tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-56563672011-04-21T19:28:41.750-07:00View from PenielPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comBlogger5191100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1077895719930762292004-02-27T07:28:00.000-08:002004-02-27T07:30:43.796-08:00-Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1077842447525660172004-02-26T16:40:00.000-08:002004-02-26T16:42:50.606-08:00A trio of authors argue in the January 2004 issue of American Philosophical Quarterly that conscious desires are impossible. They begin with a distinction between beliefs and desires, showing that the difference has to do with the "direction of fit" with the external world. Beliefs (and perceptions) arise from the mind, but are checked and controlled by the world; if a belief proves false, we Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1077774454131192302004-02-25T21:47:00.000-08:002004-02-25T21:49:36.513-08:00In *American Jesus,* Stephen Prothero traces a three-stage process that produced a uniquely American Jesus. First, Jesus was detached, through the awakenings of the nineteenth century, from the creedal and confessional Calvinism of Puritan America; then, scholars disentangled Jesus from the biblical witness, basing their faith supposedly on Jesus Himself, not on scripture or tradition; finally, Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1077753514914517972004-02-25T15:58:00.000-08:002004-02-25T16:00:36.733-08:00From Eugene Vinaver, on the development of Romance literature in the high middle ages:
In the third quarter of the twelfth century, some ten or fifteen years after the disaster of the Second Crusade, a remarkable event occurred on the European literary scene. . . . A series of French verse romances produced at that time established a new literary genre which, together with the influence of earlyPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1077753173739047632004-02-25T15:52:00.000-08:002004-02-25T15:54:55.640-08:00Those crazy medievals:
In the late twelfth century, the English writer Nigel Wireker produced the Speculum Stultorum, the “Mirror of Dunces.” In this story, an ass, Brunellus, dissatisfied with his short tail, leaves home to visit the famous physician Galen to get a prescription for a longer tail. Galen sends him to Salerno, where the remedy not only fails but makes his tail even shorter. Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1077679255111152872004-02-24T19:20:00.000-08:002004-02-24T19:22:56.576-08:00There's a neat little chiasm in Luke 21:25-26:
A. Signs in sun, moon stars
B. on earth dismay among nations
C. in perplexity at roaring of the sea and waves
B. men fainting with fear and expectations of things coming upon the oikoumene
A. powers of heavens shaken.
A couple of things are clear about this. First, we are completely in the realm of Gentile imagery. You've got the explicit mentionPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1077585279958087022004-02-23T17:14:00.000-08:002004-02-23T17:16:40.420-08:00Odd how things come in clumps. Prior to last evening, I had never even heard of the popular Victorian novelist and historian Edward Bulwer-Lytton. I first came across his name in an intriguing TLS article by Oswyn Murray, who claimed that Bulwer-Lytton had a special place in the development of modern classical scholarship, though his role has been (deliberately?) obscured by later writers. Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1077465294191816362004-02-22T07:54:00.000-08:002004-02-22T07:56:53.496-08:00Eucharistic meditation:
Luke 20:15-16a
In this parable, Jesus tells the story of Israel using the image of the vineyard. As we saw, this was not an invention of Jesus, but goes back to Psalms and Prophets who used the vineyard as an image of Israel. In these verses Jesus says that the vineyard is going to be taken from the leaders of Israel and given to another people, and that is the new Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1077464601997361912004-02-22T07:43:00.000-08:002004-02-22T07:45:20.840-08:00Exhortation for February 22:
The sermon text this morning will be eerily familiar to some of you. Jesus has cleared out the temple, dramatizing its future destruction, and now He has set up shop at the heart of Judaism, teaching in the temple courts. The leaders of Israel, the chief priests and scribes, want to take Him down, and they come to Him with one challenge after another in an attempt Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1077413174253568882004-02-21T17:26:00.000-08:002004-02-21T17:28:12.576-08:00Stones, as I've said, are all over the place in Luke 19-21. One more indication of this: When the scribes and chief priests debate about how to answer Jesus' question about John's baptism, they worry that the people might stone them if they deny John. They "do not know" where John's baptism came from, just as they "do not know" the time of their visitation. But the stoning they fear from the Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1077412832718233792004-02-21T17:20:00.000-08:002004-02-21T17:28:40.623-08:00The debates in Luke 20 are focused on the issue of leadership and authority. The basic question is, Who is going to set the direction for the future of Israel -- Jesus and His followers, or the establishment. A number of things follow from this:
1) Jesus' parable of the vineyard is directed against the leaders, not the people as a whole. In contrast to Isaiah 5, as Joel Green points out, the Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1077154843073898412004-02-18T17:40:00.000-08:002004-02-18T17:52:38.390-08:00It is a strange feeling to be reminded by a radical like Terry Eagleton of the existence of what Russel Kirk called the permanent things. Writing in *Sweet Violence,* his recent study of tragedy, Eagleton says "Radicals are suspicious of the transhistorical because it suggests that there are things which cannot be changed, hence fostering a political fatalism. There are indeed good grounds for Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1077119773534987112004-02-18T07:56:00.000-08:002004-02-18T07:58:08.043-08:00A few notes on Luke 20:
1) There's a new symmetry to the story of the challenge to Jesus' authority in verses 1-8. On the one hand, there's a clear chiastic structure:
A. Authority: Question
B. John's baptism: Question
B. John's baptism: No answer
A. Authority: No answer
There's also the pattern of alternative speakers:
A. Priests ask question
B. Jesus answers with a question
A. Priests Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1077118875601693632004-02-18T07:41:00.000-08:002004-02-18T07:43:10.310-08:00Battle for the Temple, Luke 20
INTRODUCTION
Once Jesus has cleared out the buyers and sellers in the temple, he turns the temple into a house of teaching (19:47-48). Furious at his attacks on them and the provocative action in the temple, and envious of the crowds, the chief priests, scribes, and other leaders look for ways to get rid of Him. The order of the chapter is important: Jesus Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076955826220620182004-02-16T10:23:00.000-08:002004-02-16T10:25:39.293-08:00If the disciples are silenced, Jesus says in answer to the Pharisees who demand that they stop hailing Him as king, then these very stones will cry out. He is on His way into Jerusalem, and the stones are the same stones that will someday be thrown down, the stones of the city and temple. The disciples ARE silenced (by the Jews) and the stones, not one on top of another, DO cry out that Jesus Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076954544786137212004-02-16T10:02:00.000-08:002004-02-16T10:04:18.140-08:00Roger Scruton reviews David Hurst's *On Westernism* in the January 23 issue of the TLS. While challenging Hurst's use of Richard Dawkins's concept of "meme," he concludes that it is an important book about the contours and imposition of the global ideology that Hurst calls Westernism. Here's Scruton's summary of Hurst's central thesis: "we find ourselves in a world where ideas that have no Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076953708459039352004-02-16T09:48:00.000-08:002004-02-16T09:50:21.170-08:00Jed Perl, art critic for the New Republic, has a rant about John Currin and other contemporary painters in the Feb 16 issue of TNR. Scathing is too weak for this review. He says that Currin produces trash, and incompetent trash at that. Currin believes in nothing other than his own self-promotion. And he is only one of a "band of sleazeball figure painters" that are rising in reputation todayPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076953051703152292004-02-16T09:37:00.000-08:002004-02-16T09:39:24.560-08:00Peter Dickson reviews Michael Wood's BBC film "In Search of Shakespeare" in the Feb 16 edition of The Weekly Standard. He points out why many scholars are not convinced by Wood's claim that Shakespeare was a Catholic He admits that "the evidence for the staunch Catholicism of Shakespeare's parents and his own dossier as a crypto-Catholic remains impressive. His favorite daughter, Susanna, Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076859281517425532004-02-15T07:34:00.000-08:002004-02-15T07:36:33.326-08:00Eucharistic meditation, Feb 15:
Luke 19:5-7
In one sense, both of the events in Jericho are about sight and blindness. On the way in to Jericho, Jesus healed a blind man, and at the beginning of our sermon text today we were introduced to a man who wanted, above everything else, to “see” Jesus. As I pointed out last week, this is important in the context, for the disciples are notably blind Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076858282571839532004-02-15T07:18:00.000-08:002004-02-15T07:19:54.590-08:00Exhortation for February 15:
Since the time of David, Psalm-singing has been the center of prayer and singing for the people of God. That is obvious in Judaism, for from the time of Solomon’s temple, through the “Second temple” period after the exile, and into the period of the New Testament, the Psalter was THE hymnal of the church. The same is true of the early church. Psalms were chanted Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076855698959564572004-02-15T06:34:00.000-08:002004-02-15T06:36:50.733-08:00Though the issue of Abraham's sinfulness is not immediately in view in the "justification" text of Gen 15, it is a crucial issue in the deeper context and structure of Genesis. This is true in two ways: First, Abraham is suffering under the curse of barrenness and death, and the promise will be fulfilled only if that curse is overcome, only if God raises the dead. Second, the promise that Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076796363076344602004-02-14T14:06:00.000-08:002004-02-14T14:07:54.530-08:00Luke Timothy Johnson points out that Luke 19:45 uses EKBALLO to describe Jesus casting out the money-changers from the temple. This is the same verb used throughout Luke's gospel to describe exorcism. Jesus has come to the temple, found it infested with demonic "brigands," and exorcises the house so that it can become a place of teaching. Similar to the opening miracle of Mark, where a Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076791160004365832004-02-14T12:39:00.000-08:002004-02-14T12:41:11.090-08:00Why do the disciples put their garments down in front of Jesus as he comes into Jerusalem? Why did Jehu's soldiers do the same for him in 2 Kings 9? A couple of answers are possible:
1) Perhaps there is some sort of parallel between this practice and the scene in Aeschylus' Agamemnon, where Clytemnestra welcomes Agamemnon home from Troy and tempts him to walk over a fabric. This is taken as aPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076548791388044712004-02-11T17:19:00.000-08:002004-02-11T17:21:39.746-08:00A remarkable statement of Calvin's, from Institutes 4.14.18: speaking of the tree of knowledge and of the rainbow, Calvin says that these are given new being by the word of God that designates them as signs or testimonies. Then this "Et antea quidem arbor erat arbor, arcus arcus; ubi inscripta fuerunt verbo Dei, indita est nova forma, ut inciperent esse quod prius non erat." That last clause Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076546664301169952004-02-11T16:44:00.000-08:002004-02-11T16:46:12.310-08:00In Nussbaum's treatment, "tragic" and "Aristotelian" conceptions of moral luck and the fragility of the good life are at one. In excluding poets, Plato not only kept certain forms of literature at bay, but was protecting against the tragic potential of life. For Plato, "the best and most valuable things in life are all invulnerable," and thus Plato gets a kind of revenge against the demand for Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076543695745594592004-02-11T15:54:00.000-08:002004-02-11T15:56:43.560-08:00Nussbaum's problematic of moral luck is quite intriguing: A good man is like a tree, she says at the beginning, quoting Pindar. But that means that the good man is dependent for his flourishing on all kinds of things beyond his control -- rainfall, winds, sun, and so on and on. Greek philosophy was an effort to find some ground for the good life that was NOT dependent on such moral "luck," somePeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076543281105737532004-02-11T15:48:00.000-08:002004-02-11T15:49:49.013-08:00Should theology agree with the sophist critique of NOMOS? It would seem so, as Thomas would say: The institutions of society are the product of human construction, and the claim that they are rooted in "nature" is a rhetorical device. It is human all the way down. If it is argued that the constructs of NOMOS are rooted in man's inherent sociability, so be it; and if it is argued that natural Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076537056098422942004-02-11T14:04:00.000-08:002004-02-11T14:06:04.530-08:00Years ago, I read David Landes's *Prometheus Unbound* for a class in economic history, and I can still remember the fascination I experienced at his descriptions of the steel industry (though details are sadly forgotten). In his recent *Wealth and Poverty of Nations,* Landes, among many other things, spends a few pages defending Max Weber's much-criticized theory about the relation of the Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076525700533947882004-02-11T10:55:00.000-08:002004-02-11T10:57:07.543-08:00There is further evidence concerning the meaning of "nomos" in Greek culture, coming from Martha Nussbaum's *Fragility of Goodness.* In a discussion of Euripides's *Hecuba,* Nussbaum points out that Polyxena, Hecuba's daughter who is offered as a human sacrifice by the Greeks to appease the shade of Achilles, goes to her death with great dignity and great confidence in the conventions of societyPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076520869338215652004-02-11T09:34:00.000-08:002004-02-11T09:36:17.170-08:00Sermon outline for Feb 15:
In the Robbers’ Den, Luke 19:1-48
INTRODUCTION
After a long journey, Jesus arrives in Jerusalem, and we learn that all along his goal has been the temple. He enters the city of the Great King as a king (19:37-38), and begins to drive out the moneychangers in the temple (vv. 45-46). Jesus’ arrival is the “time of visitation” for Jerusalem, but because Jerusalem Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076453111835372082004-02-10T14:45:00.000-08:002004-02-10T14:46:58.890-08:00The JSOT also includes an article by Daniel Hays arguing that 1 Kings 1-11 portrays Solomon in a very negative light. It is not merely that Solomon falls in 1 Kings 11; there are hints throughout these chapters that Solomon has gone badly wrong. I don't agree with everything in Hays's article (he criticizes Solomon, for instance, for not offering sacrifice before the ark, but in this criticism Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076452374507178682004-02-10T14:32:00.000-08:002004-02-10T14:34:41.670-08:00F. Gerald Downing of Manchester has an intriguing paper on "Aesthetic Behavior in the Jewish Scriptures" in the December 2003 issue of the JSOT. Among the points he makes are these:
1) There has been remarkably little attention to Hebrew conceptions of beauty. This is due in part to a modern aesthetic bias in which "functionlessness" is a key component of art. A beautiful object that is Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076443404108106272004-02-10T12:03:00.000-08:002004-02-10T12:05:11.450-08:00Matt Jackson-McCabe argues in the current issue of JBL that the epistle of James presents a version of Messiahship different from much of the NT. Instead of a Messianic idea centering on the death and resurrection of the Messiah, James describes a "national restoration" in which the 12 tribes (dispersed abroad) will be restored by an "avenger Messiah." It would be wrong to pit these two Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076442501304757102004-02-10T11:48:00.000-08:002004-02-10T11:50:08.186-08:00Gary Knoppers argues in a JBL article that, contrary to accepted scholarship, the Chronicler shows the signs of influence of Greek historiography. I find this kind of article tedious and this kind of evidence unconvincing, but along the way Knoppers makes some useful comments about the organization of the Chronicler's genealogies. In particular, he shows (following many others) a chiastic Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076441231288572022004-02-10T11:27:00.000-08:002004-02-10T11:28:58.390-08:00A student of mine, Erin Linton, is working on the rituals and theory of guest friendship in Greek culture, particularly in the Homeric epics. She has pointed to the inclusio within the Iliad, which begins with a duel between Menelaus and Paris to resolve the war and ends with a reconciliation, partial and temporary though it is, between Achilles and Priam. She also points to the "reconciliationPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076428829025605112004-02-10T08:00:00.000-08:002004-02-10T08:02:16.233-08:00Azzan Yadin argues in an article in the JBL (122/4: 601-26) that in several passages of the OT, the Hebrew word QOL refers to a hypostatic, mediating reality. That is, when the text says "I heard the voice speaking," it is not saying merely that someone is using his voice to speak but that the voice IS the speaker. He interprets Numbers 7:89, Ezekiel 1:24-26, 9:1, and the "voice" at Sinai in Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076374265586379442004-02-09T16:51:00.000-08:002004-02-09T16:52:51.466-08:00In a brief Critical Note in the JBL (122/4: 731-33) argues that the "stones" in Exodus 1:16 are neither a birthing stool nor a reference to male genitals. The author, Scott Morschauser, suggests that the word means potter's wheel (referring to Jer 18:3), and points to Egyptian evidence that the "potter's wheel" was an image of gestation - the baby being on the "potter's wheel" was being formed Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076372929011862782004-02-09T16:28:00.000-08:002004-02-09T16:30:35.186-08:00I am informed by a correspondent that Andrew Hoffecker of RTS Jackson is writing a biography of Hodge that will be published in 2006 by P&R.Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076371318754015202004-02-09T16:01:00.000-08:002004-02-09T16:03:45.263-08:00A review of the recent collection of essays on Charles Hodge claims that no biography of Hodge has appeared since his son's 1880 account. This is fairly astonishing, given Hodge's importance even to this day. It's a gap in the Reformed past that needs to be filled. Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076369355969719712004-02-09T15:29:00.000-08:002004-02-09T15:31:02.093-08:00In the December 12, 2003 issue of the TLS, Jerry Fodor reviews a book by Brian Ellis on "the new essentialism." In a nutshell, the new essentialism challenges an important feature of modern accounts of knowledge and reality. As Fodor puts it, modern philosophy has assumed there are two kinds of facts -- contingent and necessary -- and that two ways that propositions can be true correspond to Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076367481805066872004-02-09T14:58:00.000-08:002004-02-09T15:52:56.170-08:00Joseph Epstein goes to town pricking the inflated reputation of George Steiner in the Feb 16 issue of the Weekly Standard. Among his jibes: "I once, in print, referred to Harold Bloom as George Steiner without the sense of humor, which was, as Senator Claghorn used to say, 'A joke, I say, that's a joke, son,' because more humorless than Steiner human beings do not come." And, "Steiner's Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076366145613714952004-02-09T14:35:00.000-08:002004-02-09T14:37:31.606-08:00Richard John Neuhaus wants to defend the theological prowess of our current President, defending his statement that "Muslims worship the same Almighty" as Christians. Neuhaus has some jolly fun at the expense of "official of the Southern Baptist Convention" and the NAE, reducing the arguments to: "we got a competition between gods going here, with our God (upper case) being much nicer than theirPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076365654134566212004-02-09T14:27:00.000-08:002004-02-09T14:29:20.233-08:00Philip Jenkins has a superb review of Charles Murray's *Human Accomplishment* in the Feb issue of First Things. Jenkins challenges Murray's basic method, which involved a process of selecting eminent persons in science and culture by attending to their role and presence in standard reference works. Murray discovers by this process that the leading figures in world science, literature, and art, Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076358660205372592004-02-09T12:31:00.000-08:002004-02-09T12:32:46.170-08:00George Weigel has a characteristically clear-headed and insightful analysis of the "Europe problem" in the February issue of First Things. Weigel uses Robert Kagan's *Paradise and Power* as a jumping off point, but claims that he does not press the argument deep enough, especially into cultural and religious issues. He asks a number of questions that point to a widespread European malaise: the Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076352001663332472004-02-09T10:40:00.000-08:002004-02-09T10:41:47.420-08:00One of the oddities of Paul's use of Genesis 15:6 is that this passage is clearly NOT about Abraham's conversion. Abraham has already set up altars on at least two occasions (12:7-8), and he is calling on the name of the Lord (13:3-4). Even if that is unconvincing, Hebrews 11 makes it clear that Abraham responded in faith to the Lord's call, recorded originally in Genesis 12 (Heb 11:8). Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076254663825703102004-02-08T07:37:00.001-08:002004-02-08T07:39:28.483-08:00Exhortation for Feb 8:
Toward the end of this morning’s sermon text, Jesus takes the twelve aside for some individual instruction. He tells them, as He has done before, that they are going to Jerusalem so that all the things prophesied about the Son of Man can be accomplished: “He will be delivered up to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon, and after they have scoured Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076254631178859352004-02-08T07:37:00.000-08:002004-02-08T07:38:55.843-08:00Eucharistic meditation for Feb 8:
Luke 18:7-8
This morning, we explored the question, What does prayer have to do with justice? We can now take up a related question, What does the Lord’s Supper have to do with justice?
The answer is much the same. The Supper is many things: It is a celebration, it is food, it is the gift of Christ’s body and blood through the Spirit for our nourishment; the Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076190721098724632004-02-07T13:52:00.000-08:002004-02-07T13:53:44.810-08:00The incident with the "ruler" in Luke 18 begins with a question about how to inherit eternal life, and ends with the promise of “eternal life” (v 30). Along the way, Jesus has radically transformed the path to eternal life. Jesus does not say that one inherits life by doing NOTHING. He says that there IS something that must be done to inherit eternal life. But it is not a matter of Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076189943128474412004-02-07T13:39:00.000-08:002004-02-07T13:40:47.013-08:00Kenneth Bailey helpfully emphasizes that Jesus' parable of the Pharisee and the publican takes place in the temple, and he suggests convincingly that it is set during a public worship service. The fact that both men go up to the temple at the same time, and the fact that they are both "standing off" (presumably from others) indicates that this is one of the daily sacrifices. Luke 1 indicates Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1076030274954183102004-02-05T17:17:00.000-08:002004-02-05T17:19:37.263-08:00Sermon outline, Feb 8:
INTRODUCTION
As we saw last week, Luke 17:11 begins a new stage of Luke’s account of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem, one that comes to an end in 19:48. This large section is divided into two subsections, 17:11-18:30 and 18:31-19:48. These two subsections are closely parallel to each other. Each begins with a reference to Jesus journeying to Jerusalem (17:11, 18:31). Each Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075929133901560912004-02-04T13:12:00.000-08:002004-02-04T13:13:55.170-08:00Here's an ouline for a lecture on Renaissance and Modernity:
Renaissance and Modernity
Credenda/Agenda History Conference
Pre-Conference Lecture
February 5, 2004
Peter J. Leithart
I. Assessments of the Renaissance and modernity.
A. What is “modernity”?
Slavoj Zizek in The Puppet and the Dwarf : “One possible definition of modernity is: the social order in which religion is no longer fully Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075919384281975802004-02-04T10:29:00.000-08:002004-02-04T10:31:25.246-08:00The fact that the NT uses a political term, "kingdom of God," to describe the salvation that Jesus achieves is puzzling to moderns. Part of the resolution to that problem is to recognize, as I've argued elsewhere, that the Bible treats "salvation" as a political issue. The other part of the issue is to recognize the central importance of issues of authority, the question of "who's in charge." Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075818924145213432004-02-03T06:35:00.000-08:002004-02-03T06:37:03.780-08:00Late dating of the gospels is historically preposterous. Even the most "conservative" dating assumes that Jewish Christians, who believed that the long-awaited salvation had finally occurred in Jesus, would wait over a decade before putting an ordered account on paper. On the contrary: The very first thing a Jew would do if convinced that Jesus was Messiah would be to pick up a quill and Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075818713951775312004-02-03T06:31:00.000-08:002004-02-03T06:33:33.623-08:00Steve Martin, The Pleasure of My Company. New York: Hyperion, 2003. 163 pp.
In his second novel, Steve Martin (yes, the actor) tells the story of the "redemption" of Daniel Pecan Cambridge. Daniel is a narcissistic neurotic so frightened of walking off curbs that he maps out a serpentine route to the Rite Aid (the only store he can get to by a curbless path) to purchase his multiple Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075744648212320762004-02-02T09:57:00.000-08:002004-02-02T09:59:06.700-08:00As mentioned in an earlier post, Paul says that God works out salvation through the cross and resurrection so that "God might BE just and the justifier of those who are of the faith of Jesus." That "be" is crucial; God would not BE just if He did not manifest His justice and righteousness in the world. It seems that this provides a deep ground for "postmillennialism": By creating the world, He Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075649395094218422004-02-01T07:29:00.000-08:002004-02-01T07:31:32.840-08:00Eucharistic Meditation, Feb 1:
Luke 17:26-29
Jesus describes the coming of the Son of Man by comparing it to the coming of the flood in the days of Noah and the rain of fire and brimstone on Sodom in the days of Lot. One of the main points of the comparison, as we’ve seen, is that in all these cases, many are unprepared for the judgment that falls on them. They are going about their regular Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075648201344696432004-02-01T07:10:00.000-08:002004-02-01T07:11:39.356-08:00Exhortation for February 1:
Jesus has many things to say about faith in our sermon text this morning. One of the main things has to do with the power of faith: He says that anyone who has faith the size of a mustard seed can say to a deeply rooted tree “Be uprooted and be planted in the sea,” and it will happen. Jesus is not talking about magic tricks here. Jesus is talking about a Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075646873852173442004-02-01T06:47:00.000-08:002004-02-01T06:49:31.326-08:00God did not need to make the world. But once He's made it, He cannot be a righteous God unless He deals righteously with sin (by punishing it) and righteously with His people (by justifying them). This is why Paul says the cross demonstrates God's righteousness so that He might "be just and the justifier." God's demonstration of righteousness is not merely for the sake of MANIFESTING Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075587003066539452004-01-31T14:10:00.000-08:002004-01-31T14:11:40.360-08:00Jim Jordan suggests that justification as forgiveness of sins always also includes glorification. The "robe" that covers us (imputed righteousness) is likewise a garment of glory and beauty, so that we are invested for office at the same time we are glorified. He wants also to relate this to the OT conception of "covering" or "atonement" as including both elements. That fits with a number of Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075579491395749062004-01-31T12:04:00.000-08:002004-01-31T12:06:28.670-08:00The story of the 10 lepers in Luke 17 is not just about Jesus demonstrating that He is powerful to save, cleanse and heal. He is powerful for all those things; He DOES have mercy on the unclean and the outcasts. But Luke tells the story of the healing almost incidentally: "as they were going, they were cleansed" (v. 14). The emphasis is largely on the response of the one, Samaritan leper. AndPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075531488556075332004-01-30T22:44:00.000-08:002004-01-30T22:46:24.733-08:00Part of the Renaissance recovery of history was an emphasis on mutability and change. Few themes so dominate the poetry of Spenser or the sonnets of Shakespeare as the fear that Time will gobble up everything good. This was continuous with ancient (and medieval) conceptions of the world, since changeability was seen as an offense and a grief rather than simply accepted as a feature of God's Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075481475891476012004-01-30T08:51:00.000-08:002004-01-30T08:52:52.186-08:00"Movies," writes Brian Godawa, a Christian screenwriter, "may be about story, but those stories are finally, centrally, crucially, primarily MOSTLY about redemption." Godawa uses the theologically loaded term "redemption" intentionally, but he recognizes that many contemporary movies present a distinctly secular gospel of redemption. For some movies, redemption comes through making individual Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075409364956603852004-01-29T12:49:00.000-08:002004-01-29T12:50:59.860-08:00Sermon outline for Feb 1:
The Days of the Son of Man, Luke 17:11-37
INTRODUCTION
Jesus’ mission was to proclaim “the kingdom of God” (Luke 4:43; 8:1). By this, He meant that God was taking control of the world through Him, and putting a sinful and shattered world back together. Through His preaching and healing, Jesus enacts this restoration. In Luke 17, He makes it clear that God’s power asPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075332102296107602004-01-28T15:21:00.000-08:002004-01-28T15:23:16.496-08:00Barth says that the conflict of faith and heresy is far more serious and important than the conflicts between faith and unbelief. Unbelief cannot be taken with seriousness, he says, because we believe in the forgiveness of sins. But heresy is taken seriously to the extent that it has the form of faith without the content. Between faith and heresy there is "a headlong collision such as can onlyPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075327045307972182004-01-28T13:57:00.000-08:002004-01-28T13:58:59.936-08:00Henry Ansgar Kelly (pp. 139-140 of *Chaucerian Tragedy*) makes this important historical comment at the end of his analysis of Chaucer's *Troilus and Criseyde*:
"The selection introduction of Aristotelian criteria of excellent in tragedy has been a source of untold confusion in modern discussions of tragedy. For Aristotle, the 'raw material' to be classified, that is, the mass of plays or Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075319243114823832004-01-28T11:47:00.000-08:002004-01-28T13:51:08.293-08:00While I'm on that subject: I've often wondered about the etymology of "fuck." The Shorter Oxford says that the derivation is unknown. I have a theory: Medieval courtly love poetry (such as the Roman de la Rose) traced the development of courtship through several stages. The stage of consummation was designated by the Latin word "factum," which means "the deed." Does factum eventually produce Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075318681598154232004-01-28T11:38:00.000-08:002004-01-28T11:39:35.420-08:00In his beautifully written tribute to the ancient Greeks. Thomas Cahill interprets Euripides' Medea as a cautionary tale to aristocratic Athenian men. The question he poses to the audience is: "What could drive a woman to such extremes that she would kill her own children." Cahill's summary of Euripides' target is revealing (and at least R-rated, for you kids out there):
"For the strutting Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075318134650166302004-01-28T11:28:00.000-08:002004-01-28T11:30:28.593-08:00In a book written in the late 1370s, the surgeon John Arderne prescribed "the Bible and other tragedies" as remedies. These books were good sources, as Henry Ansgar Kelly explains in summarizing Arderne's point, "for humorous stories of a good and decent kind that doctors can use to provoke their patients to laughter." Unfortunately, Kelly does not indicate what parts of the Bible Arderne Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075239260297983512004-01-27T13:34:00.000-08:002004-01-27T13:35:53.246-08:00Barth defines faith as the "determination of human action by the being of the Church and therefore by Jesus Christ, by the gracious address of God to man." While there may be weaknesses with this, there are several commendable things about the definition: 1) It does not polarize faith and action, as if living by faith were a kind of divine slothfulness or quietude. Humans are always acting all Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075234965152431982004-01-27T12:22:00.000-08:002004-01-27T12:43:58.373-08:00If, as Barth says, theology NEED not be part of the genus "science," why has it been so designated? It appears that the impetus is an effort to achieve precisely the things that Barth says it does NOT need from science. Barth says, "As regards method, [theology] has nothing to learn from [other sciences]," but a theologian who wants to present theology as a science does so to justify borrowing Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075234625951665522004-01-27T12:17:00.000-08:002004-01-27T12:18:39.090-08:00Barth quotes from J. Gerhard, who rejected the designation of theology as a science. One of his grounds was: "scientiae certitudo ab internis et inhaerentibus principiis, fidei vero ab externis videlicet ab autoritate revelantis pendet," which in substance means that science derives its certainty from principles that are internal and inherent, while the truth of faith depends on the authority ofPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075210177339989532004-01-27T05:29:00.000-08:002004-01-27T05:31:10.013-08:00Jim Jordan has pointed out that the Greek word "oikoumene" is used in the NT to refer to the Hellenistic and Helleno-Roman world, rather than to the entire inhabited earth. It could be translated as "empire." Against this background, the usage in Heb 2:5 is very striking, since it talks about the "coming oikoumene" being subjected to Jesus. This is NOT a reference to the eschatological order, Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075156827316552332004-01-26T14:40:00.000-08:002004-01-26T14:41:59.233-08:00A discussion of death in the prefall world led to this thought: What was Adam supposed to do when a big dragon came to his wife and began tempting her to sin? I think he was supposed to do exactly what the Last Adam did: Crush the serpent's head. But that means that maintaining the unfallen world of the creation depended on Adam's willingness to kill. To turn it around, Adam's fall is Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075155367312937662004-01-26T14:16:00.000-08:002004-01-26T14:17:39.543-08:00Jesus describes the activities of the unsuspecting preflood generation by listing four activities (Lk 17:27):
eating and drinking
marrying and giving in marriage.
He then describes the activities of the unsuspecting residents of Sodom by listing six activities (Lk 17:28):
eating and drinking
buying and selling
planting and building.
Several things are implied by these lists. First, Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075145307146146572004-01-26T11:28:00.000-08:002004-01-26T11:29:59.090-08:00There's an intriguing review of the work of James Welch in the January 26 Weekly Standard. Welch, who died last year, was a Montana-based poet and novelist, known as an "Indian poet" and "Indian novelist" for his focus on the lives and history of American Indians. The interest of the article is not only its introduction to a (to me previously unknown) writer, but also the fact that this appearsPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075044587400742002004-01-25T07:29:00.000-08:002004-01-25T07:31:18.280-08:00Exhortation for January 25:
Jesus concluded the parable of the “unjust steward” by saying, “He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.” Though Jesus’ words have a particular application to the Pharisees of His own day, He states a principle here that applies throughout the ages and in many Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075043872550375962004-01-25T07:17:00.000-08:002004-01-25T07:19:23.530-08:00Eucharistic meditation for January 25:
Acts 2:41-47
In the book of Acts, we see the early church carrying out Jesus’ instructions regarding the proper use of wealth. After the Spirit was poured out on Pentecost, and 3000 were saved, the disciples begin to sell their possessions in order to share with other believers who were in need. In Acts 6, the church set up a regular system to ensure Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075043507435332962004-01-25T07:11:00.000-08:002004-01-25T07:13:18.483-08:00Baptismal meditation for January 25:
Matthew 18:1-6
This passage in Matthew is parallel to the first part of Matthew 17 in our sermon text. As I mentioned in the sermon, Jesus’ reference to “little ones” in Luke 17 is not referring to little children, but to lowly people like Lazarus. But here in Matthew, Jesus applies this same comment to little children. There are two things I want to drawPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1075042559967238362004-01-25T06:55:00.000-08:002004-01-25T06:57:31.153-08:00Becoming civilized is a matter of gaining control over the body, and this bodily control is largely centered, as Mary Douglas recognized, on orifices. Infants have no control over their sphincters: They can't hold urine or faeces, they fart and burp at inappropriate moments, they regurgitate milk and don't care if it dribbles on their chin or splats on the floor. The foundational goal of Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1074991480369287362004-01-24T16:44:00.000-08:002004-01-24T16:46:10.483-08:00Peter Stuhlmacher interprets HILASTERION in Rom 3:25 as the KAPPORET of the ark of the covenant, the place where atonement is made. From the cross on, the place of atonement was no longer in the temple but in Jesus. He links this with the critique of the temple and temple cult that is found in Jesus' preaching and Stephen's. One of the differences he notes is that Paul speaks of a HILASTERION Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1074987748845986962004-01-24T15:42:00.000-08:002004-01-24T15:43:58.950-08:00There looks to be some chiastic action going on in Romans 27-30:
A. Where is boasting? Excluded
B. By law of works?
C. No: Law of faith
C. justification is by faith
B. not by works of law (reversing word order of previous verse)
A. God is God of Jews and Gentiles
The value of this is to highlight the nature of the "boasting" in v 27. It is no doubt boasting about one's performance of the law, Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1074985766125269822004-01-24T15:09:00.000-08:002004-01-24T15:10:56.530-08:00Most commentaries I've examined assume that Paul's discussion of the work of Jesus in Romans 3:21-31 centers in the cross. The reference to blood and to propitiation (or propitiating sacrifice) in v 25 justifies this, but this doesn't mean that Paul's focus is exclusively on the cross. Several things support the notion that he also has resurrection in view:
1) Paul's summary of the gospel in Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1074809441376447612004-01-22T14:10:00.000-08:002004-01-22T14:12:09.686-08:00Romans 3:21 begins a section where Paul expounds, for the first time in Romans, on the revelation of the righteousness of God. One of the ways to characterize current debates about this passage, and about the righteousness of God and justification in general, is to ask whether this is about the righteousness that is given to those who believe as a matter of "ordo salutis" or whether it is about Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1074736170102553662004-01-21T17:49:00.000-08:002004-01-21T17:50:57.043-08:00Henry Ansgar Kelly's *Ideas and Forms of Tragedy from Aristotle to the Middle Ages* (Cambridge, 1993) is a careful and useful study of the use of the word "tragedy" from the ancients through the 14th century. He narrowly focuses on the uses of the word-group itself, and shows that the word meant many different things to different writers. Along the way, he makes a couple of important Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1074729188297464242004-01-21T15:53:00.000-08:002004-01-21T15:54:35.110-08:00Sermon Outline for January 25:
God and Mammon, Luke 16:1-17:10
INTRODUCTION
Though Jesus begins a new parable in Luke 16:1, and is speaking to the disciples, in many ways chapter 16 is a continuation of what Jesus said in chapter 15. There is no change of scene, so Jesus is presumably still at the table with tax gatherers and sinners, as well as Pharisees and scribes (cf. 16:14). There are, Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1074440679033889822004-01-18T07:44:00.000-08:002004-01-18T07:46:02.640-08:00Eucharistic meditation, January 18:
Luke 15:23-24
As the church has always recognized, the Lord’s Supper was instituted by Jesus Christ as a blessing to the people of God. In it, we memorialize Jesus’ death, celebrate His victory over sin and Satan, and are refreshed in the power of the Spirit. It has always been seen that God is the principal actor in the Supper, and His work is the focus of Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1074440405337075932004-01-18T07:40:00.000-08:002004-01-18T07:41:28.996-08:00Exhortation for January 18:
The parable of the prodigal son has many levels, but one layer is that the story of the prodigal is the story of man. It is the story of Adam. Like Adam, the younger son has a great inheritance, but he despises it. Worse still is his attitude toward his father. In ancient Israel, an inheritance might be divided before a father’s death, but asking for one’s Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1074378776454917762004-01-17T14:32:00.000-08:002004-01-17T14:43:28.950-08:00The elder brother in the parable of the prodigal is a piece of work. He enjoys the abundance of his father's house, and obviously also enjoys his father's affection. Yet, he is simmering with bitterness and anger, which breaks to the surface as soon as he hears the sound of joy at his brother's return. He refuses to call his father "father," speaks of himself as a slave (DOULOO, "slaving away,Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1074372121519439262004-01-17T12:42:00.000-08:002004-01-17T12:43:24.560-08:00Jesus describes the sinners who gather around Him as repentant sinners. What signs have they shown of being repentant? In the context of Luke 15, there are several. First, the chapter opens by saying that tax gatherers and sinners are coming near to "listen to Him" (v. 1). Hearing and obeying are of course closely linked in Scripture, and the fact that these sinners are listening to Jesus Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1074370638752675832004-01-17T12:17:00.000-08:002004-01-17T12:18:42.013-08:00In telling the story of the shepherd searching for a single lost sheep, Jesus is undoubtedly playing off the prophetic indicments of Israel's shepherds in such passages as Jeremiah 23 and Ezekiel 34. That gives his parable a much sharper edge than is usually recognized. Jesus' question in Luke 15:4 demands a positive answer, but the leaders/shepherds of Israel have a long history of ignoring Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1074291508508401692004-01-16T14:18:00.000-08:002004-01-16T14:19:50.793-08:00Ernst Cassirer (*The Individual and Cosmos in Renaissance Philosophy*) characterizes Nicholas of Cusa as the first modern man in that he focused the concern of philosophy not on God but on "knowledge about God." In this emphasis, Cusa was making a decisive break with medieval scholastic thought, though one prepared for him by later scholastics. He began with the widely accepted premise that Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1074208600357846852004-01-15T15:16:00.000-08:002004-01-15T15:18:01.793-08:00The gospel has done its work almost too effectively. OC institutions and forms -- sacrifice, laws of uncleanness, central sanctuaries, gradations of priestly privilege, distinctive dress -- were the very stuff of life of ancient Israel. When it is said that the gospel changed all that, we have a tendency to say, "Is that all?" while forgetting just how basic and significant all these Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1074200303216956422004-01-15T12:58:00.000-08:002004-01-15T12:59:44.733-08:00Who is being satirized in Twain's "Connecticut Yankee"? The Yankee or the court? Overtly, the court, for its superstition, ignorance, filthiness, and so on. But Hank Morgan comes off as equally insular and parochial, and far more of a snob. I wonder if Twain noticed, and if it's deliberate?Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1074185971096430732004-01-15T08:59:00.000-08:002004-01-15T09:00:52.436-08:00Sermon outline for Sunday, January 18:
Lost and Found, Luke 15:1-35
INTRODUCTION
In Luke 15, we again see Jesus engaged in "table talk." Tax collectors and sinners come to hear Him (v. 1), but the complaint from the Pharisees and scribes is that Jesus eats with them (v. 2). In response, Jesus tells a series of parables to defend His meal practices and to challenge His enemies to repent and Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1074185870559274582004-01-15T08:57:00.000-08:002004-01-15T09:01:42.390-08:00There appears to be some allusion to Israel's wilderness wanderings in Luke 15. When Jesus eats with publicans and sinners, the scribes and Pharisees "grumble" about it, as Israel did in the wilderness. The complaint in both cases, moreover, centers on food -- the lack of food in the wilderness and Jesus' table companions in Luke 15. And when Jesus describes the shepherd leaving the Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1074135305928065562004-01-14T18:55:00.000-08:002004-01-14T18:56:25.950-08:00Laurence Michel, exploring the "Possibility of a Christian Tragedy," suggests that the creation account of Genesis opens the possibility for a "tragic sense of life." How? "To have a world imitative of the simple perfection of God one must have multiplicity and diversity of goods. Various evils and contraries will be found in it and, therefore, physical evils will exist. From the very outset, Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1074134753286887082004-01-14T18:45:00.000-08:002004-01-14T18:47:13.420-08:00CS Lewis says in Pilgrim's Regress: "Evil is fissiparous, and could never in a thousand eternities find any way to arrest its own reproduction. If it could, it could be no longer evil: for Form and Limit belong to the good." But what then of a Good and Infinite God?Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1074131918483837772004-01-14T17:58:00.000-08:002004-01-14T17:59:58.420-08:00In a chapter in *Beyond Tragedy,* Reinhold Niebuhr considers the relationship between Christianity and tragedy. He denies that Christianity is tragic: "The cross is not tragic but the resolution of tragedy." In the course of his discussion he makes several intriguing points about the tragic outlook:
1) He highlights the fact that tragedy only works when the character is strong. Someone who Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1074130431505472192004-01-14T17:33:00.000-08:002004-01-14T17:35:11.750-08:00Simone Weil offered one of the most thorough-going Christian defenses of tragedy, though that defense comes at considerable cost to her orthodoxy. As Katherine Brueck points out in her study of Weil's theory (*The Redemption of Tragedy*), Weil recognized that what was at stake in a discussion of tragedy was not simply the question of God's justice but the doctrine of creation. The issue was howPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5656367.post-1074128037562775312004-01-14T16:53:00.000-08:002004-01-14T16:55:17.513-08:00Some more thoughts from Segal's book:
1) He points out the optimism that gripped Athens in the Periclean period, an optimism about the ability of human LOGOS and NOMOS to stave off the savage potential of man's PHUSIS. But that was short-lived: The Peloponnesian wars broke out, marked by several horrific acts of savagery (detailed by Thucydides), which had an affect on Athenian consciousness Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01632116476092232614noreply@blogger.com