Virgin Birth: Luke

We’re looking at wallsofjericho.info now and going over their critique of the Virgin Birth doctrine and tonight, covering the book of Luke.

The first point to address is that of the address to Zacharias vs. that of Mary. Why is it that no one thinks of a virgin birth in the case of John the Baptist? There is a simple reason for this though. This was Elizabeth we were talking about and considering that they were married, it’s quite likely that Elizabeth wasn’t a virgin and so there wouldn’t be a virgin birth. Zacharias would have ruled that out immediately. He is doubting God’s power then to do what he says based on Elizabeth being old. (You gotta wonder if this guy was sleeping in priest school when Abraham was talked about.)

Mary’s question is not an objection but pointing to a mystery. A virgin birth had never been done before so when this virgin hears that she’s going to have a son, she wants to know how this can be. This is not the same as saying “God cannot do this.” This was more along the lines of saying “How can God do this?” In response to what she said though, WallsofJericho makes this interesting observation:

Mary’s question directly addresses this conundrum, and nothing more. This becomes clear when we consult the Greek, in which Luke’s gospel was composed, to see what is meant here by the word know.

Young’s Concordance shows the Greek word used in Mary’s question is ginosko – to know.  Luke uses it on 22 other occasions, for example in Zacharias’ question:

18  And Zacharias said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man,

     and my wife is well advanced in years.”

On these 22 occasions, ginosko (to know)  never refers to sexual intercourse. Each time it is used in the sense of “learning” or “knowing” about something.

 

 

This sounds convincing at first until one considers an obvious problem. They weren’t frequently talking in the gospels about two specific people having sexual intercourse. For instance, our website makes no mistake in saying that when Matthew uses the term of Joseph knew her not until they were married, that it would refer to sexual intercourse. That’s the only time Matthew uses it that way though! Does it mean it’s wrong? No. It was an idiom Jews would recognize. There just wasn’t a reason to use it.

The idea is that Mary was wondering how this would be since she knew not a man with the credentials needed. I’m left wondering “What? Is Mary going to be raped on the way to visit her cousin or what?” The idea is something that is thrown in ad hoc. There is no reason to read it any other way than referring to sexual intercourse.

We’re also told about how when the Holy Spirit came on others, we’re not told of a virgin birth? Why in this case?

Could the context be a clue?

Let’s look at the ones given also.

  • Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; And I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”  (Jeremiah 1:4-5) 

  • So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife; and when he went in to her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son.  (Ruth 4:13)
  • And the LORD visited Hannah, so that she conceived and bore three sons and two daughters. (1Samuel 2:21)
  • And the LORD visited Sarah as He had said, and the LORD did for Sarah as He had spoken. For Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.  (Genesis 21:1-2)
  • Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have gotten a man from the LORD.”  (Genesis 4:1)
  • And the Angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, “Indeed now, you are barren and have borne no children, but you shall conceive and bear a son.  (Judges 13:3)

The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.  (Job 33:4)

 

 

These all involved people that were married. Presumably, Jeremiah’s parents were married and had sexual intercourse. Adam and Eve would also be married by God and have sexual intercourse. What Elihu’s statement has to do with this is a good question. Maybe we should ask if Elihu has the Spirit of God, why isn’t he pregnant? That just gets us into absurdities though.

We are also told the term holy one refers to being the firstborn. Why think such though? When a Jew thought of the holy one, they would not think of a firstborn son. If one wants to say “That’s what David said though. His son would be firstborn!” That just makes the case. This is a unique son unlike any other. This is the unique Son of David.

For Son of God, WallsofJericho says that this doesn’t refer to a biological son. We agree. No one is talking about the biology of God. This Son of God bypassed the normal means. It is granted Son of God does have multiple meanings within Scripture and again, context determines usage. Son of God along with Holy One and the rest of the book points to Jesus’s divine identity as the eternally begotten of the Father and the Messiah of Israel.

Tomorrow, we shall look at Isaiah’s prophecy.

Virgin Birth: Genealogies

We covered the genealogy of Matthew Monday night, so tonight, we look at the genealogy in Luke. Our author at wallsofjericho.info states that the church has known that Davidic descent must come through somehow. If not Joseph, it has to be Mary. I saw no reason on Monday to discard the idea of Joseph’s lineage if we take Matthew’s genealogy to be telling us about Joseph. What about Luke?

Much is made of Luke 3:23 to indicate that Jesus is the son of Heli. Greek scholar A.T. Robertson though points out that the passage is said in light of the earlier passage in Luke 1 indicating a virgin birth and the reader at this time is to understand that that reference should be kept in mind here. Our writer deals with the Luke Account in the next installment of the event and so will we. (One wonders though why that wasn’t dealt with first.)

Thus, Mary would be the child of Heli and this fits since there is a tradition of Mary being the son of Joachim which would be a variation of that name. It is a puzzle also for a person wanting to make a serious case why he cites the Kingdom Interlinear Translation. For those who don’t know, this is the translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Our writer certainly isn’t a Jehovah’s Witness though as the Witnesses do affirm the Trinity. 

The question is also raised of how Mary could be of Judah and Elizabeth of Levi and they be cousins. It’s not much of a difficulty at all. They are relatives and there is nothing that precludes someone from the tribe of Levi having a relative from the tribe of Judah. If our writer wishes to push more, it is up to him to make the case. Thus, I see no reason to think that they have made their case that Mary is of the tribe of Levi.

I really wish there was more, but there isn’t. Near the end, the writer does go into the idea that so many doctrines were inherited from the pagan world and includes the Trinity in there. That is not the focus, although I certainly would welcome a good discussion on the Trinity. We shall look at the next section tomorrow.

Election Night and Anxiety

Well readers, I’m interrupting our look at WallsofJericho to talk about what’s on everyone’s mind tonight, the election. I know some of you are Obama supporters. You know I’m not. This election leaves me very concerned about the future and my dear readers, you do not have to guess how I react to such situations. I fret to no end!

And tonight, I intend to tell you all about dealing with anxiety.

Physician, heal thyself.

There is hardly any better time to talk about it though than from experience. I’ve had anxiety today. I got a bottled water as soon as I could at work today because I thought I needed a drink. I have had panic attacks in the past before and I’m thankful that thus far, I have managed to fight them off and not have one.

Pray for me dear readers. I mean that, and I also know I’m not alone. 

Yet as the fear built up inside of me, I remembered that the Dean of our Seminary preached a great sermon a few weeks ago on anxiety and he used Philippians 4. I thought of that passage immediately and began trying to say it as best I could from memory. Let’s take a look though at the relevant portion to us:

 4Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! 5Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. 6Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.7And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

 8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. 9Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.

Let’s look at that.

Rejoice. Rejoice? Rejoice? Wait a second Paul. My life is in pieces right now. Things are going terrible. I’m supposed to rejoice? Yep. You’re supposed to rejoice.

What is there to rejoice about?

Well, God’s on his throne and he still rules. Jesus Christ is still the savior of the world. You’re still breathing and you have life. The Holy Spirit has come into your life and you are being conformed into the likeness of Christ. You have the love of God for you and you have the promise of eternity with him someday.

Amazing how easy it is to lose sight of those. As I write them, I feel better, but it seems the temporal world seems to come in and make us ignore eternal realities.

Yet I try to keep this in mind, when something happens that gets you to trust God more, even if the thing is not good in itself, it has been used for good for you.

And when do we do this? Always? Maybe it’d be easier for us to do it in anxious times if we did it in good times. It’s easy to remember God when things are hard. It’s easy to forget him when things are good. We need to be thinking on the same grounds in good times and bad. We are people who are not good at praise.

Our gentleness is to be known to all. This goes along with our rejoicing. If we are rejoicing, we should be people of joy. Keep in mind in thinking about difficulties also that it’s likely that Paul wrote this from a prison cell and the prison cells in the ancient world were far worse than they are in modern-day America. 

Verse 6 also gives us some difficulties.

“Be anxious for nothing.”

Beg your pardon?

Look what’s going on and you’re telling me to not be anxious?!

Yep!

He doesn’t just leave us hanging though. He tells us to pray. Let our requests be made known to God. If we are anxious about something, we definitely have a need. Paul says “Instead of worrying, take it to God and trust him.” He also tells us to have thanksgiving. Thanksgiving needs to be a part of our prayers regularly. When I pray, one thing I always give thanks for especially is my friends. They mean much to me.

Again, would we probably be more thankful in hard times if we were in good times? If you’re like me and seeing anxiety now, could it be because of a lack of rejoicing and thankfulness in good times? Yes. I am speaking to myself as well.

In doing this, the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard our hearts and minds. This peace is the recognition that God is on the throne and he is allowing all to happen for good. To not think so is to doubt him. From my reading of the commentaries, it seems the idea of transcending all understanding is pretty much undescribale. It’s like all the words are inadequate.

I’d also add that this is deep with a Trinitarian concept of God. Imagine the fellowship of the three persons of the Trinity. How much peace do you think exists amongst them? As much as is possible. That is the peace that is promised. The Trinity isn’t worried about what’s going on. If they’re not, why should you be?

Finally, we have a list of attributes of things to think on and to think means to not just have an idea but to deeply reflect and take into account. Really ponder these things. Don’t just have a momentary idea of them. Ponder them. Weigh over them in your hearts. Why do you want to think about what makes you anxious? Instead, think about what fits these qualities.

Paul is so sure of this that he points to himself as an example. Paul, in a jail cell, is telling people how to experience joy. Would that we could be the same!

Tonight, and for the next four years if you’re like me, try to keep these in mind. I feel much better writing them out, but I do ask your prayers as my memory will be terrible and those of us who teach can have the hardest time following our own principles.

May the God of peace be with you as well.

The Virgin Birth and Joseph

We continue today our look at the Virgin Birth from www.wallsofjericho.info. For all who want to know, the webpage I am going to be dealing with tonight is the following:

http://www.wallsofjericho.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=28

There is a reference to the two genealogies passage. We will look at that at a later date. For now, we’re going to deal with the “arguments” from this site on Joseph.

To begin with, it’s important to note that Matthew and Luke, which are the referenced gospels, both state that Joseph was not the father of the child. That is important to note for as you go through this, you should be wondering “Then if he isn’t the father of Mary’s child and Mary was not a virgin, then what does that say about Mary and her child?”

Yet why then do the passages say that Jesus was seen to be the son of Joseph? This is only the appearance. Walls of Jericho agrees that Joseph is not the father, but the messiah had to be of the lineage of David. There is a problem supposedly then in the genealogies in that Jeconiah is mentioned in both genealogies. The author says the way Luke deals with it is in another article, so we will look at it for Matthew for now.

The problem is in Jeremiah 22:

24 “As surely as I live,” declares the LORD, “even if you, Jehoiachin [c] son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off. 25 I will hand you over to those who seek your life, those you fear—to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and to the Babylonians. [d] 26 I will hurl you and the mother who gave you birth into another country, where neither of you was born, and there you both will die. 27 You will never come back to the land you long to return to.”

 28 Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot, 
       an object no one wants? 
       Why will he and his children be hurled out, 
       cast into a land they do not know?

 29 O land, land, land, 
       hear the word of the LORD!

 30 This is what the LORD says: 
       “Record this man as if childless, 
       a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, 
       for none of his offspring will prosper, 
       none will sit on the throne of David 
       or rule anymore in Judah.”

The problem is how can the Messiah be brought through that line? However, it’s quite likely that since this was right before the exile into Babylon, YHWH was referring to immediate descendants not prospering and sitting on the throne of Jerusalem. 

Consider how, for instance, in the next chapter, we have a prophecy about a branch still being raised up:

 5 “The days are coming,” declares the LORD, 
       “when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, 
       a King who will reign wisely 
       and do what is just and right in the land.

 6 In his days Judah will be saved 
       and Israel will live in safety. 
       This is the name by which he will be called: 
       The LORD Our Righteousness.

It’s my thought also that the “curse” was reversed in Haggai 2.

20 The word of the LORD came to Haggai a second time on the twenty-fourth day of the month: 21 “Tell Zerubbabel governor of Judah that I will shake the heavens and the earth. 22 I will overturn royal thrones and shatter the power of the foreign kingdoms. I will overthrow chariots and their drivers; horses and their riders will fall, each by the sword of his brother. 23 ” ‘On that day,’ declares the LORD Almighty, ‘I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,’ declares the LORD, ‘and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,’ declares the LORD Almighty.”

Zerubbabel is put in the leadership position and is made like a signet ring. Notice the striking parallel to the Jeremiah passage.

Glenn Miller of the Christian-Thinktank states that even the rabbis thought this was the case.

for no man of his seed shall prosper -In this, too, no man of his seed shall prosper, namely that no one will occupy the throne of David nor rule in Judah. Although we find that Zerubbabel, his great grandson, did rule over Judah upon the return of the exiles, the Rabbis (Pesikta /’Rav Kahana p. 163a) state that this : ‘was because Jehoiachin repented  in prison. They state further: Repentance is great, for it nullifies a person’s sentence, as it is stated: inscribe this man childless.’ But since he repented, his sentence was revoked and turned to the good, and  he said to him, “I will take you, Zerubbabel, and I will make you a signet” (Haggai 2:23). They state further: Said Rabbi Johanan: Exile expiates all sins, as it is said: Inscribe this man childless,” and after he was exiled, it IS written: ‘(I Chron. 3:17) And the sons of Jeconiah, Assir, Shealtiel his son–Redak” [Judaica Books of the Prophets, in loc]

If this is the case, then the problem is removed.

What about the angel speaking to Joseph? We are told that Matthew 1:20 is speaking about the child and not of the conception. The comparison is made to Luke 1:15, but there is a distinct difference there. Luke 1:15 says the child will be filled of the Spirit but does not say the child will be of the Spirit. 

I am amazed that someone cannot see the difference.

What’s the conclusion though of Walls of Jericho?

Wonder no more:

Some argue that Joseph would not have taken Mary as his wife if she had been pregnant by another man, and therefore this shows that Joseph believed in the “virgin birth”.

This argument cannot be sustained. The reality is that Joseph knew Mary was pregnant by another man, and he had decided to end the betrothal. But after receiving instructions from the angel, Joseph acted contrary to his original intention.

It was not a matter of Joseph doing whatever he was inclined to do. It was a matter of doing what he was instructed to do.

 

 

So rather than go with what the Scriptures, say, let’s make Mary have a child out of wedlock….

Let’s hope they do more homework next time.

Was Jesus Virgin Born?

A reader has sent in this website asking that it be looked into.

www.wallsofjericho.info

The concern is that Walls of Jericho is denying the Virgin Birth. As I look, it’s denying a lot more, but it centers on the Virgin Birth. For an example of the deeper heresy involved, simply check this paragraph:

[Jesus was a normal man, chosen from among his fellows by God. This was the whole issue. He did not meet with the approval of the priestly establishment of his time. To them he was a malcontent, a man who stirred up the people. The priests desired a messiah made in their own image and likeness. They did not want God’s messiah; they wanted their own — fashioned according to their own delusions of grandeur. It was only natural that they should accuse Jesus of being deluded.]

I hope many readers recognize the adoptionist heresy in which Jesus is not God incarnate. Instead, he is a man chosen to be the vessel that God would use amongst many other possibilities. If there is no virgin birth, then it would seem likely that Jesus is not fully deity. If there is a virgin birth though, then that certainly increases the likelihood that he is.

I was honestly expecting a lot more, but when I went to the site, what I saw is scant and hardly convincing. Also, real sources on the virgin birth are not used.

Let’s look at the first Scripture cited. It’s Luke 3:23:

 23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

Which this tells us the information we need. In the eyes of the world, Jesus was seen as the son of Joseph. (One can imagine the thoughts that would go through the minds of the average populace had Mary said that Jesus was virgin born. It could be the exact same as went through the mind of Joseph. (Yeah, right. Granted, that’s not what he said but considering he was wanting to give her a certificate of divorce, it’s likely he was believing a virgin birth account even if she told him.)

Instead, Jesus was presented as the son of Joseph, which makes great sense in a Hebrew society that placed stock on parentage and family.

Our next verses will come from the gospel of John:

40Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ).

45Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

49Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.”

One wonders why the 49th verse is included. Naturally, Jesus in social circles as was said would be seen to be the son of Joseph. This isn’t a problem for the virgin birth. If he’s thought of as the Son of God, it does point to a divine status though. This passage is to be understood much like the last one was.

Our next look involves Luke 2 and the passages of Jesus being left behind in Jerusalem. We will put the two relevant verses although six are given. Anyone can go to the site though if they think I am taking things out of context.

49“Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” 50But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

Again, I wonder why this is included. All this tells us is that they didn’t understand what he was saying. There is no reply of Joseph saying “Son, this isn’t my house.”

John 7:1-5 and Mark 3 with Jesus’s own family being confused about him are cited next. What does this show though? All it shows is they thought he was crazy. While we would think a virgin birth would be talked about often, it’s not likely that it really was. Even if that had been what was told, could it be the brothers would not grasp what that meant?

The last one to be addressed will be Mark 6:

 1Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. 2When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed.   “Where did this man get these things?” they asked. “What’s this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! 3Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

 4Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor.”

Which shows Jesus had a house where his family lived. Somehow, this is supposed to argue against the virgin birth?

As we go on, we are told that only two gospels mention this virgin birth. I wonder if Walls of Jericho is skeptical though of the Sermon on the Mount. Only two gospels mention that also and it happens to be the same two gospels.

There is also the argument that no other sources mention the virgin birth in the NT. So what? They don’t mention the Sermon on the Mount or the feeding of the 5,000 and the latter is in all four gospels. Acts is interested in the ministry of the apostles and the epistles are the outworking of doctrine based on the life of the historical Jesus. None of them would need the virgin birth.

We will look at other passages tomorrow.

Halloween: Is It Just For One Day?

I won’t deny it. I thoroughly enjoy Halloween. I always did as a kid and my favorite outfit was to go out as a ninja. Then, I got the joy when I got older of seeing the kids and I think giving the kids who visited our house candy was more enjoyable than going out and getting it myself. (And now in my own place, my roommate and I have had no visitors and I happened to pick up these Reeses’s Cups and I love peanut butter so much coincidentally and well, now what are we going to do with all those Reeses’s Cups? Decisions, decisions….)

Today, I still dress up some. For me today, it involved wearing my Smallville T-Shirt and my Superman hat due to my love of Clark Kent in the series. Pretending is such a great joy at times and I think too many people kill their imagination when they get older and find it harder to enjoy wonder in the world. Yes. There is a great joy in pretending to be someone you are not.

Wait. Did I just describe what kids do one day a year or what Christians tend to do everyday and especially at church?

This is the kind of idea I wrote about once before from a Casting Crowns song about a Stained-Glass Masquerade. Somehow, we are mostly perfectionists in the church. We think that we have to be perfect and I think that in part comes from a pop Christian worldview. Everyone wants to be seen as holy and righteous and that involves always being in a certain attitude.

Christianity is not about having a certain attitude though. Christianity is about being in a right relationship to God through Jesus Christ and it doesn’t matter how you feel about it or not. Let me say this to people who may be doubting their salvation as an example. Whether or not you feel saved has zip to do with whether you are saved or not.

When was the last time you really heard someone talk about a sin they were struggling with at church? Probably the same as the last time I recall. How many of you all can immediately think though of a sin that you are struggling with? That’s what I thought. I find that so incredible about the internet. I’ll have people come to me who are struggling with problems for help, and I doubt they’ll tell anyone in their church about them. I’m of the same nature though. I’ll tell others problems that I would never dare tell the church and some of those include my internet family.

It seems we’re all watching ourselves and trying to make sure we don’t have a flaw. Why? None of us are perfect. We all know that. Somehow though, we want everyone else to know otherwise. Are we interested in truth then or are we simply interested in a perception whether it is true or not? I think that’s a question we all need to answer.

I’m also one that’s just as guilty. Why is that? I don’t know either. For me, I don’t naturally trust people and this situation makes it all the more difficult. What’s to be done? I’m not sure. We’re all going to need to reach out. Maybe if we showed our wounds a little bit more, we could get them healed and maybe it will start with those in leadership in the church being the first to reveal their weaknesses and struggles. I hoped to do this some with my post I wrote on Obama, socialism, and my story. It was a hard post, but I thought it would help and I hope it did.

Are we going to make this Halloween constant because we can all agree, it’s no treat and we’re certainly playing a trick.

To God Be The Glory

I wrote last night about having God be the end of what we do. As I thought about it after I wrote the blog, I realized that there was a lot left out that needed to be said. I desire to correct that tonight in considering a verse of Scripture I’ve found to be one that I need to take into mind. 1 Cor. 10:31 has been a favorite verse for awhile for me and oddly, one I don’t see Christians citing as one of their favorites. The text reads as follows:

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

This is interesting in that Paul is talking about righteousness in the face of the question of meat offered to idols. Notice what actions he’s not talking about though. He’s not talking about prayer. He’s not talking about Scripture study. He’s not talking about evangelism. He’s not talking about fasting.

He’s talking about the day to day activity of eating and drinking.

What he means then is what is said in the last part, whatever you do, do it for the glory of God. The problem with us as Christians though is we tend to look at it as only referring to the “spiritual” activities. Have we not considered so much more is to the glory of God? You can surf the net to God’s glory. You can enjoy a movie or TV program or sporting event. You can hang out with friends. You can be dating. You can be making love to your spouse. All of these can be to the glory of God.

Let’s take the realm of science as an example. Louis Pasteur said “Science brings men nearer to God,” and “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the creator.” I’m not a scientist, but I can understand what he’s saying. When I see something about DNA or go look at a picture of Olympus Mons on Mars, I’m just moved. Something in me screams at the awesome grandeur of what I am seeing.

The old scientists saw their science as doing that. They believed that the universe was created by a rational creator and therefore, his creation would be rational. If they studied it, they could learn more about him, and that is what they desired to do. Of course, not all of them were like this, but a striking number in the past were. 

These men saw their exploring the natural world as giving glory to God and the more they found, the more they found him glorious. They wanted knowledge, true, but not just knowledge. They wanted that knowledge to be a light to guide them to truth. As a theologian, I can confess that the more wonder I find out about the concept of God, the more I am amazed. He’s so much greater than the concept I had when I was a young boy in Sunday School.

Consider the arts also. Many musicians wrote great pieces of music in praise to Jesus Christ. They wanted to make good music of course, but they wanted that music to be a testimony to the one that they loved. (Or rather, that they love.) When the applause came, the composers wanted it directed more to the grand composer of the symphony of life than to them.

In Religulous, Bill Maher asks a priest outside the Vatican what Christ would think of a huge building like that. Maher needs to realize this is the same one who described a majestic temple. There was a day and age when churches were designed to be places of holiness. You went in and were dwarfed immediately by what you saw and you had an idea of the holy then. The place was not big for the sake of being big. It was big because it was to show how big God is. It’s majesty and grandeur was to put the person who entered into the mindset of worship in realizing who he is and who the God he serves is. 

Other artwork has been done for the glory of God. How many paintings and statues have been done in order to bring praise to the creator? Indeed, Christ never did write music or books or poetry or paint or do sculptures, but he’s impacted the arts more than any other person in that now, so many works are done about him. I would even argue that many of our modern superheroes to an extent are made to reflect Christ and I argue that they truly are superheroes only when they reflect Christ.

There are countless fields I could go into, but I think you get the point. Chances are, you know your field a lot better than I do. Whatever it is, do it for the glory of God. Be the best at it that you can be for his glory. If you’re a lawyer, be the best one you can be. If you’re a builder, build to his glory. If you’re a doctor, model the great physician. If you’re a teacher, model the great teacher. If you’re a chef, cook as if you were serving that meal to Christ.

Whatsoever you do, do it to his glory. Pray I’ll do the same.

What Is The End?

Tonight, I’m in my philosophy class and we’re talking about Plotinus. Now in the midst of this, I have a few hundred ideas going on in my head and at any time, I can often think up a problem and say “That’s one I haven’t resolved yet” and think on it. I was thinking about one such as our professor talked about how Plotinus believed in a “One” that was unknowable through rationality ultimately and you really couldn’t say anything about it. (Which is something you can say about it. Those kinds of things are always difficult.)

How is the One known? It is known through mystical experience. Philosophy is seen as a way to get you closer to that experience. Plotinus did have this experience a few times in his life. It would not be wise of us to deny such. The question we could ask though is, “Can that experience tell us about reality external to it?” That’s not my topic tonight however.

Instead, my mind was ticking on to another thought. The church today is fascinated with experiences. It’s understandable. If someone talks about an angel visiting them everyone thinks “Wow. It’d be really cool if one visited me.” Of course, some people then will take any event and interpret it as an angelic encounter and then there’s another story going on. Now I believe in angels and I’m not saying they don’t visit us at all. I’m saying though we can breed experiences simply because we long to have these experiences that others are having.

I wonder then how many of us are making the experience the end goal. Experience should never be that though. Think about the other experiences you have. Why are some of you reading this blog? I hope it’s an experience on a quest for knowledge. You are reading this blog hopefully because you think I have some knowledge and you want to partake of that.

Let’s suppose you are having a meal as you read this blog. Why? You are doing that for the sake of nourishment. It seems that when you focus on eating though simply for pleasure, which isn’t the main end for which eating was established, then you get gluttony. This is an important point. There are accidental ends that go along with intended ends. The final cause of eating is to receive nourishment. That food often tastes good is not necessary to its nourishing you. It is what we call an “accident.”

One of the best examples of this though is in sex. (Some of you already knew I’d go there.) I’ve come to a conclusion in my thinking about the topic. (And dreaming and hoping and longing and, well, you get the picture.) It seems that when we say that we want sex, many of us I don’t think are saying we want simply an experience.

What is sexual intercourse after all? It is the joining of two bodies. Note that! You need another body. This is something that can’t be done alone. That body is the body of a person. It is part of who they are. I said earlier that if you used the food just for pleasure and made that the final end, it’d be gluttony. You do that with sex and it becomes lust.

Consider it this way. Are you using the experience of sex for the deeper knowledge of who the person is, or are you using sexual intercourse in order to come to a deeper appreciation of the other person? How you answer that question will be very revelatory about you. I’m not saying don’t enjoy the experience, but realize the purpose of the experience. Persons should not be used in that way.

What about the church? Are we really seeking knowledge of God or just an experience of him? Is God being used as a way to get to a divine experience? I’m not against having an experience if it happens like the beatific vision for instance. I’m simply wanting to make sure we have our priorities right. God won’t take anything seen as greater than him and that includes an experience.

I Think You’re Wrong

Yesterday, a news story broke about how some kids in Tennessee had had a plan to try to assassinate presidential hopeful Barack Obama. While I am a strong McCain supporter, I can say that thankfully, the plan did not succeed. I don’t want Obama in the White House at all, but this certainly is not the proper way to prevent that from happening. Murder is always an evil.

I’m also on the Facebook application. Several of you are probably on there as well. I’ve found many of my high school class who have, unfortunately, drunk the Obama Kool-Aid and one of them put up a link about the story. What was most amazing though was that in her comment on the story, she was blaming the religious right.

I read the story that she put up and it said nothing about religious beliefs. (Well, it did say they shot out the window of a church. Last I checked, religious people don’t normally do that.) What was said though was that we all know what happens when the religious right starts acting with literal interpretations of Scripture.

I’ll also point out that what I’m saying is paraphrase and there is no intention to misrepresent what was said. Unfortunately, it looks as if the comments that I made aren’t there any more. However, I was told in reply that we’re from different worldviews so there can’t be any discussion and that this poster has a real beef with the religious right.

My reply was simple. If you have a real beef with the religious right, that’s just fine. It doesn’t mean though that they’re to blame for every evil out there. However, if we also have different worldviews, the thing to do is to meet in the open marketplace of ideas and discuss them. We can find out which, if any, of our views are true. As much as we should be eager to share beliefs we think are true, we should always be open to the possibility that we’re wrong. I also stated that my Facebook IMs were open for such a discussion. The reply I got was simple:

“Ugh.”

Then, there was a change to this one saying they were being personally attacked in describing their activity. This really stunned me. Personally attacking? I was simply stating a divergent viewpoint. (If anything was an attack, it was insisting that the religious right were the ones behind an attempt by neo-nazis to assassinate Obama.)

It makes me think we’ve lost something in our world today. It’s getting to where you can’t tell anyone that they’re wrong about anything. This is something especially evident in political circles today. Thomas Sowell has written a great article telling how presidential candidates back in the 1800’s got called far worse things than anything McCain or Obama have been called.

Some people might find my stance on negative campaign ads odd. I’m all for them. If someone goes too far, the public will see it. However, I think it’s perfectly legitimate for any candidate to call his opponents view into question. Let me see his record. I want to see that. I don’t want to just hear the good things being promised today.

It’s what Sowell refers to as record vs. rhetoric. If someone has a problem with someone on an issue, it’s perfectly all right to say so. This is the way ideas get sharpened and improved. I have my own stances on theology. If I meet a Christian, I’m more than wiling to discuss our disagreements. (There is one exception. If that disagreement becomes a point of fellowship, I no longer want to discuss it. It seems that what divides us has then been put above what unites us, our faith in Christ.)

If we live in a society where we can’t even say someone is wrong without considering it an attack on the person, there’s a problem. I’m not saying I’m against cold hard truth at times either. If someone is honestly being an idiot, I have called them on it before. I don’t prefer to beat around the bush. There are several people though I don’t use the tactic on. The ones that get the toughest treatment are the ones I believe are not really seeking truth but simply to destroy the flock.

Either way, they do have a right to raise questions though and we should answer them. If we have reached a point in society though where we cannot call something into question though, then we definitely need to take a second look. Anyone of us could be wrong and we dare not try to play God and act as if we can’t.

Analogical Language and Approaching God

There are three types of language that we use when speaking about God. By language, I don’t mean English, Spanish, French, etc. I mean rather the way we use the words that we say no matter what language they’re in. All of these were discussed in the Medieval period by Dons Scotus and Thomas Aquinas.

The first is univocal. Let us take the word love as an example. If I were to be seeing my family again at Christmas and I see my Mom and say “I love you Mom” and were then to see my Dad and say “I love you Dad”, it is not likely anyone would think that I mean something different by the word love in each case. I love my Mom and my Dad the same way.

On the other hand, in English, we know love can take on a number of other meanings which is really a deficit in the English language. I cannot say I love my friends the same way that I love my parents. I definitely cannot say I love my friends or parents the way I’d love a significant other of the opposite sex. I finally cannot say I love any of these the way I am to love God. When the same word is used and the meaning is differnt, then we have what is called equivocal language.

There is a third type and that is analogical language. There is a similarity but a difference. Scotus and Aquinas went back and forth on this, though not literally as they didn’t live at the same time exactly, but their writings show a discussion over the ideas. Scotus was worried that if our words don’t mean the same thing when describing God, then all God-language is meaningless, but Aquinas knew that there had to be some difference between us and God.

The answer is that the concepts that we speak of are univocal, but the application of them is analogical. We can speak of the wisdom of God for instance. Wisdom is meant univocally. It’s not something completely different for God than it is for us. However, when it comes to application, it’s analogical. We are wise finitely and God is infinite wisdom.

What does this have to do with the approach to God?

My prayer time for me is the last thing before I turn out the lights at night. I am finding it a more and more exciting time. I find this quite odd and some of you I’m sure can relate. Why is it that I enjoy that time so much, but I find it hard to come and do that which I enjoy so much? One would think it second nature. One would also think it easy to fall back to sleep when I wake up in the middle of the night just by coming to that place of joy again. Both times there seems to be a disconnect and I’m skeptical to it being a disconnect of the same nature each time.

Yet as I pray, I find the words of my prayer being totally inadequate and realize that the God I am addressing is far greater than I thought. We must realize this with Scripture also. It speaks in this language as well that if we took it literally many times, we would be in trouble. It would leave us with some false notions of God. The metaphor is there though to paint a symbol for us of a far more beautiful picture.

Take the passage about boldly approaching the throne of grace. We are told to do that. Consider this though. Do you literally come to a throne? Is God literally sitting on a throne? Is there a place where you go and then you are with God and in another place, God is not there? While I believe God’s presence can be made manifest in a certain area, I also hold to the omnipresence of God and believe that he is in all places.

Instead, I try to realize now that I am not so much coming to him as I am realizing where I already am. Reality clicks in and I realize that God is present and he has always been present. If only I would see him present more often. It would make struggles I have with sin be far more easier and would increase my dedication through long work hours or other forms of suffering.

The throne is to remind me of who he is. He is the king of the universe. He is the originator of the cosmos. He is the creator and sustainer of all life. He is the sovereign master who oversees it all. He is omnipotent. He reigns. I am told to approach the throne, but may I never lose sight of what is meant by that throne.

It could be frankly that sometimes, we have a hard time believing in and trusting God because we haven’t taken a good idea of who he is. We’ve made God so small today that we don’t really consider how awesome it is that such a being exists and what an impact that makes. If God can be taken away from one’s life and there is little or no change ultimately in the worldview, one has to wonder how much impact God was making before. Nietzsche got this right. Take away God and there are consequences and he made sure we knew what those were. 

Now many of us might not be at that point, but are we much better? Do we have the knowledge of who God is as a vibrant reality in our lives that shapes all we do, or does God just occupy one small little portion of our worldview? If you’re wondering if this blogger thinks he’s there yet, rest assured, he’s not. I speak to myself as much as I speak to all of you.

As an intellectual, I also realize a great danger that I face. When doing theology, while I should be intellectual, it is very easy to come to God as if I am a great master of knowledge approaching a subject for study. It is just the reverse. I should come to God realizing that I am a subject and I am approaching the great master. Humility needs to be a huge part of the approach to God.

Consider another case. What if I say I am now approaching him? I am now for me, but God has always been there. My ideas of time and space bind me so much that I cannot help but see them as I approach God. I find it so difficult to fathom a God who lives in an eternal now and is doing all things that he is doing at one moment and holds all knowledge about me at this time, past, present, and future.

Have you stopped to think lately how awesome he is?

If our prayers are nonchalant, maybe it could be because we don’t realize who we’re praying to. If our Christian life is not one that we are growing in grace and truth, maybe we don’t realize who our teacher is. If our Bibles aren’t teaching us truths, maybe we don’t realize who it is that is really the mind behind them.

And yes, I speak to myself as much as you. I need to improve as well.

I don’t know when your time is for prayer, but I hope you have one. Next time you go, consider to whom you are going.