What is evident in the book of Judges is the seed theology. The repercussion of the ancient battle begun in Genesis 3:15 permeates Judges in at least two examples (many more could be listed):The evil Abimelech’s head is crushed by a rock, not by a warrior, but a woman; and Samson destroys all five heads of the Philistines by crushing their heads with rocks.
I will have the honor of ministering in preaching at New Life Presbyterian this coming Lord’s Day.
Bruce Waltke interprets the language of Judges 11 when he speaks of Jephthah’s only daughter “whom he murders (An Old Testament Theology, pg.607).” He argues later that Jephthah breaks the sixth commandment by sacrificing his daughter, which the Prophets condemn (Jeremiah 19:5). Waltke contends that “in a case of a vow dedicating a child to I AM, the Law calls for monetary payment instead (Lev. 27:1-8).” Indeed if Waltke is correct that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, then God’s Law repudiates Jephthah’s abhorrent practice.
After 41 weeks, God graciously brought to our lives a daughter.
O Heavenly Father,
I commend my children unto Thee.
Be Thou their God and Father;
and mercifully supply whatever is wanting in me
through frailty or negligence.
Strengthen them to overcome the corruptions of the world,
to resist all solicitations to evil,
whether from within or without;
and deliver them from the secret snares of the enemy.
Pour Thy grace into their hearts,
and confirm and multiply in them the gifts of Thy Holy Spirit,
that they may daily grow in grace
and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ;
and so, faithfully serving Thee here,
may come to rejoice in Thy presence hereafter.
Amen.
It has been some time since I last read through the book of Judges. I was struck once again by the cyclical nature of Israel’s bold sin of idolatry. What permeates so visibly the nature of the Older Covenant is the ease in which Israel forgets her God’s deliverance. But God’s faithfulness to His own word is greater than Israel’s sins.
O GOD, whose never-failing providence ordereth all things both in heaven and earth; We humbly beseech thee to put away from us all hurtful things, and to give us those things which are profitable for us; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Bob told David Asman that there was no difference between Obama and McCain, calling them the “McBama ticket.” Bob added that the Republican and Democratic candidates are not offering anything of substance to the American people and that he intended to make the race competitive and to offer Americans a choice.
Sometimes the best way to have dominion over a blog is not to blog at all. There is too much taking place all at once in my life and blogging is simply not among my priorities. This does not entail that this is over. I will return in the days or weeks ahead.
I raise this question only because in this day there are still those who wish to betray two-thousand years of Church History, a strong tradition of conservative theological interpretation, and an unwavering testimony of Sacred Scriptures affirming that women must not be ordained to the ministry of the gospel.
One historical dimension that came to my attention recently concerns the religious atmosphere of the first century. Historical records prove that the first century was replete with priestesses. Some–today– assert that if the cultural norms of the day were more favorable to women in places of authority–such as in our own day–then Jesus would have been more prone to ordaining women as apostles. However, Fr. Mateo dispels this historical myth by asserting:
It is unhistorical and simply false to say that in Jesus’ day priestesses would have been unacceptable to people at large. Our Lord never hesitated to violate cultural taboos (John 5:1-18). He spoke to women in public (John 4:4-42; 8:3-11). The first witnesses of his Resurrection were women (passim). Furthermore, the lands around the Mediterranean teemed with religions with priestesses. The famed Vestal Virgins of Rome were priestesses. There was a priestess functioning at Delphi. The Sybil was a priestess and the many temple prostitutes were priestesses.
Jesus would not have been the first to ordain women to places of authority in his ministry. However, he chose twelve male apostles. Jesus was a taboo breaker and it would have been a simple task for him to choose women who were among his followers. But the divine pattern prevailed; a pattern begun in the Older Covenant. Jesus shows that the nature of the church and the Scriptures is that the authority to administer word and meal be limited to men only.
Traveling again…be back on the 24th.
N.T. Wright writes a fine introduction on how Christians should view the saints that have departed. He shatters certain misconceptions that have plagued the Church for centuries. Among them, is the horrific doctrine of purgatory. As an able historian and exegete, Wright traces the central errors in this Roman Catholic doctrine as well as criticize his own Anglican tradition for attempting to restore this doctrine in a form of neo-purgatory.
According to Wright, churches have developed “fresh variations on the old theme of commemorating All Soul’s Day” (xiii) that are unbiblical and find no basis in church history. He is unwilling to compromise if this commemoration is unbiblical. He writes:“After attending several of these annual events, I got to the point a few years ago where I decided that, in conscience, I could do so no longer” (p. 47).
The common doctrine of purgatory teaches that by praying for dead in particular masses–loved ones gone before us–will reach heaven sooner. Wright disagrees with this doctrine and argues persuasively that the Catholic Church has erred greatly in this matter. In fact, even recent scholarship–including the work of Pope Benedict–turns away from this long held Catholic dogma. Perhaps the only well-known text used to defend purgatory is found in First Corinthians 3:10-15. But as Wright argues (p.25) the point of that text is not that some will have to pay for their lack of good works by being purged in purgatory, but rather, that those who are saved will be saved either completely or by the skin of their teeth (as Jude also implies).
In this treatise, Wright rejects universalism (p.42) and implicitly and explicitly condemns inclusivism. But beyond that, he boldly defends the bodily resurrection of all the saints (both alive and dead) in the blessed Second Coming of our Lord. Further, he chastises those who have adopted a subtle gnosticism in their hymnody. Wright delves deep into great hymns and pulls out the good , the bad, and the ugly, proving thus, that our music needs also to re-affirm a commitment to God’s reign and lordship over all things, including the body. But most significantly, Wright affirms the biblical doctrine that the saints gone before us await the same thing we wait: the day when our bodies will rise in glory.
I have been traveling the last week and am home for a couple of days before I hit the road again. As my licensure exam approaches I will need to spend more time in preparation.
While traveling, I was shocked to hear of the death of Tim Russert. One of my greatest joys on Monday morning was to upload the latest Meet the Press program. Russert was unrelenting in his questioning. Those who were interviewed by him had to encounter their past words and actions. Russert afforded no politician the right to be a politician; the right to be untruthful. Meet the Press will not be the same. Monday mornings will not be the same.
Contemporary services are filled with a delight for the somber. In particular, many come to the Lord’s Table without any expectation to be renewed by God’s grace. The table, to many, serve only as a post-liturgical stick note, rather than the Eucharistic means to receive the grace of God via bread and wine. Indeed it is impossible to come to the table with any joy if the table does not impart grace to the broken sinner. But if we restore the early church and reformational attitude towards the Eucharist, we will begin to see the Lord’s Supper as an essential, without which the liturgical service is incomplete. To begin we are to treat the Eucharist as what the Eucharist means: give thanks. We give thanks to the Lord for renewing us and we give thanks to our Lord for making resurrection life possible even now.
The Independent Institute’s Anthony Gregory explains why we’re libertarians.
Antiwar Radio: Anthony Gregory [36:57m]: Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download
This text shatters the misconception of God as a tame father. Indeed as Lewis has penned: “Aslan is no tame lion.” God wrestles with us so as to wake us up from our spiritual slumber. If the spiritual gifts were easy to exercise, wrestling would not be an option. But our lives are filled with difficulties and so God calls us to be His wrestlers. We are wrestlers for our own souls, and our families and wrestlers for the kingdom of God.
Jacob humbled himself and served Laban so that he could have his bride. Christ humbled himself and served his Father unto death, so that He would receive His bride, the Church.
As I prepare for a sermon this coming Lord’s Day, I have searched for music that would express the peace of being overcome by the power of God. Jacob’s wrestling with God is a war for identity and only God can give Jacob a new identity. Haydn’s Missa in Tempore Belli is one answer to this war. At the end, when the chorus ends and the orchestra pauses, the bells commence is their cry for peace and restoration.
For as all prosperity flows from his goodness, so adversity is either the rod with which he corrects our sins, or the test of our faith and patience.
–John Calvin, commentary on Genesis 32.
I am slowly reading through Ron Paul’s great New York Time’s best-seller: The Revolution: A Manifesto. The first two chapters argue persuasively about the deep flaws of American policy both at home and abroad. The American government has in many ways undermined the dreams of our Founding Fathers. Instead, they have opted for a policy of greed and disrespect for our traditions. The Jeffersonian foreign policy of peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations is nothing more than a dead bumper sticker. But Paul is not about to abandon the principles of the American Republic. In the Manifesto, he calls Republicans and Democrats to return to a more sane foreign policy; a policy that does not threaten our existence and that properly allows other nations to handle their own problems. It is a well-known fact that American intervention has hindered certain nations to proceed as they think best. Rather, American interventionism over the last century has led to the phenomenon called “blowback.” Blowback is the necessary consequence of an unrestrained government which thinks it is always able to intervene in the affairs of other nations. As a result, these nations (especially Middle Eastern nations) easily–through charismatic leaders–galvanize a loyal group of supporters who will do anything to rid their own country of American presence. As Paul writes: The terrorists, in short, have played us like a fiddle. With the unnecessary and unprovoked attack on Iraq, our government gave them just what they wanted.” Preemptive wars against nations who never attacked us is an political and strategic blunder. The Manifesto calls us to re-consider our ways.
O Gracious Father, we humbly beseech thee for thy holy Catholic Church; that thou wouldest be pleased to fill it with all truth, in all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, establish it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of him who died and rose again, and ever liveth to make intercession for us, Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord. Amen
Hopefully, in the following weeks I will be posting about my four years at Reformed Theological Seminary. It will be a sketch of my experience and friendships in these last four formative years.
Graduation day! It has arrived!
Evangelicals, and even some Protestants associate religion with some dangerous Vatican attempt to sneak meritorious works into the gospel. This misunderstanding also stems from the overwhelming abuse done in the name of religion. But this is not a reason to undermine the biblical definition.
“Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship,” some insist. In fact, many gospel presentations are framed around this very premise. But this is not how the Bible speaks of religion. James speaks that a Christian ought to exercise “pure religion.” Berkhof defines religion as a conscious and voluntary relationship to God, which expresses itself in grateful worship and loving service.” Hence, Christianity is both a religion and a relationship.
I did mention in a previous post that Goldberg’s list was shrinking to about 50. After reading through the remaining figures, perhaps I exaggerated. I may agree with 80 names on his list. There are a lot of liberals listed and a small number of conservatives (emphasis on “small”). Goldberg’s 100 list are composed of people who fit the following three categories:
a) Those who are passionately seeking to de-moralize our culture through rampant sexuality and through legislation.
b) Those who use their position of power to manipulate others for the sake of their agenda.
c) And finally–this counts for over 50 of the names–those who oppose the Bush administration’s foreign policy on Iraq (ex. Noam Chomsky).
I am in full agreement with the first two qualifications, but the third one is a bit troubling. The impression I get from Goldberg is that it is immoral to disagree with Bush’s foreign policy in any manner. This is the presupposition Goldberg brings to this list. Of course, most, if not all that fit this third qualification are wrong on almost everything else, but is it just possible that criticizing America’s policy may be a patriotic approach? Must we always bow at the feet of our commander in chief simply because he holds our party flag? This is somewhat befuddling to me.
Goldberg is the male version of Ann Coulter (who was added to the list for some reason). His satirical skills are almost too overwhelming in this 300-page book. He is poignant and unafraid to challenge even those he has worked side by side for years in television. Goldberg has written a book on the liberal bias in the media, I wonder sometimes if he acknowledges his. On a positive note, he does well in strongly condemning those who wish to demolish our culture with the unsanitary language and images of Hollywood, but perhaps he should refrain from his neo-conservative pulpit and offer a little more understanding to those who honestly find this war offensive. But again, it’s his list.
Biblical theologians stress rightly the significance of redemptive history. But the events of history can never be divorced from the biblical text. As Waltke argues: “.. texts not only record history but also interpret the events through certain perspectives (Waltke, 43).” In other words, the text provides the proper interpretation of biblical historical events. Some attempt to cut a particular form of ancient treaty and impose it in its entirety into the Biblical text. However, the text is its own self-interpreter. Though ancient treaties can be used to aid the text, it must not substitute the authority of the text. As Waltke illustrates, the “Bible gives primacy to word over event.” In the biblical text God gives the command and such and such comes to pass, not the opposite. The events only serve to authenticate what has been written.
In a very celebratory mood, I entered the theater. All is perfect: the end of a long Master’s Degree and a free movie. My first reaction to Prince Caspian came when I heard it was a two hour and forty minute movie. I have always enjoyed long movies. They generally establish irrevocably the depths of each character. I enjoy that sense of thoroughness. I apply it to all my reading: if a book is not read from preface to conclusion, it has not been read at all. So every detail matters, but I have no intention of exhausting myself with such endeavor. So here are a few thoughts on Prince Caspian.
I was eager at the beginning, but at the end of the movie I felt somewhat relieved. I am not sure if I had too much on my mind or simply that the end seemed never to come. As an aside, I am avid Lewis reader, but never read his children’s works. Some have said that if I had read Prince Caspian, I as a purist, would have detested the liberties the movie takes. But since I never read the book, I felt optimistic, though filled with expectations since the first movie was outstanding.
Unlike the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which was filmed in succession, the Chronicles of Narnia has a two-year gap separating the filming of the first and Prince Caspian. This is unfortunate to me. The characters (especially Lucy) looked much older than the supposed one year gap mentioned in the movie. Nevertheless, that was not much of a detraction from the central theme of the movie.
Prince Caspian began with a good background to the story of Caspian as an heir to the throne and King Miraz’s attempt to assassinate him. Caspian flees–thanks to his old mentor–and finds himself confronted with the Narnians, thought to have been annihilated. In despair, he blows the horn, which summons the kings and queens. The Pevensie siblings leave the tedious life of London back to Narnia.
The four characters shape the spiritual dimension of the movie. Little Lucy is a picture of pure faith; a faith that is not shaken by circumstances. Her child-like belief in Aslan’s power to defeat evil is a marvelous example of Paul’s command to live by faith and not by sight. Lucy is steadfast and an example for all her siblings of commitment and loyalty to her king.
Edmund, who was a picture of unbelief and stubbornness in the Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe learns from his past mistakes and serves as a testimony of a changed heart. The power of Aslan’s sacrifice and the unwavering love of his family brought him to realize his foolishness and he turns from his ways.
Susan is a warrior. The gentle figure becomes strong in battle. She is the one who brings sense into Peter’s wild adventure in self-absorption.
Peter is struck with great arrogance in Prince Caspian. He is threatened by Caspian’s status as prince. His jealousy leads him to bring death into the camp. His wayward ways almost destroyed the remaining Narnians. Peter is the proud, but eventually repentant leader.
Much of the movie centers around decisions made by each character, mainly Peter and Prince Caspian. What will it take to restore Narnia to its original beauty? The strong will of a king or a prince, the strength of a people to survive extinction, or the faith of a little child to call on Aslan for help? The answer ultimately lies on the strength of the great king, not Peter and not Prince Caspian, but the One who preserves and restores paradise by His power and might. In the end, the enemies of peace are swallowed in the waters of judgment. In the same manner, the Egyptians fell by the hands of Moses, who trusted in his God.
Things do not happen the same way twice, as Aslan stated. There is no need for another sacrifice and there is no need for another resurrection. The work has been accomplished. Let the Narnians bring peace on earth and good-will towards men through the strength of the Great Lion.
Prince Caspian did not meet the demands of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Perhaps it may have been too long, and to some, the thrill of the battle was not as captivating as the first. But Christians can be pleased with another fantastic production containing Christian imagery, typological figures, and a faithful savior of His people.
Recent Comments