chilled are the scars, keen is the frost
The ground's froze hard and the morning is lost

A letter to mother came today
Gunshot wound to the breast is what it did say
But he'll be better soon, he's in a hospital bed
But he'll never be better, he's already dead

I'm ten miles outside the city, and I'm lifted away
In an ancient light, that is not of day
They were calm, they were blunt, we knew 'em all too well
We loved each other more than we ever dared to tell

2003-04-01T16:57:00.000-05:00

They are the soldiers of Anzio and Iwo Jima. They are the soldiers who stormed the shores of Normandy. They are the soldiers of Operation Overlord. They are the soldiers of Pyong-Yang and the jungles of Vietnam. They are the soldiers of distant lands, from Panama to the Desert Storm. They are the soldiers of liberation, from the shores of Europe to the caves of Kabul, and even now they are the soldiers in the sand, fighting for the cause of freedom. They are Brooks, Driscoll, Colucci, Rincon, Halstrom, Tatum, Jackson. They are the men and women of the United States Military. Their cause is just, their efforts are noble, their resolve is strong, their service is valiant, and their sacrifice ultimate. They will not falter, they will not fail, though their hearts grow heavy and their burdens great, they will stay the course, they will run the race, and they will complete the task they have been entrusted to do, for freedom's sake.

A Grateful American

2003-03-21T00:44:00.000-05:00

I am leaving tomorrow for New York. We are on spring break, so I will be spending about a week and a half back home, therefore no internet for almost two weeks, good maybe now I can get some studying done!!! Lord willing, I should be back March 31st. It will be nice to see my family and be with my home Church, and I will also have the privilege to preach Sunday. I never realize how much of a New Yorker I am until I am away.

2003-03-16T14:22:00.000-05:00

On the seventh day God rested in the darkness of the tomb; Having finished on the sixth day all his work of joy and doom. Now the word had fallen silent, and the water had run dry, The bread had all been scattered, and the light had left the sky. The flock had lost its shepherd, and the seed was sadly sown, The courtiers had betrayed their king, and nailed him to his throne. O Sabbath rest by Calvary, O calm of tomb below, Where the grave clothes and the spices cradle him we did not know! Rest you well beloved Jesus, Caesar's Lord and Israel's King, In the brooding of the Spirit, in the darkness of the spring. The Challenge of Jesus 176.

2003-03-14T17:00:00.000-05:00

I am sitting here listening to Simon and Garfunkel's Bridge Over Troubled Water. I cannot help but get choked up as I think back to the morning of September 11, 2001. NYU did a video montage of the events of that day and they played Bridge Over Troubled Water as the music bed. The sky was such a beautiful blue that warm September morn. The scenes were haunting, showing my fellow New Yorkers in utter horror as the Towers fell and almost 3000 people lay dead in the rubble. . .When tears are in your eyes I'll dry them off. . . I am on your side when times get rough and friends just cant be found. . . when your down and out when your on the street when evening falls so hard. . . and pain is all around. There was not anyone who did not personally know someone who died that day. Rob, a trader with Cantor Fitzgerald, a new father married to Annie, Dennis, a chef at Windows on the World, married to Rob's sister, Janet, employed by Marsh & McLennan, married to Robert, mother of two young children, and Tommy, brother of Ed and Michael, employed by the NYFD at engine 4. I am also thinking back to last year, on this day, March 14th 2002, as my little niece Gianna was born. She was born with Truncus Arteriosus. In this defect, only one artery originates from the heart and forms both the aorta and the pulmonary artery. The truncus receives low oxygen blood from the right ventricle and oxygen rich blood from the left ventricle. This mix of high and low oxygen blood is sent out to the body and to the lungs. Open heart surgery in infancy is needed to correct this defect. Gianna has had two open heart surgeries and two balloon procedures, and a pace maker inserted. Those born with Truncus often do not live past five weeks, and many do not make it to come out of their mother's womb. Gianna, however, has thus far overcome and is now 1 and me and my family thank the Lord for His grace and mercy and mostly for bringing her into our lives. She now weighs 14 pounds and is a little bambina full of smiles. As I sit here reflecting and thinking on life and its various pains and tragedies, joys and happiness, I am reminded as to why I am in seminary and studying God's Word and the glorious Gospel of His Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit. I can think of no greater privilege to be a minister of the grace and love of God, manifested in the One who weeps and gives of His flesh and blood for the life of the world, serving God's people and calling all people everywhere to call on the One who "having finished on the sixth day all his work and doom. . . O Sabbath rest by Calvary, O calm of tomb below. . . Rest you well, beloved Jesus, Caesar's Lord and Israel's King, in the brooding of the Spirit, in the darkness of the spring." The One who tasted death and yet was raised from death by the Spirit of Life and Holiness, that we may say, in the mix of tears, pain, and joy. . . "He is Risen, Risen Indeed!"

2003-03-09T23:57:00.000-05:00

Martin Luther: For if you ask: What is the Gospel? you can give no better answer than these words of the New Testament, namely, that Christ gave his body and poured out his blood for us for the forgiveness of sins. This alone is to be preached to Christians, instilled into their hearts, and at all times faithfully commended to their memories. . . Therefore these words, as a short summary of the whole Gospel, are to be taught and instilled into every Christian's heart, so that he may contemplate them continuously and without ceasing, and with them excercise, strengthen, and sustain his faith in Christ, especially in the sacrament. . . Just as this pledge of the promise of Christ is elevated in order that the people may thereby be inspired to faith, so that the Word should be preached publicly to the people in order that everyone may hear the testament and see the pledge, and through both be attracted and aroused to faith and strengthened in it. Luther's Works Volume 36 p 183.

John Calvin: What we have hitherto said of the sacrament, abundantly shows that it was not instituted to received once a year and that perfunctorily, but that all Christians might have it in frequent use, and frequently call to mind the sufferings of Christ, thereby sustaining and confirming their faith. . . Thus we ought always provide that no meeting of the Church is held without the word, prayer, the dispensation of the Supper, and alms. Each week, at least, the table of the Lord ought to have been spread for the Christians, and the promises declared on which we spiritually feed. Institutes Book 4 pp 600-01 Beveridge Ed.

Peter Martyr Vermigli (Italian Reformer and Contemporary of Calvin, Bucer, Cramner etc... assisted in the 39 Articles of the Church of England and upon the death of Wolfgang Capito assumed the chair of Old Testament at Strasbourg for Bucer): He (Christ) ordained (the sacrament) we should always do this (celebrate the Supper) in perpetual remembrance of his passion and death. . . My brother, do you wish to encounter the presence of Christ? Take that sacrament with lively faith, precisely as he prescribed. . . The use of the sacraments is of great value to the Church, since they are visible words of God through the outward signs of water, bread, and wine. These signs, like words, effectively portray to us the promises of God's mercy. Of those promises we actually partake, so that they are both neccessary and salutary.

2003-03-06T00:24:00.000-05:00

Tonight I went to Ash Wednesday services at a local Episcopal Church. Ash Wednesday is such a sobering reminder that we are dust and to dust we shall return. We are confronted with the reality of sin (death) and our mortality. We recited with the Psalmist, "For He knows how we were made; He remembers that we are dust" (103:14). The service though does not end with that solemn word, it does not leave us without hope. For we are told and declare in unison the great mystery of faith, Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again. The communion prayer informs us that God, in His great mercy and love, sent His Son, our Lord Jesus, to give of His flesh and blood for the life of the world. We are reminded that indeed God has kept His promise, His covenant to Abraham, and fulfilled it in Jesus of Nazareth, in the power of the Holy Spirit. We are reminded and encouraged that we who believe in Christ, that even though we die, we shall live forever. We are reminded and renewed that death does not have the final word, but Christ has the final word, for He has dealt a death blow to death itself, as we wait in joyful hope when that enemy will be finally destroyed and all things will become new, the creation and our bodies. We will be able to say with Job, " "We know that our Redeemer lives, and that at last He will stand upon the earth, and after our skin has been destroyed, then in our flesh we shall see God." That is what we recite when we say the Nicene Creed. . . we believe in the resurrection of the body and the life of the world to come. The glory of these fourty days, fill our hearts with joy and praise, as we remember what God has done in and through His Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit, who was faithful to God, on our behalf. Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the begining, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

2003-02-26T21:38:00.000-05:00

My roomate and I are getting set to teach a Sunday School class, thirteen weeks in total, entitled An Introduction to the Study of the Synoptic Gospels. One of the lessons will be on the identity of Jesus of Nazareth. As you look at what the Gospel writers do in identifying just who Jesus is, you see Jesus as identified with YHWH, Israel's God and Jesus as identified as Israel personified. Jesus lived out and recapitulates the narrative of Israel's history (it is in Jesus upon whom the end of the ages fell) and Jesus lived out the narrative of Israel's hope in YHWH, Israel's God, bringing God's deliverance (Kingdom of God) to Israel (new age/recreation), thus Jesus of Nazareth is at once both Israel's King, and Israel's Lord, and by consequence this Good News for Israel is Good News for the Gentiles. These thoughts are brought home by scholars Richard Bauckham (Divine Identity) and Tom Wright (Idenity of Israel personifed). I just find thinking about these things to drive me to my knees in awe at what the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has done in and through Him, in the power of the Holy Spirit.

2003-02-22T15:54:00.000-05:00

One of the most fascinating aspects of the discussion about Norman Shepherd, as well as the comments made against Mark, Steve Wilkins, and others about them teaching or even coming close to heresy for their teaching, is that these claims are being made by some alligned with an eclessiastical communion that have standing juridical courts that are to make those decisions. For Dr. Pipa (whom I know from my Greenville days) to call a fellow PCA Pastor a heretic or make the claim that his teaching is heretical without going through the proper channels of Presbtyery and General Assembly is a violation of the Standards of the PCA. PCA ministers and officers are duty bound to follow the Book of Church Order in these matters. The charge of heresy must never be used flippantly or without a heavy heart. It must never be used as an ad hominem, as debating tactic to try to catch someone off guard. I don't mean to be a bore by bringing up the standards but to those who are ministers in the PCA, they are very important. The Book of Church Order requires, that a process against a minister of the Gospel shall be entered before the Presbytery of which he is a member. If the Presbytery of which he is a member refuses to act in the matter, other Presbyteries may request the General Assembly to assume original juridstiction and the Assembly shall do so (Chapter 34.1). As no minister ought, on account of his office, to be screened in his sin or slightly censured, so scandalous charges ought to not to be received against him on slight grounds(Chapter 34.2). Heresy and schism may be of such a nature as to warrant deposition; but errors ought to be carefully considered...(Chapter 34.5). By the way, the OPC another denomination in the tradition of the PCA also has courts to ajudicate these matters and Norman Shepherd was cleared by that court. All I can say is this; not one time have I seen Mark or Steve call anyone a heretic and not one time have they implied or impugned the doctrinal character of a fellow brother in our Lord Jesus Christ. I ask, as one who desires to someday become a member of the PCA as a minister of Word and Sacrament, that those bound to the standards of the Church follow its procedures.

2003-02-19T22:14:00.000-05:00

I have been thinking about the concept of regeneration. We so often think of it purely in some individualistic concept. I have checked my various systematic theologies and have not found "regeneration" under any eschatological scheme. Regeneration, however, is an eschatological act on the part of God that is anticipatory of the cosmic regeneration of all things, the new heavens and the new earth. We, the regenerated people of God, are the firstfruits of God's redeemed universe. The Jewish tradition, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, saw the regeneration of all things as being tied to Israel. When YHWH would act for Israel and through Israel (Messianic imagery) He would bring about the regeneration of all things. The Rabbi's used Hosea 6:2 as evidence, which says, "After two days He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live before Him." Hosea speaking as Israel exhorts the people to come and return to the Lord. Before the return, however, it says Israel will need to revived (i.e. returned from exile because they are in exile) but on the third day they will be raised up (resurrected from exile, exodus language of return) that they may live before Him (in the presence of YHWH ie. the blessing imagery, the face of the LORD shining on Israel, when YHWH presence was upon Israel, Israel was not in exile but free). The language of being revived and then raised up on the third day sounds awfully familiar to a 1st century Jewish Man from the back waters of Galilee saying, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Jesus' words must have made those questioners want to kill him. An attack on the Temple was an attack on God and yet Jesus is essentially saying that that Temple must go, for He is the Temple, the true embodiment of YHWH but before the Temple in Jerusalem goes to destruction, Jesus the true Temple must go to destruction but unlike that Temple in Jerusalem which will lay in ruins, His Temple will be raised up in three days. Hosea says that Israel will then live before God. Who has gone before us in ascenscion and lives before God? None other than Jesus of Nazareth who forever is exalted at the right hand of God, ever living to make intercession for us (temple language). These thoughts fill me with awesome wonder as I marvel at the depths and the riches of our God, who was faithful to His promise to overturn the sin of Adam, through the life, death (exile), burial and resurrection (exodus) of Jesus.

2003-02-16T21:22:00.000-05:00

I am reading a great book by Jacob Neusner on Judaism in the time of early Christianity, Judaism when Christianity Began WJK 2002 Neusner writes that all the various forms of Judaism in the 2nd Temple period saw Israel as the answer to Adam. The literature of the day all points to the fact that they saw themselves as God's answer to undo what Adam had done. They were the people in whom God would usher in the return from Exile. I find that fascinating as I think of what the Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 5 when he contrasts Adam and Christ. Paul's Adam-Christology is not some curve ball in the plan of redemption but in line with Jewish conceptions. Paul, most likely a Shammiate Pharisee, trained in that tradition would know of this teaching. Paul appears to be drawing on such teaching when he makes the Adam/ Christ comparison. Paul is saying, "Yes, Israel is the answer to Adam, and yes God has fulfilled His promises to our fathers. God has acted through Israel and on behalf of Israel in His Messiah, who is Jesus of Nazareth." That is why, it seems, Paul writes Romans 10 when he says that the Jewish people have a zeal for God but not according to knowledge because they have not recognized that her history devolved and fell into the lap of her Messiah, who was God's annointed representative to bear the burden of Israel and yes the world onto Himself. I really wish that at Seminary, especially with all the work that now exists on 2nd Temple Judiaism, we studied the theological world of Judiaism especially as it pertains to the time of Our Lord Jesus who lived within that world.

2003-02-14T13:02:00.000-05:00

I am just sitting working on stuff for seminary. The classes began this week and I am taking 16 credits of which only 3 are hard and that is Hebrew 2 (I get the sweats about languages). Seminary is interesting. I have been to two, as well as attending Moody Bible Institute. Seminary is so vo-tech has so much "emphasis" on the "practical" that quite frankly it is boring. Aside from a couple of classes, you do not get beyond what the theologically interested laymen knows. Its like doing an RC Sproul tape series except you have to take a test and do a paper. If you have any theological love, and a passion to read books about theology and doctrine, if you have a desire to discuss and dialogue about the most devastating truth to burst upon the world, namely the Gospel of God concerning His Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit, you will feel left out at your average garden variety seminary, in terms of learning more and more and discussing the theology that you have been reading on your own. It is pedantic, painfully so. Classes are redundant. I have taken a five points of Calvinism class (now I understand that some seminarians need to be exposed to it maybe having not heard of them or taught them) but why not give the student who knows them and can articulate them the chance to test out? Can anyone say MONEY! I know people will accuse me of cynicism but is it really cynicism or fact? I am taking a Pastoral Ministry class that is virtually identical with my Pastoral Counseling class, a Christian life in the modern world class, that is virtually the same as the Christian in the world class I have to take, a principles of discipleship class that is identical with the Christian education in the Church class I am taking. I feel like Bill Murray in Ground Hog's Day (no exaggeration LOL). The Evangelism class I am taking is for all intents and purposes the same as the class I took at Moody (even the same books Hybels and Middleburg on Being a Contagious Christian and Packer's Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God). The Missions class I took at Moody looks awfully familiar here in seminary, yes the reading is practically the same, Ruth Tucker's from Jerusalem to Irian Jaya to a life of William Carey, Judson, Livingstone, Hudson Taylor. Again I understand that there are seminarians who have never been exposed to this stuff but can't those who have taken such classes get credit for them? You see the crediting agency for seminaries is ATS and they allow seminaries to take up to 10% of their students without an undergraduate degree. The problem lies not with them but with many seminaries desire to give the appearance that they are offering a "bona fide" Master's level education so they can put on brouchures that they are accredited by the "secular" world so you have seminaries who want accredidation from such and such regional body, I gather it looks good even if the substance is about as deep as a puddle. The problem is these accrediting agencies do not understand the culture and purpose of the seminary. If anyone at an ATS accredited seminary wanted to pursue further academic work, they will be able to do so without the other accrediting agency, so as long as the degree is in line with their masters work. If I ever have the privilege of getting married and having children and a son of mine wants to go to say a Moody Bible Institute (which by the way offers an excellent well rounded program) I would ask him if he is considering seminary and let him know that seminary will become awfully boring for him if he attends Moody because his basic Bible work would not carry over. Anyway, I know I sound like a whiner but it is frustrating especially when you actually attend churches and hear sermons over and over again in a denomination that is confessionally Reformed, that center around three steps to humility, what is your new name, services that included the salute to the American flag and messages on patriotism, prayers that thank the Father for dying on the cross, and you sit in class and hear stuff that a decent Sunday school lesson could offer you, and you wonder what exactly is the purpose of seminary!!!
Now that I got that off my chest, I can go back to writing my papers LOL.

2003-02-05T01:05:00.000-05:00

I am posting a paper that I just finished on Ruth. The paper's main thrust is to show that the story of Ruth is not a story about three characters who do good things but a story of Israel's God, Yahweh, and His redemption. It is easy to treat the biblical characters in a manner much like Aesop's fables and thus easy to get the proverbial timeless truths. I would appreciate feedback on the paper, if any. The footnotes are not included because I am clueless on how to copy and paste them.

Thesis
The story of Ruth presents a narrative of Yahweh who acts redemptively.

Approach of the paper
The paper will point out five considerations as to why the story of Ruth should be viewed as a narrative about Yahweh who acts redemptively. In brief the five points are as follows:

• An injustice is done to the portrayal of the individual characters if the story is viewed as an exemplary foil for their moral qualities.
• The OT en mass has an underlying meta-narrative of God's redemption in which it makes sense to look at the individual narratives through that paradigm.
• The form of the entire story of Ruth evokes the imagery of God's paradigmatic act of redemption: the exodus.
• Every petition made by the main characters invokes Yahweh, is redemptive in nature, and is granted.
• The story of Ruth is framed by a divine inclusio that places the entire narrative within the paradigm of a narrative of God's redemption.

Injustice is done to the portrayal of the individual characters if the story is viewed as an exemplary foil for their moral qualities.
The first point as to why one should view Ruth as a story about Yahweh, who acts redemptively, is because the alternative of looking to the story as an exemplary foil does such injustice to the narrative portrayal of its characters.

The story of Ruth is arguably one of the best structured narratives in all the OT. As a story it is carefully knit and its composition is tightly and exceptionally controlled. The story is approximately five pages long in most bibles which makes it sufficiently brief to easily read but amply full enough to allow for a considerable amount of literary packaging. The author is undeniably skilled at employing a variety of techniques including suspense, dialogue, characterization, repetition, ambiguity, wordplays, and inclusio to produce a most impressive work of art. One ought not to be surprised to find, upon exegetical inspection, a certain level of complexity and texture involved in how the scenes are presented and a variegated and multifaceted spectrum of how the characters are portrayed. Thus, if one grants that the story has all the telltale signs of creative and intricate packaging, then we should be willing to see a certain level of roundedness and complexity to its character portrayal as well.

To view the main characters as uncomplicated flat presentations of a simple form of godliness and unquestionable moral integrity is to give rather ‘thin interpretations' to the characters. If someone comes to the story of Ruth presuming that this or that character will always act in certain predictable ways then we can safely assume that they are perilously close to not seriously appreciating the story on its on terms and the literary complexities and packaging it contains. Therefore, when one tries to ascertain overarching themes within the story they should be leery of approaches which settle upon flat or simplistic character presentation.

Each of the three main characters are, in my opinion, presented as having variegated and complicating elements to their persona. The character portrayal of each of the primary characters is, in its general portrayal, undoubtedly quite positive, however; each of them have aspects to their presentation that rounds their portrayal out in more complex and nuanced directions also.

• Boaz. The kindly, pious, altruistic, and paternal Boaz demonstrates virtually no interest in his familial responsibilities to Naomi prior to Ruth's nighttime visit. Nor are we ever told why he has not volunteered his help earlier in the narrative. Why does he offer to redeem Naomi's land only after it has been tied to Ruth in connection to marriage?

• Naomi. The loving and motherly Naomi nearly renders Ruth invisible and inconsequential at the end of chapter 1 when she bemoans that she is empty. What are we to make of Naomi's values if she desperately tries to dissuade Ruth, along with Orpah, from following her into the land of Israel's God? Is not Naomi's scheme, involving Ruth in the highly suggestive nighttime encounter, suspect? Also, Naomi is not merely content to lament and grieve about her situation; she claims that her impoverished situation is the way it is because the Almighty has acted against her.

• Ruth. The fiercely loyal Ruth who places herself in a bond of solidarity with Naomi acts contrary to the instructions Naomi gave to her for her nighttime visit with Boaz. Ruth was, according to Naomi, to take her lead from Boaz but instead takes matters into her own hands. In a scene in which the narration is filled with numerous provocative double entendres Ruth refuses to wait for Boaz to tell her what he wants. Ruth, in contradistinction to the instructions she was given, takes control of the situation by making it exceedingly clear that she is interested in marriage and entices Boaz to take her as his wife.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that any reading of the story of Ruth which places its primary understanding of the text as a story of the moral constitution of the human characters is misguided and implicitly denies the literary skill of its author and the depth, roundedness and complexity of its character portrayal. An understanding of the story of Ruth as a foil of the morality of its characters is fundamentally flawed. Thus, a considerable injustice is done to the portrayal of the individual characters if the story is viewed in such an exemplary manner which, in turn, ought to point the interpreter in another direction when looking for an overarching purpose concerning what the story is concerned about.

The OT en mass has an underlying meta-narrative of God's redemption in which it makes sense to look at the individual narratives through that paradigm.
The second point, as to why one should view Ruth as a story about Yahweh, is because of how well such an understanding fits the underlying meta-narrative discernable in the OT en mass.

It has been claimed by many that there exists an underlying unity throughout the Scriptures. A fundamental means by which the OT scriptures demonstrate an underlying unity is in the way the various stories in their multifaceted ways retell or comment upon a single fundamental story about Israel's God, the condition of the world, and Israel's place as God's people within that world which I would summarize as follows:

The God of Israel was the creator of the universe. That creation suffered from the infection of evil and death. God promised that he would at some future time destroy evil and death, deliver his people and do so through the auspices of Israel.

The narrative unfolding of this redemptive story-line can easily enough be mapped out in its broad contours. The beginning of the redemptive meta-narrative has the call of the patriarchs set against the backdrop of creation and the fall. Abraham, is thus, seen as an answer to the problem posed by Adam. The subsequent descent of the Jews into Egypt is, likewise, set against the dramatic rescue under Moses' leadership to form another climax of the story line of fall and redemption. Neither of these stories of the rescue of God's people in the form of an exodus from their fallen conditions proved to be sufficient to complete the story. Instead, these exodus stories would pose a puzzle that would fuel the creative imagination of many Jewish people to come: why if God had rescued his people and placed them in their own land, how was it that everything was not apparently right with the world.

Now, if this perspective of the OT en mass is on target, then one would naturally suspect that the story of Ruth, in part or whole, could be mapped out within that unfolding meta-narrative. This is, in fact, exactly what one discovers upon an analysis of the details of the text. The literary evidence suggests, at least to some extent, that the author of Ruth encouraged his readership to place the contents of the story within a larger paradigm. The narrator of the story of Ruth explicitly places the events of that story as a redemptive-historical bridge between the time of the Judges and the Davidic monarchy.

Two of the temporal indicators within the text which are significant regarding this historical-redemptive perspective are the opening and closing of the story:

In the days when the Judges ruled (1:1)

Now these are the descendants of Perez: Perez became the father of Hezron, Hezron of Ram, Ram of Amminadab, Amminadab of Nahshon, Nahshon of Salmon, Salmon of Boaz, Boaz of Obed, Obed of Jesse, and Jesse of David. (4:18-22)

The first of these temporal indicators places the story within a particular era of Israel's history. Viewed exclusively from a temporal perspective, the era is so broad as to render it as a near indefinite segment of time making it akin to: once upon a time. If, however, the author of Ruth understood the era primarily through the textual embodiment of the era within the canonical work Judges, then, the era was understood not as a vacuous time ranging from Joshua through Saul, but instead, as an era loaded with significant theological freight. This era was full of frightful social and religious chaos, marred by repeated bloody battles and internal instability. The warp and woof of the era was one of recurring disobedience to God's covenant stipulations and struggles as to how Israel would live out its vocation as the people of Yahweh within the promised land. Thus, if the author of Ruth is taking his cue about the era of the Judges from the canonical work, by that same name, then one can be relatively confident that the opening line should be understood as more of a theologically freighted evaluation of the times, than just a mere temporal or chronological indicator.

The second temporal indicator of note, as stated above, is at the story's end and provides the narrative its conclusion. It seems clear enough that the genealogy compliments the theologically fraught temporal introduction. The birth of Obed obviously functions to reverse the immediate misfortunes of Naomi's family but, a conclusion in the form of a genealogy, points to something larger being at issue. The genealogy serves to point the contents of the story toward to another era; the Davidic monarchy. The genealogy sets the story in a broader context than just the immediate family of Naomi and Elimelech to also include the embodiment of the entire nation; King David. Thus the book of Ruth is spliced into the thread of redemptive history at both ends, by the way it begins and by the way it concludes.

Thus, the story of Ruth does not merely bridge the time of the Judges to the monarchy chronologically but, more importantly, it bridges the era theologically. Just as Abraham was an answer to Adam, Moses an answer to Egypt, David is here understood as an answer to the Judges. David and his monarchy would be a new Abraham, a new Moses, in that it would provide a solution to the problem that the world experienced in Adam, in Egypt and also in the era of the Judges.

The form of the entire story of Ruth evokes the imagery of God's paradigmatic act of redemption: the Exodus.
The third point as to why one should view Ruth as a story about Yahweh, who acts redemptively, is because the form of the entire story evokes Yahweh's paradigmatic act of redemption: the exodus.

Yahweh's redemptive activities, for the majority of the story, focuses on the deliverance of Elimelech's family from the mundane yet real need for food, land, and a linage. The form in which this story takes follows the exile/exodus plot motif. Exile/exodus was the quintessential motif used to present how Yahweh had acted redemptively in the past and served also as the crucial backdrop for how Yahweh was expected to act in Israel's future.

The typical Hebrew convention of using exile/exodus motifs when telling of his redemptive activities may be seen in the opening scenes of story of Ruth. Three feature make this particularly noticeable: the use of return language, the use of a famine to progress the story, and Yahweh sustaining his people in a foreign land.

In the first chapter of Ruth the repeated use of the verbs return (Vv. 6,10,15,22), turn back (Vv. 11,12,16), go/gone back (Vv. 7,8,15) all point to the imagery of a return from exile. The approximately four hundred instances of the term return in the OT signal the importance of this motif in the Bible. That the narrator goes out of his way to state that Ruth returns to Bethlehem alerting the reader to understand the term in the larger context of exile/exodus.

The story also reports how famine, one of the worst menacing scourges known to human existence, threatens the family of Elimelech with death and extinction. Indeed, death does overtake Elimelech and his two sons which leaves the further continuation of Elimelech s family a virtual impossibility without some kind of redemptive intervention on his behalf. Yahweh is, in fact, presented as providing just this sort of redemption. Yahweh's redemption of this family is advanced with a famine, thus, evoking the multiple of other stories in which God furthered his redemptive plans with famine.

The story also promotes an exile/exodus motif as it places the family of Elimelech in the foreign land of Moab (1:1-2). Yahweh is thus presented as further advancing his plans for the family of Elimelech by evoking the myriad of stories in which God furthers his redemptive plans by safe-housing his people in a foreign land. This may be seen, in particular, when one compares the story of God sustains the family of Elimelech (Naomi and Ruth) in a foreign land with the offspring of Abraham in Egypt.

The story of Ruth is framed by a divine inclusio that places the entire narrative within the paradigm of a narrative of God's redemption.
The fourth point as to why one should view Ruth as a story about Yahweh, who acts redemptively is that the contents of the story are framed by an inclusio consisting of Yahweh's redemptive activity.

The redemptive activity of Yahweh, framing the story of Ruth, is observable in a divine inclusio it uses to present two explicit acts of direct redemptive activity. The narrator directly posits God s redemptive management of the story at two key points: one at the story s beginning and one at the story s end. Thus, the author of Ruth placed a theological frame of redemption around the entire narrative.

The first report is found in 1:6 where the narrator tells how Yahweh gave his people food after the famine:

Then she started to return with her daughters-in-law from the country of Moab, for she had heard in the country of Moab that the Lord had considered his people and given them food. (1:6)

The narrator here provides the reason as to why Naomi returns to Israel. The manner in which the narrator presents the reasons for Naomi's return is specifically designed to raise the hopes and expectations of the readers that Yahweh had been faithful to his covenant by acting redemptively toward the needs of his people. This first part of the divine inclusio casts Yahweh as having an intervening redemptive presence over the activities within the story right from the outset.

The second report of Yahweh intervening redemptively is in 4:13:

So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. When they came together, the Lord made her conceive, and she bore a son.

This report forms the second half of the theological inclusio that the author uses to frame the story. The narrator tells how God gave Ruth conception after her marriage. This divine gift of conception recalls the redemptive experiences of Israel with regard to the exceptional conceptions of notable matriarchs within Israel's redemptive-history. Just as Yahweh was redeeming Israel through the exceptional conceptions of the wives of the patriarchs so here the reader is to see Yahweh redeeming Israel now through the union of Boaz and Ruth. All this affirms that the climax of the story is the result of the redemptive workings of God throughout the story which lead up to this climatic moment.

Several petitions made by the main characters invoke Yahweh to act redemptively.
The fifth point as to why one should view Ruth as a story about Yahweh, who acts redemptively is because throughout the entire flow of the story Yahweh is appealed to by the characters to act redemptively.

The redemptive activity of Yahweh is observable in that petitions are made invoking Yahweh to act redemptively and those petitions are granted:

But Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, "Go back each of you to your mother's house. May the Lord deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead and with me. The Lord grant that you may find security, each of you in the house of your husband." Then she kissed them, and they wept aloud. (1:8-9)

May the Lord reward you for your deeds, and may you have a full reward from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge!" (2:12)

He said, "May you be blessed by the Lord, my daughter; this last instance of your loyalty is better than the first; you have not gone after young men, whether poor or rich. (3:10)

Then all the people who were at the gate, along with the elders, said, "We are witnesses. May the Lord make the woman who is coming into your house like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. May you produce children in Ephrathah and bestow a name in Bethlehem; and, through the children that the Lord will give you by this young woman, may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah." (4:11-12)

In every chapter Yahweh is called upon to act in ways that were understood by Israel as acts of redemption. In each of these instances the petitions to Yahweh is granted. Undoubtedly the reader is to understand that it is Yahweh who is granting these petitions which invoked his name. The basic scheme is relatively straightforward :various characters are in need of redemption, others petition Yahweh for that redemption to take place, the characters are latter redeemed. The implication, likewise, is relatively straightforward: Yahweh acts redemptively in the story of Ruth.

Conclusion:
There are least five major considerations one should bear in mind when seeking to articulate what the story of Ruth is about. The first consideration was that injustice is done to the literary complexity of the characters if it is viewed as an exemplary foil. The second consideration was that the story is part of a collection of literary works (the OT) that seem to exhibit an overarching meta-narrative about Yahweh's redemptive activities. The third consideration was that the form of the story evokes Yahweh's paradigmatic act of redemption in the exodus. The fourth consideration was that the entire content of the story is framed in by an inclusio consisting of Yahweh's redemptive activity. The fifth consideration was that the entire flow of the story has Yahweh being appealed to in order that he might act redemptively.

2003-02-03T00:33:00.000-05:00

Well it is early Monday morning and I just got home from working at the homeless shelter. One of the great problems in much of the church is slothfulness when it comes to praying. I have heard one too many prayers addressed to God that are quite frankly blasphemous and from what I gather it does not seem to bother many people. For instance, I have heard elders constantly pray, at the setting apart of the bread and wine (sadly grape juice), "Father we thank you for having borne our sins on the cross...." "Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for the judgement you took in our place..." "Dear Father we thank you for going to the cross and giving of your body and blood..." I wish I was using hyperbole. I wish I was making this stuff up but tragically I am not. Now I do believe that the men who have uttered these prayers do not realize the words are using but that is my point. It is lazy theology, plain and simple, and that is the best thing you can say about it because if it is not then these individuals might well be heretics. I compare this lazy, and slothful theology to a baseball game where the players in the field throw to the wrong base, fail to hit the cut off man, or when a player loses count of the outs and gets thrown out at third base with two outs. It is inexcusable. The major difference is we can excuse the baseball player for his mental faux paus, but should we allow such slothful attitudes on the part of our elders!!! This is another reason why a structured service that is blatantly Trinitarian in its language is not only helpful but needed in our churches. As Christians we must remember to have distinctly Trinitarian prayers. For us to talk about God apart from Trinitarian language is nonsense. Maybe just maybe we could actually write out our prayers and construct them prior to saying them. I know that some may say that the Spirit is often "quenched" when we pray with written prayers. I, however, doubt that the aforementioned prayers thanking the Father for dying on the cross were inspired by the Spirit of the living God...begging the question, who does inspire such nonsense?
Well I apologize for my rant but I just had to get that off my chest!!!

2003-01-27T18:14:00.000-05:00

One of the great truths of the Christian faith is the belief that heaven and earth are joined together. As the writer of Hebrews tells us, we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. That is one of the great things about reciting ancient creeds and prayers. We join with ancient church in reciting creeds that are theologically sound and powerful. In a very real sense we are connected to those who have gone before us and are reminded that the faith we have been granted is joined to a great train of witnesses that have gone before us. What we belong to is so much greater than we can comprehend. We join with the heavenly choir, all the angels and saints, in the unending hymn of praise..."Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord...God of power and might. Heaven and earth are full of your glory, hosana in the highest. For you O Lord have created all things and worthy to be praised. For you O Lord have redeemed your world and worthy to be praised." We worship the God that is wholly set apart and yet the God who has made Himself known in the face of Jesus of Nazareth. He sends forth His Spirit, as the Psalmist says, and He renews the face of the earth. A hymn that expresses the vastness and greatness of what we profess, believe, and cling to is John Newton's "Let us Love and Sing and Wonder." The last verse of that hymn says, "Let us praise, and join the chorus of the saints enthroned on high...Here they trusted Him before us, Now their praises fill the sky: 'Thou has washed us with Thy blood, Thou art worthy Lamb of God.'" This truth, amidst this often problematic and painful world, makes me realize by the grace of God that yes indeed...what we believe brothers and sisters in our Lord is so grande and spectacular it is too wonderful for words!!!

2003-01-23T20:13:00.000-05:00

I am doing some work right now on the historical books with a specific emphasis on the Kings of Israel. I find it simply fascinating. I am struck by the idea that essentially is "so goes the King so goes the people." There is a real sense that the king is the "incarnation" of the people. The rise and fall of the kingdom rests on the king's shoulders, if you will. The Northern Kingdom, the illegitmate kingdom, had wicked kings thus a wicked kingdom. The Southern Kingdom, the rightful kingdom, had a mixed bag but mostly wicked kings. When the kings were moved toward righteousness the kingdom was moved in that same direction. When the king was evil and wicked the kingdom was considered wicked. It makes me realize the point that N.T. Wright makes about the king as the bearer of Israel's destiny. Psalm 2 speaks of the nation's gathering around against the LORD oppossing His Annointed One. They plot in vain against God's King and the LORD mocks them from heaven. The King of Israel is in view and just who is the King of Israel, none other than Jesus of Nazareth who bears Israel's destiny and is Israel in person. Because Jesus is the King His Kingdom is righteous in the sight of God. Because Jesus is the King of Israel He is the world's rightful Lord. I just find studying these stories and concepts to raise my heart and mind toward the One who reigns above and pray "on earth as it is in Heaven."

2003-01-17T12:14:00.000-05:00

Well I just finished my Apologetics class. I like discussing Apologetics but sometimes I find the discussion to be a bit acrimonious. For instance, if you tend toward presuppositionalism there is a tendency to look at those who are classical or evidential with a jaundiced eye, somehow suspect in their Christian committment to the Bible or work of the Holy Spirit. If you are a classical individual you somehow look suspiciously on the presuppositionalist as being a fideist. The evidentialist can also tend to levy the same charge. Yet if the testimony of some is to be believed we have examples of those who have come to faith in the Gospel by the aid of the various schools of thought. C. S. Lewis came via the so-called classical method that led him to investigate the historical evidence. Augustine picked up the Bible and read Romans 13:14 and came to faith. Frank Morrison and Simon Greenleaf were lawyers who sought to discredit Christianity and they investigated the historical claims employing legal methods and lo and behold God saw fit to convict their hearts and minds to repent and believe the Gospel of our Lord. It just strikes me that many try to make the apologetical endeavor into an either/or category and there is a tendency to forget that most of us tend not to live in either/or categories. One size often does not fit all. I am sure that when we have the privilge to talk to others about Christ and His Gospel we appraise the person we are talking to. I doubt that we engage Joe the construction worker the same way that we talk to Murray the biochemist. Anyway those are my pedantic ramblings for the day.

2003-01-13T00:52:00.000-05:00

Well I am about to post for the first time in a month. I was home in New York and away from a computer for over two weeks. I am about to start the winter term at the seminary. While in New York, my 2nd youngest niece had her fifth heart surgery since she was born last March. She is doing well. Also in New York I had the privilege to preach the Word of God at my home church. I preached on Isaiah 45 and Phil. 2:5-11...The message was "Becoming like the "god" you worship." The privilege to preach the message of Scripture to the people of God, His Covenant people, is an indescribable feeling.
Over the break I have been reading Phillip Jenkins' "The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity" This book is must reading for anyone interested in the cosmic scope of the Gospel. It really makes you realize that God is bringing many people to faith in the Gospel of His Son. Take the country of Vietnam as an example...the government is cracking down hard on the Church wanting to abolish Christianity in the country yet despite such opposition the Church is growing. It is so easy for many here in America to equate the growth and success of Western culture with the growth of Christianity. I believe this book will be helpful for those who have an interest in supporting Missionary endeavors in the world. Anyway, I recomend the book to anyone who has a truly Catholic understanding of the Church.

2002-12-12T19:28:00.000-05:00

Well I finally got power back on Tuesday, almost one week after "the Ice Storm that hit Charlotte." I am all done with finals and all I have left is to finish work on a Pauline Epistles class I am taking.

2002-12-04T13:45:00.000-05:00

A sermon
The Power of Weakness; 2nd Cor.11:21b-12:9

One of the great truths of the existence of humanity is the quest for power, status, success, prestige...in short looking good. We tend to look and desire those things and we tend to gravitate toward people who possess them. Recently a well-known real estate maven, a billionaire, well respected and polished....said that he loves to see his competitors squirm. He said that it makes him feel good to see that he has succeeded in his business while his competitors have failed. Now it is really easy to look at this person and see arrogance and boasting. However, think of the advertising that we see on television and hear on the radio. "People judge by the words you use...so call and order our product and we can teach you big words so you can sound so smart" or "your teeth have suffered years of decay so come in and get them cleaned so you can feel brand new again" or "people get depressed about hair loss, if you're losing your hair come in to our place and we can give you a new lease on life and give you self esteem."
I am reminded of one major sports car commercial that showed a father and his young daughter eating breakfast and the daughter missed her bus for school. The father got aggravated but took his daughter to school in his beautiful sports car. He realized that this made him feel good. People were in awe about the car. By the end of the commercial the father was telling the daughter he would gladly drive her to school...his motive; so he could be seen as one who had status; he had prestige because of the sports car. That is the essence of advertising...to create a need in the heart and mind of the audience. You need status, you need influence, you need self esteem, you need to look good and we eat it up. This worldview can be summed up in the slogan "Image isn't everything it's the only thing."
However, the text that is before us stands that worldview completely on its head. Now before we get into the text...it is important to set this second letter to the Corinthians in some context. Paul has written this letter because there are major problems of division in the Corinthian church. He does have a good number of the church in support of him as an Apostle but he has many who have turned away from his authority and teaching and embraced those who opposed him, whom Paul calls the Super Apostles.
The Corinthians were a Greek culture and as such placed a very high premium on cultural status, intellectual pride, and rhetorical skills. They boasted in their philosophical abilities and tended to look down upon those who were not as culturally savvy as they were. Since this was the cultural background that many of the Corinthian believers came from, it makes sense that they would be susceptible to a Christianity that promised success and victory...status and privilege. It makes sense that they would embrace a message from these Super Apostles who boast in their successes and achievements...who boast in their wisdom and their rhetorical skills. In short, a Christianity that had a lot of image!!!
It is into that cultural background that Paul begins this letter to the Corinthians with a statement talking about his many afflictions and burdens...Paul, in fact, goes as far to say that he despaired of life itself. Now if Paul wanted a good way to lose his audience right off the bat, he had done it. You could imagine the Corinthians listening to the opening of the letter and saying, "See we told you so...he cannot be a real Apostle...listen to him...he is talking about how he wished he was dead because he had so many burdens and afflictions." Can you imagine a Pastor or a leader in the Church telling their congregation that they have been through so many burdens that they wished death upon themselves? Throughout the letter he talks about how he has been persecuted and crushed...afflicted and perplexed. Instead of giving the Corinthians what they would want to hear...his successes, miracles, and converts...he gives them his failings, his depression, anxiety...in short his weakness!!!
The Apostle then comes to the part in the letter, our text, where he lets it all out on the line. He tells the Corinthians that these Super Apostles are servants of Satan. He tells the Corinthians that to follow these Super Stars...these people who boast in their glory and power...their wisdom and speaking skills..their image...is to follow Satan. That is why he calls Satan one who disguises himself as an angel of light. The Corinthians saw these Super Apostles as being successful, they had it all together...they had winsome words and winsome smiles...they looked like success stories and for them it was a no brainer to follow these false apostles over the Apostle Paul who clearly was unsuccessful and did not display great oratorical skills. He was not flashy and profound, in fact in the first letter to the Corinthians, he mentions it explicitly that he was not eloquent in his speech...he says, "I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God"(1st Cor.2).
We here in the American Church are susceptible to the very same things that the Corinthians were susceptible to. We run the risk of judging potential ministers by their eloquence, how they look, do they tell cute and good stories, are they funny, are they executive material. We sadly run the risk of judging our teachers based on their entertainment value or their corporate ability. Many Pastors will privately admit that they feel a tyranny of having to deliver a message that is funny or entertaining. Some express anxiety about being judged, not on what they can teach the people of God and build them up in, but on their business ability. Brothers and sisters we must resist the temptation to judge those who teach and lead the church based on their status, job position, income, how they look...in short, we must not use these false standards as our guide in deciding if one is to lead the church. In fact, to use these standards as our guide is to be deceived by the great deceiver himself, Satan!!!
Paul then tells the Corinthians to indulge him in a little foolishness. He says that he wants to do a little boasting like the Super Apostles...and you could imagine the Corinthians ears perking up and saying, "Finally Paul has gotten some sense...he is going to start boasting about his accomplishments...there you go Paul, it's about time that you gave us a reason to re-embrace you as an Apostle."
So Paul does a little boasting and what does he boast in? His persecutions, his weaknesses, his failures, his troubles, his grief and daily stress about the churches. Some boast!!! Listen to what he says, "read 2nd Cor.11:21b-30". Paul appeals to a writing style that would be familiar to the Roman colony of Corinth. Corinth was under the rule of the Roman Empire and when the Emperor would ascend to the throne, he would send out a letter that would be read to the colonies. The letter would proclaim the great achievements of the Emperor and reveal that he is worthy to be given honor and glory and allegiance by the people because of all his accomplishments. An example of this letter would go something like this, "the accomplishments of the deified Augustus...When I was nineteen years old I raised an army by which I brought the Republic, oppressed by a faction, into a condition of freedom...I have captured 600 ships...Twice I celebrated ovations and three triumphs...55 times thanksgiving was offered for me to the immortal gods...I established many colonies for the empire..." The list of achievement would go on and on. You can see the similarity of style...Paul does what the Emperor would do except Paul boasts not in any victory or status...he does not appeal to any powerful display...he points the Corinthians toward his problems and his weakness. Paul never denies the essential charge made by his opponents; that he is weak. In fact, Paul confirms the charges made by the Super Apostles and maybe he went even a bit further than they did against him.
But why? We may ask would Paul do this. Why would he go so far out of his way to manifest his weaknesses? Is Paul a closet masochist? Does he think that he is such an utter failure that he cannot please God and serve God? No, Paul thinks no such thing. Paul tells us why he boasts in his weakness. He does this because the Lord told him, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." You see like Paul, we believe in a Crucified Messiah and Lord. Like Paul, we have placed our faith and hope...we have pledged our allegiance to One who was crucified. We like Paul believe in the Lord of glory who was crucified. In fact, brothers and sisters the life we live is a life that is going to be patterned after our Lord who was crucified. Our lives, our bodies will be shaped in the pattern of cruciformity. The Gospel we believe is a stumbling block to the Jewish people and foolishness to the Greeks, who love wisdom. That is why Paul can say earlier in his second letter to the Corinthians that he is, "always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh"(2nd Cor.4).
Brothers and sisters in Christ, we must recognize that our faith and hope rest on a crucified 1st century Jewish Man who claimed to be Israel's Messiah and the world's Lord. We must recognize that to believe and pledge allegiance to this message is to confess and believe something that is bizarre to those who seek wisdom and a stumbling block to others. You just do not boast in a crucified person!!! We must recognize that the claim we make is the most devastating reality to burst upon the world if it is true. The Lord of glory was crucified (1st Cor.2). The God who made the heavens and earth and all that is in them was crucified. How much more so, dear saints, are those who are called to be His disciples called to live a life of service. A life of giving and love. A life of humility and grace. A life of simplicity and a life that is not their own. In short, a Christianity not concerned about image!!!
You see it is very easy to make our faith in Christ safe. It is very easy to justify the message of Christianity and sanitize it. Brothers and sisters, know this...our faith is in the One who was bloodied and bruised...beaten and broken for us...we have a Lord that offers us His body and blood poured out for us...our faith is not a clean faith but a flesh and blood faith...a faith that stands the message of the world on its head... it is anything but sanitized. It is God who resists the proud and gives grace to the humble...It is God who is at work in us and using us in our weakness...using us when we just cannot believe that He could use us at all...using us in the little ways...the unnoticed ways...think of Good Friday and the words, "He saved others but He cannot save Himself" but how little those people knew that in the poured out body of Jesus of Nazareth, God was at work displaying His power and bringing about the redemption of His creation...humanity and the world. The Resurrection of Jesus not only vindicates the things that Jesus said about Himself but it also vindicates His way of doing things.
Our faith is not in One who lived a life of ease and apathy. Our faith is not in One who was unconcerned about the plight of those around Him. Rather, he went out of His way to serve those who had been abandoned by society. He went out of His way to serve the poor and the marginalized. In our bodies, saints, we carry around the death of Jesus that in our dying we manifest the life of Jesus. We must fight the temptation to view our Christianity from the lens of American culture. We must not allow the standards of success and status of the culture to become the standards here in the church...God help us if we think that we have it all together!!! Brothers and sisters in Christ we are a treasure in jars of clay to show the surpassing power of God (2nd Cor.4). Like jars of clay we are frail and we can break and become weak but know this saints, we are jars of clay that are held together by the hand of God and just when you think that you are not able to serve God because of your weakness, remember the Cross and remember that it was there in the weakened, frail, broken, and bloodied body of One who cried out, "My God, My God why have You forsaken Me" that the grandest act of God was performed. We must look to the One who demonstrated in His act of weakness on the cross the manifest power and love of God. May we never boast in our selves or in others even, but may our boast be in our God...the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for the marvelous work He has done.

2002-12-02T15:45:00.000-05:00

Well my sister-in-law gave birth yesterday to a little bambina Anna Collette Marian. She weighed 6 lbs 2 oz and she makes number 19 in the family. I have 11 nephews and 8 nieces. Four of my brothers are married and I have one brother who is currently studying to be a Catholic priest. He has also co-founded an order under the diocese of Scranton, named "The Servants Minor of St. Francis." Needless to say my family's theological and ecclesiatical loyalties make for some interesting dinner conversation. What would you expect in a large Italian family anyway!!!!

2002-12-02T15:39:00.000-05:00

I have posted some links on the Montagnards.

2002-12-02T00:47:00.000-05:00

Well a new week is upon is us and I had a great weekend. I spent a lot of time with my friends who are known as the Montagnards (literally "Sons of the Mountains"). We had the chance to celebrate, with them, their first thanksgiving here in their new country. Twenty three of them live at the apartment complex where I live. They came to the United States in June as political refugees from Vietnam. They were forced out and made to flee for their lives because they are Christians. The Vietnamese government is one of if not the worst country in the world for persecution. They have systematically, over the last 25 yrs., wiped out half of the Montagnard people. In December of 2000 the Vietnamese govenment stepped up their persecution of the Montagnards (they live in the North Central Highlands of Vietnam). They shot and imprisoned leaders and broke up church gatherings, of course, claiming that the Montagards were subverisve to the state and the cause of Ho-Chi-Min. In Feburary the Montagnard people protested the peresecution but to no avail. The Vietnamese authorities pressed on in their efforts to destroy them. They would arrest them and force them at gun point to renounce their faith in Christ. They made them drink "sheeps blood" but the interesting thing is that there are no sheep in Vietnam, leaving various human rights groups to consider that the blood may have been the blood of their people. Anyway, the government made a concerted effort to cause the leaders of the Church to flee, chasing them with weapons (the Montagnards do not own guns) and forcing them into Cambodia. It was there that they escaped to refugee camps. The UN was able to secure their release to the United States and North Carolina took in over 900 this past June. 300 are in Charlotte and 23 live where I live. They are a tribal people and have no electricity or phones in their villages. The guys, as I call them, do not have their families with them. Many are married with children, such as Tat who is married with 4 kids, Weh married with 4 kids, Phloi married with 7 kids. When they fled they were not looking for greener pastures and land at America's shores. They fled because they had no choice but they did not think that they would wind up here so far from home. They miss their families and worry for their safety back home. Vietnam recently killed three Montagnards from the Hmoang tribe. It is very difficult to get information about what is really going on in that country because it is closed from foreign oversight. Every man to a man prays for the day that they can be back in their village and at work on the land living in their mountain areas. These men have exhibited great faith and confidence in our Lord. Though we do not speak the same language, nor have the same skin, to spend time around these brothers in Christ makes me think of Paul's second letter the Corinthians. My roomate and I have had the privilege to assist them in learning English and have set up an ESL program (that has actually expanded to include our neighbors in the complex). We have had the privilege to sing hymns with them, they in their native tongue Jariai, and we in English. It has been a few months and the guys are starting to pick up English (almost all are illiterate in their language). It has been a very tough go for them as far as work goes. The soft economy, coupled with their cultural shortcomings, make it very difficult for them to get an opportunity to work. However, there is no doubt that if given the chance at a job they would work harder than anyone at that job. These brothers have been a source of strength and encouragment and it is my prayer that some day soon they may be reunited with their families, whether here or in the Highlands of Vietnam. I will soon add some links on the Montagnards for those interested in their story.
P.S. I apologize for rambling.

2002-11-26T16:51:00.000-05:00

This morning at the start of class we read from Psalm 23. What struck me as the professor was reading were the words, "for His name's sake" (vs.3). I started to ponder those words over and over in my mind all during class. The Psalmist's hope and confidence was not based on his ability or fidelity. It was not on his strength to see things work themselves out that he placed his faith but on the Lord, whose very Name was at stake. The Psalmist knew that the Lord had put His very Name at stake in fulfilling His promise to redeem His people. My thoughts immediately went to Paul and his declaration that the Gospel reveals that indeed God has been faithful to His promise to Israel and in particular to Abraham. Paul then transitions to show how humanity, both Gentile and Jew, do not keep their promises thus he writes, "Let God be true though every one were a liar." And how does God keep His promise...through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (and why translations translate vs. 22 as faith "in" and not "of" Jesus Christ is beyond me). God placed His very Name at stake in His promise and indeed He has kept His word. He has begun to make all things new. We shouldn't have expected anything less from our Covenant-keeping God. He has been faithful to His promise and He leads us in paths of righteousness.

2002-11-25T17:38:00.000-05:00

The news is reporting today that the largest case of idenity theft has been uncovered. Some reports say that 30,000 people may have been victims of credit card, and bank theft. Just last week I found out that someone stole a credit card with my name and charged over 8,000 dollars to it. The credit card was mailed out, without my wanting the card I add, and was stolen in the mail (don't know how that happened). Anyway, they sent a statement to my old address in New York which my family forwarded on to me. When I opened up my mail last week you could imagine my surprise. After the chest pains subsided I called the company (a large retailer who has a big building in Chicago named for them) who sent the card out without my asking for it (they decided to issuse a new card on my account). They have assured me that they will take care of the matter and all will be well (that's easy for them to say). But of course I anticipate some residual aggravation from those dreaded credit agencies because these charges do come up on the credit report. It just makes you realize that as great as technology is for good, it is just as easily a force for bad.

2002-11-25T17:20:00.000-05:00

Today has been an exhausting day. The semester is down to one more day and then finals. I have been studying my Hebrew constantly and you know what...I still don't feel comfortable with it. It seems like just when you get one paradigm down you get hit with another, then another. It makes me appreciate those who really know languages other than their own. The grade I currently have in the class is in no way indicative of what I know.

2002-11-22T16:01:00.000-05:00

I am getting set to begin the winter term in a couple of months and one of the classes that I will be taking is Acts/Romans. I love writing papers for class and already have an idea for the paper that I want to write. I want to do "The Gospel according to Acts" with a specific look at "the speeches" of Acts. If anyone has ideas on a paper for the class feel free to opine.

2002-11-22T15:49:00.000-05:00

Another weekend is upon us and I am getting set to play the solitare version of "Left Behind." Just a thought...what if you were the only person left behind???? Boy that would massively s**k!!! What would you do??? I guess I would listen to Celine Dion's rendition of "All by Myself" What a horrific thought!!!!