Oh blessed thought

“I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more. (Isaiah 43:25 NIV)

What a relief!

The doctrine of the Trinity means that God is a relational being—always has been, and always will be. Relationship, fellowship, self-giving, and other-centeredness are not afterthoughts with God, but the deepest realities of the divine Being. For the Father, Son, and Spirit it is always about love, relationship, and sharing life, not about what they can get from us. We were created that we could be, that we could live and share in the life and joy of the triune God. Jesus' Father is not holding his breath to see if we will jump through the right hoops before he decides our fate. There is no list. We are not here to “glorify God” by our religious performance. We are here to live “in the glory” of the blessed Trinity.— The Shack Revisited, pages 120-121

The evidence is there

Today the link between animal products and many different diseases is as strongly supported in the scientific literature as the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. For example, subjects who ate meat, including poultry and fish, were found to be twice as likely to develop dementia (loss of intellectual function with aging) as their vegetarian counterparts in a carefully designed study.—Eat to Live, page 101

<idle musing>
But it took about 40 years for people to accept that you shouldn't smoke in public—and cigarette smokers were in the minority! How long will it be before people are willing to accept a whole-foods, plant-based diet? I suspect never! Unless the unsustainableness of the thing forces the issue...
</idle musing>

The great exchange

The Father, Son, and Spirit love us for our benefit, not for increasing their membership rolls, or for making themselves look good, or for anything they can get from us. There is no need in the blessed Trinity. It is an overflowing fountain of other-centered love. The shared life of the Father, Son, and Spirit is about giving, not taking; sharing, not hoarding; blessing others with life for their sake, not manipulating for divine control. The Father, Son, and Spirit are focused upon giving themselves for our benefit, so that we, too, can experience real life. They need nothing in return.— The Shack Revisited, page 120

<idle musing>
I like that! The terms of the exchange are great: They love us! And they give us love so we can return that love to them and to each other! What a God we have!
</idle musing>

And where do you eat?

In 1978, 18 percent of calories were eaten away from home; the figure is now 36 percent. In 1970, Americans ate 6 billion fast-food meals. By 2000, the figure was 110 billion.—Eat to Live, page xviii

<idle musing>
I wonder what the figure is now? It's definitely higher; the economic slump didn't keep people from eating out, it just caused them to transfer it to cheaper places...
</idle musing>

Why?

Are we loved for what we can potentially bring to God's table, or are we loved for our own sake? Does the love of he Father, Son, and Spirit come with strings attached? Is our existence about relationship, or is it about performance? Is the universe the product of divine self-interest, or need, or perhaps boredom? Are we here to do something for God, for God's benefit?— The Shack Revisited, page 118

<idle musing>
In some people's theology, that's the way we are viewed. It certainly isn't biblical, though...
</idle musing>

Things that make you go hmmm...

How many baked potatoes do you think you can eat to get the same amount of fat as in 1 teaspoon of olive oil? If you said 70, you are right. Which do you think will make you feel more satisfied, one teaspoon of oil or 70 baked potatoes?— Fasting and Eating for Health, page 189

<idle musing>
Indeed! What's for breakfast? 140 baked potatoes! Or a three egg omelet fried in 2 tablespoons of oil (which is about how much they use in a restaurant—believe me, I was a grill-fry cook!). I'll take the potatoes, myself—but that should feed me for about 4 months of breakfasts...no wonder over half of Americans are overweight.
</idle musing>

What are you doing today?

Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying: “ ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty,’ who was, and is, and is to come.” Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say: “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” (Revelation 4:8-11 NIV)

<idle musing>

As I read this today I realized how little I really love God. It should be my heart's desire to do this very thing. But is it?

Lord, kindle this desire within me!

</idle musing>

What is a person?

I suspect that part of the difficulty surrounding the Spirit is the way we in the West think of a person. According to Boethius's famous (or infamous) definition, a person is “an individual substance of a rational nature.” But what if instead of trying to fit the Holy Spirit into this definition of a person and finding her [he follows the Hebrew in referring to the Spirit as feminine] wanting, we reversed the order and let the Spirit expand our ideas of personhood? The Spirit is profoundly other-centered, humble, patient, and good. She loves communication, fellowship, and togetherness. Perhaps we need to modify our notion of personhood to include being a facilitator of fellowship. Perhaps a real person is not simply an individual substance of a rational nature, but one who loves bringing others together to share life, an individual who is other-centered, relational, and full of passion for communion.— The Shack Revisited, page 104

Revelation (not the book!)

Revelation is not a thing or a doctrine, mere information that can be transmitted from mind to mind. Revelation involves the unveiling or uncovering of God's Self in personal disclosure. What one encounters in revelation is not simply facts about God, or even accurate information, but God in person. Revelation involves an encounter with the person beyond the words, and gives rise to communion.— The Shack Revisited, page 79

<idle musing>
I read a few years ago about a theologian who said we tend to think of people as "brains on a stick" and that was the source of our errors...Communion—fellowship, oneness, theosis—that's what God is all about! Give me more, Lord!
</idle musing>

People of the lie

The message that people hear is that it is okay to continue with their present diet, as long as they supplement with vitamin pills or other nutritional supplements. This is a powerful lie, but it is attractive because it is what people in general want to believe. However, you cannot achieve optimal wellness as long as present-day dietary habits continue— Fasting and Eating for Health, page 49

I believe in God the Father...

We're starting a new book today, The Shack Revisited. A few months ago, Debbie was in a big box retail store (not Walmart! We don't shop there...) and saw a book display. She picked up a few books, this one among them. When she brought them home, I started reading this one. I thought readers of this blog might enjoy some snippets...(by the way, if you don't like T.A. Torrence's Trinitarian theology, you won't like these excerpts; the author of the book did his Ph.D. under James and Thomas Torrence).

Jesus lives by relating to God as his Father, by seeking him and knowing him as Father and loving him with all of his heart, soul, mind, and strength. His life is not really his at all; it is sonship. He never lives on his own, doing his own thing, following his own agenda. He has no self-interest.— The Shack Revisited, page76

<idle musing>
Mutual indwelling, the heart of the Trinity! And the heart of the Gospel, too—theosis anyone? : )
</idle musing>

Too much of a good thing

Sufficient amounts of protein are obtained when caloric requirements are met from wholesome natural vegetable foods. Plant products contain an abundance of protein, without being excessive. How else could the gorilla get to be 800 pounds of muscle, eating solely fruit and leaves? The main point is that we should be concerned about too much rather than too little protein. It is ironic that the chief argument used to promote the use of animal products—the idea that they are rich in protein—is a great reason to avoid them.— Fasting and Eating for Health, page 40

Antibiotic use

More than 90 percent of all antibiotics produced are slated for animal administration.— The Pleasure Trap, page 128 (in CAFOs, etc.)

<idle musing>
I read in a more recent book (2012 publication), that the number is above 80 percent, not 90. But, what is more scarey was that the development of "superbugs" is almost totally because of the use on animals...we're killing ourselves by what we choose to eat and how we raise that food...
</idle musing>

Finally...

The strong opposition of the biblical writers to necromancy can be explained by necromancy’s being viewed as a violation of YHWH’s sovereignty and denial of his being the only source of divination. Furthermore, the blurring of boundaries between the living and the dead must be taken into account, because interaction with the spirits of the dead is dangerous.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 494

<idle musing>
That's the final snippet that I'll be posting from this book. It's a monster of a book and I enjoyed it immensely, especially the sections on the names. That section could have been a book in itself.

Next up will be something a bit more theological—stay tuned!
</idle musing>

Whole? Not likely

Incredibly, less than 2 percent of the wheat products consumed in the U.S. Are “whole wheat.” This means that the majority of plant-based food products we wat have had some or all of their fiber artificially extracted.— The Pleasure Trap, page 78

They ain't gods, folks

One of the most important contexts for ritual activity other than the regular domestic cult was burial and post-mortem care for the dead. The significance of cultic activities for the deceased in Israelite religion has been a controversial subject of recent discussion (Spronk 1986: 247–50; Lewis 1989: 171–81; van der Toorn 1996b: 206–35; Niehr 2003; Schmitt 2007 et al.). We prefer the term care for the dead instead of terms such as cults of the dead and ancestor cults, because the latter terms imply veneration of ancestors similar to that of gods, and this is not attested in our sources. Care for the dead underlines the ongoing social relations between the living and the deceased members of a family, clan, or other community. Honoring and remembering ancestors were an important aspect of building and maintaining family identity in ancient Israel.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 493 (italics theirs)

But it's not the American way!

The real culprits in most modern-day health problems are excesses, not deficiencies. It is the subtraction of these excesses that will solve most of the problems, not the addition of medications or supplements. Not surprisingly, the subtraction of excess is nearly always more effective at restoring health than is the addition of anything, be it dietary supplements or medications.— The Pleasure Trap, page 54

That's a mouthful!

Based on the cultic apparatuses found in the domestic structures, we can conclude that the predominant ritual actions were libation rites with stands and zoomorphic vessels, dry offerings in the stand bowls, the burning of aromatic compounds, as well as votive practices and other ritual actions with human and animal figurines. The ritual apparatuses suggest that daily offerings and gifts were given to deities and ancestors, the latter of which may have been represented by human figurines. The human representations, predominantly the JPFs [Judean Pillar Figurines] in Iron Age IIC, are not divine representations, given their lack of divine emblems, but more probably likenesses of humans, expressing human needs and wishes such as fertility, plentiful progeny, ample lactation for the mother, etc. They were generally multipurpose objects used in various contexts (domestic residences, temples, graves), especially for votive practices. We define votive practices as the use of the figurine as an ex voto, both to give thanks for a benefit from the gods and to give to the gods in exchange for a benefit; they also served as media for prayer by representing the petitioner, and for magical rites such as love charms and apotropaic rituals (see Schmitt 2004: 187–89). Unambiguous divine figures (carrying divine emblems) used in domestic cult activities have not been found in Iron Age Israel, but they are occasionally found in Transjordan and Phoenicia and also in Philistia, where they were more common.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 479

So true

Wealth can ransom a person’s life, but the poor don’t even receive threats. (Proverbs 13:8 CEB)

Thought for today

The righteous care for the needs of their animals, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel. (Proverbs 12:10 NIV)

Can you say deception?

The greatest danger we face from modern medicine is not the risk of misusing short-cut Pain Relief Goal procedures. The greatest danger in not from addiction to pain-relieving medications, though this is a serious problem worthy of our collective concern. The greatest danger comes from an altogether different quarter—a threat that is purely psychological. Simply stated, our greatest threat is our awe of modern medicine. It is our belief that doctors, hospitals, and high-tech equipment are omnipotent, and that with the help of fancy tools and brilliant people, we can circumvent the laws of nature.— The Pleasure Trap, page 38

<idle musing>
In other words, we can be God! Genesis 3 all over again...

Lord! Deliver us from idolatry and false gods!
</idle musing>

Ancestor cult?

Both textual and archaeological evidence supports a variety of forms of mortuary rites and ritual communication with the dead. This evidence reveals that, in ancient Israel, there was no ancestor cult in the sense of ancestors being venerated as divine or quasidivine beings, although the dead may have been addressed as preternatural beings.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 471

Count the cost

Modern medical science has given us wonderful gifts, but these gifts have not been free. The astonishing technical capability of medicine, while invaluable in certain areas, has exacted an enormous price from our collective understanding. The medical doctor holds one of the most respected and admired places in our society. But that awe has produced a danger: Most people believe that ingenious medical procedures are likely to save them from any disease process that they may have to face! This belief is absolutely false. The truth is far different and ominous.— The Pleasure Trap, page 37

<idle musing>
Can anyone say "Idolatry!"???? Far too often, I fear, when we say we are thankful that so-and-so got better, we aren't so much thankful to God as to medical science. That's a slap in the face to God...

Lord! Forgive our idolatry and set us free! Open our eyes to the ways we have allowed culture to dictate our way of life instead of your Holy Spirit!
</idle musing>

Eternal supply

The relatively small number of vessels that accompanied each inhumation does not support the supposition that they served as supplies either in the grave or in Šĕʾōl for longer periods extending into eternity. It seems more likely that the food provisions served for shorter, transitional phases during which the person may have been believed to be present, or possibly until the body had decomposed (Wenning 2005: 129–30). The latter case was apparently the opinion in rabbinic sources (see b. Šabb. 152b; m. Nid. 10:4).—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 454

Thought for today

Surely the righteous will never be shaken; they will be remembered forever. They will have no fear of bad news; their hearts are steadfast, trusting in the Lord. Their hearts are secure, they will have no fear; in the end they will look in triumph on their foes. They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor, their righteousness endures forever; their horn will be lifted high in honor. (Psalm 112:6-9 NIV)

The power of addiction

..if you give a laboratory rat a choice between cocaine and food, he will choose the cocaine, because cocaine is a more powerful cause of pleasure and thus a stronger signal of success than is food. Incredibly, this will remain true even as death by starvation approaches.— The Pleasure Trap, page 22

The dead

The significant omission of specialized vessels for libation and incense burning is perhaps best understood by presuming that the dead in Šĕʾōl did not need to sacrifice anything. Moreover, no sacrifices were performed by the bereaved in the cave proper. Conversely, the presence of other ritual media such as terra-cotta figurines of various types, amulets, and perhaps weapons suggests a perceived need for protection.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 454

<idle musing>
More evidence for no cult of the dead...
</idle musing>

The wrong questions

Some people ask if there is any difference between nutrients in 'chemical' or 'organic' form, but that is really asking the wrong question. We should actually be asking how stable and soluble the nutrients are.—How to Grow Winter Vegetables, page 36

<idle musing>
Aren't we always asking the wrong questions, though?
</idle musing>

What of the dead

The concept of the deification of the dead as a universal religious phenomenon belongs to the evolutionist paradigm of 19th-century scholarship. Because the Hebrew Bible contains almost no evidence that family (or royal) ancestors were worshiped, it seems to provide a strong argument against the universality of this phenomenon.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 433

<idle musing>
But that doesn't keep it from being repeated!
</idle musing>

Thought for today

Does he who fashioned the ear not hear? Does he who formed the eye not see? Does he who disciplines nations not punish? Does he who teaches mankind lack knowledge? The Lord knows all human plans; he knows that they are futile. (Psalm 94:9-11 NIV)

How high?

May it not also be the case that some have opposed the doctrine [of holiness] really because it raises a higher standard of personal holiness than they like—too high, perhaps, to permit them to hope as Christians, too high for their experience, and too high to suit their tastes and habits for future life?—Charles Finney

<idle musing>
Yep!
</idle musing>

The power of a blessing

Blessing and curses were not magical acts that merely manifested the inherent power of words but were ritual acts of speech that mediated or anticipated God’s favor or disfavor and were performed by a person endowed with authority, even when that authority was merely situational. This authority in familial contexts would usually have resided in the pater familias. 410

Some good stuff

I've been busy getting the cabins ready for the season—we're officially open! But, only two are really ready as of this moment—and one of those is rented.

We'll have them all ready to go by the middle of next week, but it's been a bit hectic in the meantime. In fact, I should be doing other things right now! : )

Anyway, some good stuff that I just now took the time to read:

Alan Knox has a good series on the love problem. The first post has a link to them all. Here's a good appetizer:

ately, whenever I’ve talked about this “love problem,” I’m often met with reasons, excuses, justifications, conditions, and finger pointing. This has happened several times. I’ve rarely been met with this answer: “You’re right… we’re not very loving.”

This is a problem. It’s a problem we must own up to. It’s a problem we must address.

Yep!

And, Roger Olson has a good post on the Bible. Here's the heart of it:

First, speaking only for myself, and realizing I will sound like a fundamentalist here, I don’t think the Bible is all that unclear if read and studied properly, that is, reasonably–recognizing the Bible for what it is (now I’ll stop sounding like a fundamentalist)–not a source book of propositional answers to curious questions but a complex narrative written and compiled by human authors led by but not over ridden by the Holy Spirit.

Second, still speaking only for myself, in my opinion, everything we need to know to have a sound relationship with God and to become whole and holy persons is clear in Scripture.

Third, just because people disagree about what a text means does not mean it isn’t clear. There are all kinds of reasons why people don’t “see” what is clear. They approach scripture with preconceived interpretive frameworks that don’t really fit all of scripture or they are morally challenged and don’t want the Bible to contradict their lifestyle or vested interests or they are looking for harmony beyond what the Bible offers or was intended to offer. There are many conceivable reasons why people disagree about what the Bible says.

<idle musing>
About sums it up, doesn't it? My experience tells me that the most common problem is the first one: a source book for everything. Folks, it ain't! It's designed to bring us to Christ, who is the source of everything!
</idle musing>

Taste good?

Our tongue is able to distinguish five tastes: sweet, salt, sour, bitter, and savory. Sugar covers up all four. It covers up salty (trail mix, honey roasted peanuts), sour (the acidity in processed tomato sauce provided by less-than-ripe tomatoes, or lemonade), bitter (milk chocolate). And savory (sweet-and-sour pork). Sugar covers up the inequities of foods, making not-so-tasty food seem like it is worth eating. Bottom line, you can make pretty much anything taste good with enough sugar. And the food industry does.—href=http://www.us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781101606582,00.html target=”_blank”> Fat Chance, pages 170-171

<idle musing>
Yep! And they do : (
</idle musing>

Firstborn

As concluded by Milgrom (2000: 1590), “There is no evidence that the firstborn, except in crisis situations (e.g., 2 Kgs 3:27), were sacrificed; there is no indication that Israel’s God ever demanded or even sanctioned this practice.” The demand that the firstborn be offered therefore represents thanksgiving to YHWH for granting the first child and for enabling the mother and child to survive the birth.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 403

Final excerpt from Hannah Whitall Smith's book

Just as light drives out darkness, so does the realized presence of God drive out sin, and the soul that by faith abides in His presence knows a very real and wonderful deliverance.—Hannah Whitall Smith

A different perspective

A woman in childbed was deemed impure for 7 days following the birth of a son and for 14 days after the birth of a daughter (Lev 12:2, 5). This status of impurity was associated not only with the mother’s bleeding during parturition but also with her close encounter with the divine during the birth process.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 391

<idle musing>
Hadn't thought of that angle before...what would that mean for the extended separation for a girl baby, then?
</idle musing>

Thought for today

People, despite their wealth, do not endure; they are like the beasts that perish. This is the fate of those who trust in themselves, and of their followers, who approve their sayings. They are like sheep and are destined to die; death will be their shepherd (but the upright will prevail over them in the morning). Their forms will decay in the grave, far from their princely mansions. But God will redeem me from the realm of the dead; he will surely take me to himself. Do not be overawed when others grow rich, when the splendor of their houses increases; for they will take nothing with them when they die, their splendor will not descend with them. Though while they live they count themselves blessed— and people praise you when you prosper— they will join those who have gone before them, who will never again see the light of life. People who have wealth but lack understanding are like the beasts that perish. (Psalm 49:12-20 NIV)

Comforting thought

If any of us, therefore, have that in our past which has caused us anxiety or remorse, let us lift up our heads in a happy confidence from henceforth, that the God who is behind us will set it all straight somehow, if we will but commit it to Him, and can even make our very mistakes and misdoings work together for good.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Magic

In considering trajectories of human social development from the 19th century onward, many people (including those associated with the so-called phenomenological school and the German “Religionsgeschichtliche Schule” of the first half of the 20th century) assumed an evolutionist paradigm and were misguided into thinking that human progress had followed a path from “savagery, through barbarism, to civilization” (Morgan 1877). According to this evolutionist paradigm, magic was an expression of the first and most-primitive forms of human religion, born of belief in the hidden powers of nature (as in manaism or dynamism) or of spirits (as in animism). Up to the second half of the 20th century, many exegetes and scholars of religious studies believed that monotheistic religion had supplanted beliefs in magic with conceptions of the absolute dependence of man on the one true God, and thus this dependence was in no way amenable to manipulation through magic...

Over the last decade, however, as anthropology has turned more directly toward cultural phenomena, the perception of “magical” practices in Old Testament studies has changed (Cryer 1991; Jeffers 1996; Schmitt 2004), as it has also in studies of the ancient Near East (for example, Thomsen 1987; Abusch 2002; and Schwemer 2007) and Egypt (for example, Assmann 1991 and Ritner 1993). Magic and divination have come to be seen more as performative acts and comprising the more integral part of religion and the entire symbolic system of a culture. Accordingly, magic in the Old Testament, as in the ancient Near Eastern world, was not so much a manipulation of matter and beings through the use of dynamistic or animistic powers as it was the result of a belief in the absolute power of the divine. The absolute divinity was the final or sole authority able to intervene by supernatural force in the human realm. Magic as a descriptive term denotes ritual practices that were intended to effect particular results through rituals or acts performed in anticipation of divine intervention (see Schmitt 2004: 92–93). Thus, the rites and rituals of family religion—as well as the rituals of official cults—were strategies of ritual behavior that must be seen as genuine expressions of religion, regardless of differences in socioreligious settings.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 388

<idle musing>
Same results, though. Man trying to control God!
</idle musing>

Food

Micronutrients matter—the biochemistry says so—except they don't work when provided as supplements in clinical trials. How many studies do we need? Now you're ready for the dénouement: Real food, containing endogenous micronutrients, prevents metabolic syndrome. Processed food causes metabolic syndrome. And nutritional supplements can't reverse that which have previously been destroyed.—href=http://www.us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781101606582,00.html target=”_blank”> Fat Chance, page 156

Seraphim, etc.

...the symbolic system pertaining to personal piety reveals perceived needs for protection in a more general sense, as represented by the various motifs of protective spirits and apotropaic monsters. An interesting phenomenon that again reflects the coincidence of the symbolic systems of official and personal religion is the frequent presence of winged Uraei in Israelite iconography. Particularly in Judean iconography, this stands in stark contrast to the very few occurrences on other West Semitic seals (table 5.16). The winged Uraei, which have generally been associated with biblical seraphim, along with the sphinxes, who were in turn associated with cherubim, may together be considered protective lower deities who would have been of some importance for personal piety and possibly also as mediators of YHWH. The popularity of the seraphim in particular reveals that elements of the official symbolic system, especially aspects of an apotropaic or protective nature, were eminently able to be assimilated in realms of personal piety.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 385

Spirit led

It is wonderful to see how naturally and earnestly the Spirit leads us to pray. If we were really led by the Spirit, we should be drawn many times a day to secret prayer, and should be continually lifting up our hearts in silent ejaculations whenever the mind unbends itself from other pressing occupations. The Spirit in the hearts of saints is pre-eminently a spirit of prayer...—Charles Finney

Changeable

These characteristics, however, do not mean that she was not adopted for use in the present context because, in family religions, the characteristics of all deities were altered in accordance with family needs.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 365

<idle musing>
Just like today, eh? We adapt/alter God to make him into our needs...
</idle musing>

Thought (Praise!) for the day

The Lord lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Savior! He is the God who avenges me, who subdues nations under me, who saves me from my enemies. You exalted me above my foes; from a violent man you rescued me. Therefore I will praise you, Lord, among the nations; I will sing the praises of your name. (Psalm 18:46-49 NIV)

Protector

Ancient Near Eastern societies were predominantly patriarchal. The father at least symbolized (or assumed, in practice) all responsibility, care, and protection for his entire familial group, and thus family gods were naturally commonly referred to as “father.” Gods were also often named “brother,” which reflected the practice of an older brother’s assuming responsibility for the family after the unavoidable absence or death of the father (see, for example, Genesis 44). References to the father’s brothers appear for similar reasons.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 351

Thought for today

Away from me, all you who do evil, for the Lord has heard my weeping. The Lord has heard my cry for mercy; the Lord accepts my prayer. All my enemies will be overwhelmed with shame and anguish; they will turn back and suddenly be put to shame. (Psalm 6:8-10 NIV)

Hmmm...

One current fad is to juice the entire fruit into a “smoothie.” Juice bars have popped up all over the West Coast, ostensibly because juicing is healthy. The problem is that the shearing action of the blender blades completely destroys the insoluble fiber of the fruit. The cellulose is torn to smithereens. While the soluble fiber is still there, and can help move food through the intestine faster, it now does not have the “latticework” of the insoluble fiber to help form that intestinal barrier. The sugar in the fruit will be absorbed just as fast as if the juice were strained with no fiber at all. You need both types of fiber to derive the beneficial effects.— href=http://www.us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781101606582,00.html target=”_blank”> Fat Chance, page 134

Theology of Proverbs

Proverbs even reveals a social dimension to the creation motif that we saw was so central to family piety. The belief that YHWH created each and every individual can only mean that no human being, no matter how poor or unfortunate, should be despised and that all social stratification must be restricted and limited as much as possible (14:31; 17:5; 22:2; 29:13). Thus, Proverbs considers YHWH to be not only the creator, supporter, and protector of all individuals but also their examiner, their judge, and the person who will retaliate on their behalf.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 338

Too far?

After seeking advice, the king made two golden calves. He said to the people, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” One he set up in Bethel, and the other in Dan. And this thing became a sin; the people came to worship the one at Bethel and went as far as Dan to worship the other. (1 Kings 12:28-30 NIV)

<idle musing>
Too far to go to Jerusalem—but not too far to Dan!?
</idle musing>

On quenching the Spirit

If you have seen cases of this sort you have doubtless seen how as the truth pressed upon their minds they became restive, sensitive-- then perhaps angry-- but still stubborn in resisting-- until at length the conflict subsides; the truth makes no more impression, and is henceforth quite dead as to them; they apprehend it only with the greatest dimness, and care nothing about it.—Charles Finney

Names again

From the very beginning of a child’s life, his or her identity and self-perceptions were imposed based on the religious experiences and beliefs of the parents. But these considerations reveal the social reasons rather than the religious. The religious foundation underlying the personal relationship with the divine is illustrated more directly by the formal analogy between the names that express lifelong personal relationships to a deity (such as והידבע ʿAbdiyāhû ‘servant of Yhwh’) and equivalent names of creation (such as והישׂעמ Maʿaśēyāhû ‘work of Yhwh’ or והינקמ Miqnēyāhû ‘creature of Yhwh’). The former formulate from a human perspective what is conceived by the latter from a divine perspective: one is related to god for one’s entire life because god has created every individual and thus has entered into a relationship with each one.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 333

<idle musing>
The Hebrew is backwards! I haven't been able to figure out why. When I copy it from the PDF, it is correct, but when I paste it in here it reverses : ( I suspect it is because there is a buried command in the PDF that doesn't get transferred...
</idle musing>

Kindness misunderstood

“I have already said that the princess was, at this time of her life, such a low-minded creature, that severity had greater influence over her than kindness. She understood terror better far than tenderness.”—Excerpt From: MacDonald, George. “A Double Story.”

<idle musing>
That is a sad commentary on a person. Lord, don't ever allow me to degenerate to that level!

By the way, this book is an excellent parenting manual. If you only ever read one book on parenting, this little children's story should be it. Best part is that it is available online here (in multiple formats, too).
</idle musing>

Rest

Often I do not understand myself; all within looks confused and hopelessly tangled. But then I remember that He has searched me, and that He knows me and understands the thoughts which so perplex me, and that, therefore, I may just leave the whole miserable tangle to Him to unravel. And my soul sinks down at once, as on downy pillows, into a place of the most blissful rest.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Dog days

The name בלכ Kālēb, which is derived from kéleb ‘dog’, could not have been a secular name because this term generally had pejorative connotations in the Israelite culture (1 Sam 17:43; Prov 26:11, 17; Qoh 9:4). Moreover, a full theophoric form is known to have existed in Phoenicia: םלאבלכ Kalbʾēlîm ‘dog of the gods’. These names would thus have been declaring the name bearer to be a loyal follower of the deity, as a dog is faithful to its master or mistress.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 322

The presence of God

Whether, however, this abiding presence of our God will be a joy to us or a sorrow, will depend upon what we know about Him. If we think of Him as a stern tyrant, intent only on His own glory, we shall be afraid of His continual presence. If we think of Him as a tender, loving Father, intent only on our blessing and happiness, we shall be glad and thankful to have Him thus ever with us. For the presence and the care of love can never mean anything but good to the one beloved.—Hannah Whitall Smith

The best defense is...a god

It is important to note that these names make no reference to offensive weapons or installations; only defensive functions are metaphorically ascribed to the deity. Although many metaphors may not immediately appear to be related to family religion, rocks, towers, fortifications, and explicit places of refuge were all places to which individuals or families might flee when they or their larger communities came under attack by an enemy (Jer 4:5–6, 29). Thus, these defensive attributions arise directly from typical village experiences and do not necessarily connote a dedicated military function. Such military metaphors in the belief system of family religion again reflect the keenly felt vulnerability of the individual. In this case, fear was allayed by confessing that god himself provided defense against enemies for the name bearer and rendered all enemies powerless, whether worldly or otherwise.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 317

May 2nd thoughts

I just heard that today is the the National Day of Prayer. There's a good meditation on what that means over at Ted's blog. Here's a snippet to whet your appetite:

I especially will pray for the church, for us in Jesus, that we will let our light shine in the darkness. That we might bear and live out his love, a love for all. That we might be known as followers of Jesus. And I will pray myself, even if I don’t pray it out loud that the unholy alliance between church and state will be broken. That we will be the bold witness who really finally can speak truth to power. A truth that will cut to the heart against any agenda of America be it Democrat, Republican, libertarian, etc. The truth of the kingdom of God come in Jesus and the shalom that comes with that, to be seen in the church in and through Jesus, weak and immature in its stage as it now may be. Together in the mission of Jesus for the world.

<idle musing>
Amen! Lord, set your church free, that we might shine for you and you alone!
</idle musing>

But!

Oh, yes, we know that God is always present with us, but—— And in this “but” the whole story is told. There are no “buts” in the vocabulary of the soul that accepts His presence as a literal fact.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Somebody

“As she grew up, everybody about her did his best to convince her that she was Somebody; and the girl herself was so easily persuaded of it that she quite forgot that anybody had ever told her so, and took it for a fundamental, innate, primary, first-born, self-evident, necessary, and incontrovertible idea and principle that SHE WAS SOMEBODY. And far be it from me to deny it. I will even go so far as to assert that in this odd country there was a huge number of Somebodies. Indeed, it was one of its oddities that every boy and girl in it, was rather too ready to think he or she was Somebody; and the worst of it was that the princess never thought of there being more than one Somebody—and that was herself”

Excerpt From: MacDonald, George. “A Double Story." (Also known as "The Lost Princess" or "The Wise Woman"). A truly delightful tale...

Generalizations

It seems that concrete descriptions of god’s saving acts were favored much more than general statements, not only in Israelite family religion, but also in the family religions of the greater Northwest Semitic region.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 304

<idle musing>
Would that it were so in our testimonies now! We settle for generalities instead of specific examples of how God intervenes. Could it be because we don't really believe God still performs saving acts? The Israelites believed!
</idle musing>

Thought for today

Where then does wisdom come from? Where does understanding dwell? It is hidden from the eyes of every living thing, concealed even from the birds in the sky. Destruction and Death say, “Only a rumor of it has reached our ears.” God understands the way to it and he alone knows where it dwells, for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. When he established the force of the wind and measured out the waters, when he made a decree for the rain and a path for the thunderstorm, then he looked at wisdom and appraised it; he confirmed it and tested it. And he said to the human race, “The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom, and to shun evil is understanding.” (Job 28:20-28 NIV)

Thought for today

“Though his face is covered with fat and his waist bulges with flesh, he will inhabit ruined towns and houses where no one lives, houses crumbling to rubble. He will no longer be rich and his wealth will not endure, nor will his possessions spread over the land. He will not escape the darkness; a flame will wither his shoots, and the breath of God’s mouth will carry him away. Let him not deceive himself by trusting what is worthless, for he will get nothing in return. Before his time he will wither, and his branches will not flourish. He will be like a vine stripped of its unripe grapes, like an olive tree shedding its blossoms. For the company of the godless will be barren, and fire will consume the tents of those who love bribes. They conceive trouble and give birth to evil; their womb fashions deceit.” (Job 15:27-35 NIV)

Emmanuel, part 2

Whoever will believe this fact [God with us] with all their hearts will find in it the solution of every difficulty of their lives.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Thanksgiving

Epigraphic records attest 164 names of thanksgiving to date, which is evidence of an astonishingly rich treasury of familial beliefs. All of these names allude to divine acts of salvation, assistance, or protection as experienced by members of a family, with a large diversity of emphases. No less than 58 different verbs are used in the epigraphic names (11 more than are found in the entire Hebrew Bible), and only 6 of the verbs found in biblical names have not yet been found in epigraphic names. Thus a total of 64 different roots are used in the names of thanksgiving found so far.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 298

<idle musing>
That's amazing. I don't think we even have 58 different verbs for thanksgiving in English! Maybe that's why we have a hard time being thankful? Or, more likely, we don't have that many verbs because we aren't very thankful : (
</idle musing>

Emmanuel!

Very few of us understand the full meaning of the words in Matt. 1:23, “They shall call His name Emmanuel; which being interpreted is, God with us.” In this short sentence is revealed to us the grandest fact the world can ever know; that God, the Almighty God, the Creator of Heaven and earth, is not a far-off Deity, dwelling in a Heaven of unapproachable glory, but is living with us right here in this world, in the midst of our poor, ignorant, helpless lives, as close to us as we are to ourselves.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Infant mortality and worship

We know from the Hebrew Bible (2 Sam 12:15–25; 2 Kgs 4:18–24; Isa 65:20) that infant mortality was a heavy burden for families, especially for women who were confronted with the ultimate futility of their pain and labor (Isa 65:23). However, the high rates of infant death and the incalculable sorrow of grieving mothers and their families did not fundamentally alter their belief that god was the magnificent creator of all and the generous provider of children, and it was he who desired and was capable of ensuring their survival.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 296

<idle musing>
Amen! In our highly medicated society, we tend to give the glory to medical science—yet babies still die. Do we then stop believing in medical science? If the percentage of people on prescription medications is any indication, then no. Why then should people "give up on God" when something "bad" happens?

Seems to me our view of God is wrong—and our worship of medical science is misplaced, as well...did you know the third leading cause of death now is from incorrect medical treatment (see here)? And yet God gets the blame. Something's not right here, folks.
</idle musing>

Omnipresence

If our religion is really our life, and not merely something extraneous tacked on to our life, it must necessarily go into everything in which we live; and no act, however human or natural it may be, can be taken out of its control and guidance. If God is with us always, then He is just as much with us in our business times and our social times as in our religious times, and one moment is as solemn with His presence as another.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Infant mortality

The apparent scale of the celebrations that marked the weaning of a child may reflect the communal joy when a child passed the age of the greatest risk of infant mortality—a risk that would have been considerably higher than in modern industrial societies. Scholars estimate that more than one-third of all infants died during the first few months or years of life, and as many as half of all children did not survive to adulthood. [Footnote: See C. Meyers 1988: 112–13 with reference to ancient Palestinian burials in Jericho, Lachish, and Meiron; in one tomb group, 35% of individuals had died before the age of five; see J. D. Schloen 2001: 122–25; C. Meyers 2005: 16. For Egypt in Late Antiquity, R. S. Bagnall (1993: 182) calculated that ‘nearly one-third of all children died before their first birthday and more than two fifths by the age of five’. According to E. A. R. Willett (2008: 2), “on average, 35 percent of all individuals died before age 5” in Iron Age Cis- and Transjordan.]—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 294

<idle musing>
That's a frighteningly high number. No wonder they celebrated whenever a baby reached 2-3 years of age.
</idle musing>

I can do it myself, thank you

We have all realized, more or less, that without Him we cannot live our religious life, but when it comes to living our so-called temporal life, to keeping house or transacting business, or making calls, or darning stockings, or sweeping a room, or trimming a bonnet, or entertaining company, who is there that even theoretically thinks such things as these are to be done for Christ, and can only be rightly done as we abide in Him and do them in His strength?—Hannah Whitall Smith

<idle musing>
That dichotomy again. All of our life is God's—yes, even cleaning toilets! Good thing, too, because around here in the summer, there's a lot of them to clean! : )
</idle musing>

The divine touch

...the number and variety of creation names now known from epigraphic material clearly reveal that the divine creation of every human being constituted a primary tenet of family religion. The religious significance of birth also was emphasized to a much greater extent than we previously supposed. It was not only the elites who transcribed and collated the Hebrew Bible but also the masses of ordinary people, especially women, who considered birth a direct creative act of god rather than a generic, natural event.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 280

<idle musing>
And why not? For me, the greatest miracle I've ever witnessed was the birth of my kids. I considered it a direct creative act of God, even though I know the science behind it. More importantly, though, I know the creator behind the science!
</idle musing>

When we get mad at God

At that time Hanani the seer came to Asa king of Judah and said to him: “Because you relied on the king of Aram and not on the Lord your God, the army of the king of Aram has escaped from your hand. Were not the Cushites and Libyans a mighty army with great numbers of chariots and horsemen ? Yet when you relied on the Lord, he delivered them into your hand. For the eyes of the Lord range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war.” Asa was angry with the seer because of this; he was so enraged that he put him in prison. At the same time Asa brutally oppressed some of the people...In the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa was afflicted with a disease in his feet. Though his disease was severe, even in his illness he did not seek help from the Lord, but only from the physicians. (2 Chronicles 16:7-10, 12 NIV)

<idle musing>
Do you think maybe Asa was offended? Rather than repenting, he strikes out—not that any of us would ever do that!

But, to me the interesting thing is that later, when he gets sick, he turns to—wait for it—medical science! He ignores God, even when he's in pain, because God offended him once. Before we cast a stone at him, though, take a look at our own medicine cabinet. What's in there? How often do we turn to it in our pain and diseases? Maybe, just maybe, we are as guilty as Asa?

Just an
</idle musing>

Thought for the day

They took an oath to the Lord with loud acclamation, with shouting and with trumpets and horns. All Judah rejoiced about the oath because they had sworn it wholeheartedly. They sought God eagerly, and he was found by them. So the Lord gave them rest on every side. (2 Chronicles 15:14, 15 NIV)

Riding on the emotions?

For if I do nothing, literally nothing, apart from Christ, I am of course united to Him in a continual oneness that cannot be questioned or gainsaid; while if I live a large part of my daily life and perform a large part of my daily work apart from Him, I have no real union, no matter how exalted and delightful my emotions concerning it may be.—Hannah Whitall Smith

The night of conception

Equal in importance to the day of birth for the emergence of new human life was the time of conception (Job 3:1). For Job, the two dates played equal roles in forming his existence (3:1–10). In the Hebrew Bible, every conception and pregnancy is viewed as the work of god, especially following a period of infertility (Gen 20:17–18; 21:1–2; 29:31–32; 30:17, 22; 1 Sam 1:19–20) but also in more typical cases (Ruth 4:13). Thus, during the night of conception, god draws very near the couple and is especially engaged with the female partner by healing her infertility (אפר; Gen 20:17) and opening her womb (חתפ םחר; Gen 29:31; 30:22).—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 275

<idle musing>
We've lost that concept, haven't we? For us, sex is all about enjoyment, not about conception. It has become totally secular; we've abandoned it to the pornographers and exploiters. We need to recover a sense of the holy—in every area of our life!
</idle musing>

The holy dichotomy

I verily believe a large part of the difficulty lies in the unscriptural and unnatural divorce that has been brought about between our so-called religious life and our so called temporal life; as if our religion were something apart from ourselves, a sort of outside garment that was to be put on and off according to our circumstances and purposes. On Sundays, for instance, and in church, our purpose is to seek God, and worship and serve Him, and therefore on Sundays we bring out our religious life and put it on in a suitably solemn manner, and live it with a strained gravity and decorum which deprives it of half its power. But on Mondays our purpose is to seek our own interests and serve them, and so we bring out our temporal life and put it on with a sense of relief, as from an unnatural bondage, and live it with ease and naturalness, and consequently with far more power.—Hannah Whitall Smith

<idle musing>
With an attitude like that about life, how can we do otherwise than fail?!
</idle musing>

Infertility

In the distress of their infertility, women were accustomed to praying to god. If they wanted to provide their prayers with more urgency, they could make a vow. So Hannah made a vow to YHWH at the regional sanctuary of Shiloh in order to conceive a son (1 Sam 1:11). Furthermore, the fact that the mother of Lemuel called him “son of my vow” (Prov 31:2) demonstrates that women’s vows designed to conceive a son were very common. We also know from Jer 44:25 that women in particular liked to make vows to their family goddess at home, although childbirth is not explicitly mentioned in this case. These vows made by women seem to have occurred so frequently and to have been so expensive that they could become a threat to a family’s property, and thus required male control. According to Numbers 30, a father or husband was allowed to invalidate the vow of a daughter or wife on the day that he first heard of it. The custom of poor women working as harlots in order to be able to pay their vows apparently was so common that it had to be strictly forbidden (Deut 23:18). Gen 25:21 also reports a case in which a husband formally interceded on behalf of his barren wife. Thus, private prayers and vows, especially those made by women, were important rituals of Israelite family religion.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 271

Thought for today

“But who am I, and who are my people, that we should be able to give as generously as this? Everything comes from you, and we have given you only what comes from your hand. We are foreigners and strangers in your sight, as were all our ancestors. Our days on earth are like a shadow, without hope. Lord our God, all this abundance that we have provided for building you a temple for your Holy Name comes from your hand, and all of it belongs to you. I know, my God, that you test the heart and are pleased with integrity. All these things I have given willingly and with honest intent. And now I have seen with joy how willingly your people who are here have given to you. (1 Chronicles 29:14-17 NIV)

Food for thought

Comparing the distribution of names in the Syro-Levantine cultures with those in ancient Israel reveals a very similar pattern. Names of thanksgiving and confession are again most prominent, especially when considered together. Birth names are also prominent. These prominent groups are again accompanied by the same three minor groups of praise names, equating names, and secular names. Most astonishingly, the rankings of the six groups in the Ammonite onomasticon were identical to the rankings of the Israelite names. This would be expected to happen only once every 720 times (= 6×5×4×3×2). This agreement in rankings is not accidental, therefore, but reflects genuine cultural similarities.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 259

<idle musing>
Of course, we don't know what that means...but it is interesting : )
</idle musing>

God and...

We have to be brought to the place where all other refuges fail us, before we can say, “He only.” We say, “He and—something else.” “He, and my experience,” or “He, and my church relationships,” or “He, and my Christian work”; and all that comes after the “and” must be taken away from us, or must be proved useless before we can come to the “He only."—Hannah Whitall Smith

<idle musing>
Tozer said that to say "God and" anything else was the same as saying God wasn't enough...
</idle musing>

Facebook and God

Roger Olson has a good discussion about Facebook and Christian discipleship. Here's a snippet, but read the whole thing to get a feel for what he is saying:

Facebook is a perfect vehicle for Gnostic religion and spirituality. It can lead into belief that “virtual” friendships and relationships are real in the same way physical ones are. If Christianity is anything, it is a very embodied and physical religion. The incarnation and resurrection reveal that.

<idle musing>
That's my big beef with all forms of social media—even this blog! We need real flesh and blood people in our lives; we were made that way by God. Anything less results in spiritual malnutrition.

Social media should be an optional add-on, not the main course of our friendships and social interactions,. As I look around me at the people who walk by with their heads down, reading their latest text messages, I weep for what they are missing. We are real people with flesh and blood. We need real people with flesh and blood.

Don't get me wrong; I value the online friendships I've made over the years. But, they can never be a substitute for the in-your-face interactions I have on a daily basis.

Just an </idle musing>

Do we really mean it?

We pray daily, “Thy kingdom come.” Do we know what we are praying for? Do we comprehend the change it will make in us if it comes in us? Are we willing to be so changed? What is the kingdom of God but the rule of God? And what is the rule of God but the will of God? Therefore when we pray, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” we have touched the secret of it all.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Death to life

Become a little child, then, by laying aside all thy greatness, all thy self-assertion, all thy self-dependence, all thy wisdom, and all thy strength, and consenting to die to thy own selflife, be born again into the kingdom of God. The only way out of one life into another is by a death to one and a new birth into the other. It is the old story, therefore, reiterated so often and in so many different ways, of through death to life. Die, then, that you my live. Lose your own life that you may find Christ’s life.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Almond milk yogurt

I've been toying with the idea of making almond milk yogurt for quite a while now—since November. While I was in Indiana, I tried some and liked it, so I researched it. And waited. Last week I finally tried it.

I made the almond milk:

Take a cup almonds, soak them in water for 4 hours; drain
Put the almonds in the blender with 4 cups water; blend well.
Strain through cheesecloth or such (I used a bread towel)

Then I used a modified version of my milk yogurt recipe (1/4 cup yogurt/quart of milk). I let it set for about 4 hours. It separated and didn't have any taste. I put it in the refrigerator and let it set overnight while I researched some more...seems my problem wasn't unique. No solutions there...but I did find out that the incubation time is a lot longer than with milk. So, I shook up the solution and heated it to 125°F. I put it in the cooler again and poured hot (125°F) water over it to cover 3/4 of the pint jars. This time I let it set for 4 hours and then taste-tested it. It still had separated, but it was beginning to taste yogurty. I let it incubate another 4 hours (12 hours total). It tasted nice and sour with a smooth aftertaste. I liked it, so I put it in the refrigerator.

It is separated, but I just shake it and drink it as a yogurt drink. I'm going to make another batch today or tomorrow. There are various options out there for thickening it, but I don't want to add gelatin or corn starch. The majority of recipes also start with a brand name almond milk that is loaded with thickeners, so that might be why it works for them.

If anybody else has had success making thick almond milk yogurt, let me know!

More on the washing machine

A while ago, I put out a cry for help about our washing machine. After lots of research, I discovered ours doesn't have one : ( The manufacturer just assumes everyone will consume lots of energy by drying everything in the dryer. We don't do that—especially sweaters and other delicates.

Based on that information, I figured that lint was just building up on the liner and the outer basket. I decided to take the thing apart and clean it. I hadn't played with a washer for almost 30 years, but I figured not much had changed...wrong! Or, I must have just forgotten everything... Anyway, ours is direct drive; all the ones I had played with were belt-driven. Plus, I couldn't figure out how to get the thing apart! I took out all the screws on the back; tried all kinds of things. Finally, I did what I should have done in the first place: searched the Internet.

I found lots of information of varying degrees of usefulness, accuracy, and usability. The best one, which led me to the other great one, was My Plastic Free Life. The post is hilarious, but very helpful. Her post led me to YouTube and British James. Most helpful, indeed. The first 12 seconds are redundant in all the videos, so skip them after the first time. Another site that was helpful on taking apart the cabinet was Repair Ave, but I preferred the video.

Fortified with the information from British James, I attacked the washer again (after putting it back together again!). Simple. But, if you have a newer machine with the screws in the back of the console, be sure to remove them completely. If you don't the screws will still grab enough to keep the thing from coming apart. I used diagonal cutting pliers (dikes) to get them out.

I got it apart and took the agitator out. I attempted to loosen the spanner nut with a screwdriver and hammer. Not a chance! I was starting to mushroom the nut, so I dropped some 3-in-1 oil on it and waited a while. Nope. Not gonna happen! Now what? It was Saturday, so I put everything back together again and ordered the right tool—which I should have done in the first place! It cost me about $15.00 with shipping from thepartsbiz.com. And I waited for it to arrive. It arrived on Wednesday or Thursday, but I didn't get back to the washer until the weekend.

It's amazing how much better things work with the correct tools! By now I was an expert at taking the thing apart, so I got it apart and attacked the spanner nut. It took a good bit of banging, but it came loose. But, trying to get the basket out was something else. I banged on the spindle, yanked on the bucket, shook the thing. Nothing moved. So, I poured some white vinegar down the spindle and let it work for a bit. And I prayed.

This time, I yanked and twisted it a bit. It moved, but didn't release. So, I twisted it some more and then yanked. It released! But that spindle was a mess! I cleaned it up and then began the task of cleaning the liner.

The liner was a mess! The top 3-5 inches was lined with black gunk that probably was lint—once upon a time! I attacked it with a very wet rag and a putty knife. I also cleaned up the basket and the removable lid that was over the bucket and liner. Stinky, smelly mess!

Once everything was clean, I put it all back together again. Just to make sure everything was working right, I ran it through a cycle with a bit of detergent. Looked good.

Debbie has done a couple of loads since then, and no lint anywhere. That's nice : )

The real ruler

From the human standpoint, that man alone reigns who is able to exercise lordship over those around him. From the divine standpoint the soul that serves is the soul that reigns. Not he who demands most, receives this inward crowning, but he who gives up most.—Hannah Whitall Smith

More on secular names

This finding, that less than 10% of the population of monarchic Israel and Judah bore secular names, is strongly suggestive of the importance of family religion in this society. It may be argued that most of the epigraphic material is restricted to the upper classes, members who would have been able to afford these seals, which were often made of precious or semiprecious stones. However, even if we consider only the ostraca (see table 5.6), which represent people from all social classes and strata, the instances of secular names still amount to less than 10% (9.8%). There seems therefore to have been no significant difference in degree of family piety among the classes of Israelite monarchic society. Family religion seems to have played a prominent role in nearly all households, whether rich or poor.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 256

<idle musing>
Of course!
</idle musing>

Secular names

The last group contains secular names, a group that lies outside the present study of family religion. This group nevertheless serves to demonstrate the coherence of this scheme for grouping names. In terms of both the number of names (105 occurrences) and the number of instances (251 occurrences), the group is the fourth largest. Although the first number is (a large portion) 15.6% of all names, a percentage not much smaller than that of the names of confession, the proportion of instances is only about half that percentage (8.6%). This indicates that, although there was a great variety of secular names, they seem not to have been very popular in preexilic Israelite society.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 256

<idle musing>
The names might be secular, but I can assure you the person bearing it wasn't!
</idle musing>

Friday's thought

If there is peace within, no outward turmoil can affect the soul; but outward peace can never quiet an inward tempest. A happy heart can walk in triumphant indifference through a sea of external trouble; while internal anguish cannot find happiness in the most favorable surroundings. What a man is within himself, makes or unmakes his joy, and not what he possesses outside of himself.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Confession

The names of confession are closely related to the names of thanksgiving. What has been an experience of god’s attention, salvation, or protection in the thanksgiving names becomes a personal confession of one’s trust in god in the confession names; similar statements can be observed in the confessions of confidence in the individual complaints. Thus, many of the roots—verbal in the confidence, nominal in the complaints—appear in both name groups. The names of confession constitute the third-largest group, with 119 names (17.6%) and 434 instances (14.9%).—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 254

Take this to heart

It is grand to trust in the promises, but it is grander still to trust in the Promiser. The promises may be misunderstood or misapplied, and at the moment when we are leaning all our weight upon them, they may seem utterly to fail us. But no one ever trusted in the Promiser and was confounded.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Some interesting statistics

In terms of numbers of unique names, the largest group consists of the birth names, with 192 names, or 28.4% of all distinct names. This demonstrates the importance of the often dramatic experience of birth in name giving. The group of thanksgiving names is slightly smaller, containing 164 names, or 24.3% of the total. However, in terms of the number of instances, these names of thanksgiving constitute the largest group, which includes no less than 993 instances, or 34.0% of all inscribed names. Many names in this group appear frequently, such as those derived from the roots עמשׁ šāmaʿ ‘to hear’ (133 occurrences), עשׁי yāšaʿ Hiphil ‘to save’ (103 occurrences), and רזע ʿāzar ‘to help’ (87 occurrences). Thus, the core personal names are the thanksgiving names.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 254

<idle musing>
I know, the Hebrew is backwards! Not sure why, but it appears correctly in the book...

Anyway, I find it interesting that the core of names are names of thanksgiving. I wonder if that reflects their outlook on life in general, or just thankfulness that the child survived? Remember, infant and children under 5 mortality was around 60% (that figure is from this book).
</idle musing>

It really does mean something

Some may object that, although Hebrew personal names are derived from the roots of words that express familial piety, their use was determined more by fashion than by the religious convictions of the parents. If this were the case, these names would reflect the religious environment only indirectly and would offer no access to the beliefs of Israelite families. There are, however, several indications that the bestowal of names in ancient Israelite societies reflected more than mere ephemeral fashion. Foremost among these is the fact that, many times in the Hebrew Bible, the naming of a child is followed by an explicit explanation for the choice of the name.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 246

<idle musing>
I find that persuasive. We too easily project our current way of thinking back on the ancient world. Just because we choose names based on popularity doesn't mean they did. But, then again, we worship celebrities in this culture, so maybe the popularity of a name is a refection of our personal values...
</idle musing>

A good Wednesday thought

By rejoicing in Him, however, I do not mean rejoicing in ourselves, although I fear most people think this is really what is meant. It is their feelings or their revelations or their experiences that constitute the groundwork of their joy, and if none of these are satisfactory, they see no possibility of joy at all. But the lesson the Lord is trying to teach us all the time is the lesson of self-effacement. He commands us to look away from self and all self’s experiences, to crucify self and count it dead, to cease to be interested in self, and to know nothing and be interested in nothing but God.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Personal names

In a previous study (Albertz 1978a: 49–77), I demonstrated that the personal names of the Hebrew Bible do not reflect the Israelite religion in any general way; instead, they specifically attest the personal piety of Israelite and Judean families. Furthermore, although the traditions of Israel’s official religion—such as the exodus, conquest, kingship, Sinai, Zion, or Bethel—seem to have had no impact on personal names, and they contain only a  few possible allusions to Israel’s political and sacred history, the verbs and nouns used in personal names show a high rate of correspondence with the verbs and nouns that were used in the individual psalms of complaint and thanksgiving and in the oracles of salvation. More than half of all the roots of theophoric personal names found in the Hebrew Bible also occur in the genre of individual prayer; and over 60% of all verbs and nouns that appear in the petitions for divine attendance and salvation or in the confessions of confidence in the individual complaints or the psalms of thanksgiving and oracles of salvation can also be found in personal names. Thus, there is a close relationship between Hebrew personal names and the genres of psalms that reflect aspects of private prayer practices.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, pages 245-246

<idle musing>
I'm finding this section on the personal names extremely interesting. It's large enough that it could almost have been a separate book!
</idle musing>

Thought for today

Not that I would be understood to object to emotions. On the contrary, I believe they are very precious gifts, when they are from God, and are to be greatly rejoiced in. But what I do object to is the making them a test or proof of spiritual states, either in ourselves or others, and depending on them as the foundation of our faith. Let them come or let them go, just as God pleases, and make no account of them either way.—Hannah Whitall Smith

What? No images?

Patterns discerned in the domestic assemblages of Israel and Judah that suggest that religious practices were performed by or in nuclear or extended families are essentially identical to patterns seen in domestic assemblages from Jordan, Philistia, Phoenicia, and Syria. One apparent difference is the occasional occurrence of clearly divine images in the households of Ammon, Philistia, Phoenicia, and Syria; images of this sort have not been found in Iron Age Israel and Judah.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 226

<idle musing>
Seems the ban on images in the scripture was taken seriously, no?
</idle musing>

Thought for the day

I have seen Christians, with hardly one Christ-like attribute in their whole characters, who yet were so emotional and had such ecstatic feelings of love for Christ, as to think themselves justified in claiming the closest oneness with Him. I scarcely know a sadder sight.—Hannah Whitall Smith

<idle musing>
Many will say "Lord! Lord!" in that day...remember that without holiness, it is impossible to see God...
</idle musing>

Pretty much the same

...the widely held assumption that there was a strong distinction between official religious practices and those performed in private or family environments—which has led to their being seen as competing arenas of religious activity (Holladay 1987; Nakhai 2001: 203)—is highly problematic. By analyzing the differing contexts of four-horned altars from Tel Miqne, Gitin (2002: 113–17) examined the intersections between public and private religious activities and identified five examples of coexistence and duality in the cult practices of Ekron.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 223

<idle musing>
Time to reexamine some widely held opinions, isn't it?
</idle musing>