New doctrine

“This doctrine [predestination] was never admitted, decreed, or approved in any Council, either general or particular, for the first six hundred years after Christ.” [Arminius, “Declarations of Sentiments”] He believed the hermeneutics of the early church fathers did not support this claim [of monergism]. The early fathers did not embrace strict monergism as shown by the fact that they allowed for man’s responsibility.— Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity, page 110

How deep does metaphor go?

The most important claim we have made so far is that metaphor is not just a matter of language that is, of mere words. We shall argue that, on the contrary, human thought processes are largely metaphorical. This is what we mean when we say that the human conceptual system is metaphorically structured and defined.—Metaphors We Live By, page 6

<idle musing>
In other words, pretty deep. Extremely deep. (And even that wording of "deep" is a metaphor...)
</idle musing>

One king

The Disciples’ Prayer recognizes not only that God has a people, but also that he alone is to be King over them. This is a tenet of Jewish theology so vital to the life of Judaism that when non-Jews such as the Greek king of Syria Antiochus Epiphanes and the Roman emperor Caligula dared to challenge it or prevent it from being acknowledged, they fermented grave social unrest and costly revolts against themselves. Furthermore, the Disciples’ Prayer presupposes, especially in the “kingdom” petition, that the God of Israel has given his people a concrete hope that he intends to decisively establish his sovereignty over all those who have rebelled against him, just as such Jewish texts as the Psalms of Solomon and many of the Dead Sea Scrolls declare he has.—The Disciples’ Prayer, page 49

Another reason word-for-word translation doesn't work

Since distance from the deictic centre is a cognitive matter, it will also be culturally and psychologically determined. What is relatively close in the culture may be relatively distant in another; what is relatively familiar to one person may be relatively unfamiliar to another. Distance in pragmatic space is thus a feature of the culturally and psychologically defined cognitive word of natural language users.— The Theory of Functional Grammar Part 1, The Structure of the Clause, page 37

Baby steps

Our faith demands commitment and accountability. God’s people and our children must not just live for the moment, but must have something to hold on to, something to which they can remain faithful. Yet this is nothing we, as humans, can plan.

Keep this in mind as you think about starting an association. Such a group could be a small opening for God to work in the hearts of the Chinese people, but only if it is closely knit and affords you the opportunity to witness to God’s reign. Your utmost desire must be that hope for God’s kingdom awakens in many hearts. An association such as this, in which the characteristics of Christ are alive, would in fact be a church. It would be God’s house. Yet meetings and gatherings would arise spontaneously and would lay a foundation on which the Spirit of God could continue building. May God grant you such an abundance of his Spirit that those around you are gripped by Christ and his true nature.—Christoph Blumhardt in The Hidden Christ, page 37

Would you just get with the program!

Another great One Time Blind Easter skit

He is risen

So? So what? Does that change your life? Does it even change your day?

Check out this One Time Blind skit that (unfortunately) too often sums up Easter for us

He is risen! So?

It is not enough to celebrate Easter and say “Christ is risen.” It is useless to proclaim this unless at the same time we can say that we have also risen, that we have received something from heaven. We must feel appalled when the tremendous events that took place, the death and resurrection of Jesus, are proclaimed again and again and yet actually nothing happens with us. It has no effect.

The long passage of time has brought with it a temptation to keep on speaking about the death of Christ and his resurrection without being moved by it. We hear about Christ’s death on the cross, and we sit there just as bored as if we were reading a newspaper – in fact we would find a newspaper a good deal more interesting. Here the enemy has made a gain, and if we wish to shift him at all, then we must stand before God and fight and pray to find the meaning of Christ’s death and resurrection.—Christoph Blumhardt

Not very effective

God has a great sense of humor. In Genesis 30, Rachel is bemoaning the fact that she can't get pregnant. She rails at Jacob, who responds by saying he isn't God. Rachel responds by giving him her servant.

All it does is start an arms race between Leah and Rachel. Both servants bear kids. But Rachel is still barren.

A bit later, Reuben comes in from the fields with mandrakes, which were believed to be an aphrodisiac, which would assist in getting pregnant. Rachel, desperately wanting children, sees them; she wants them. So, she gives away a night with Jacob to Leah in hopes of a long-term gain: pregnancy.

What happens next is interesting. Leah, who gave away the mandrakes, get pregnant. Not once, but three times! So much for the effectiveness of the aphrodisiac!

I think there's something theological going on here, don't you? God's trying to teach Rachel that you can't manipulate him. (Of course, if we learn the lesson, so much the better!) Aphrodisiacs don't work. Prayer does. Not that Rachel really learns; later she steals Laban's idols in another vain attempt to control the future...but that's another story for another day : )

Here's the text in the CEB (chosen because it translates mandrakes as "erotic herbs")

14 During the wheat harvest, Reuben found some erotic herbs in the field and brought them to his mother Leah. Rachel said to Leah, “Give me your son’s erotic herbs.”

15 Leah replied, “Isn’t it enough that you’ve taken my husband? Now you want to take my son’s erotic herbs too?”

Rachel said, “For your son’s erotic herbs, Jacob may sleep with you tonight.”

16 When Jacob came back from the field in the evening, Leah went out to meet him and said, “You must sleep with me because I’ve paid for you with my son’s erotic herbs.” So he slept with her that night.

17 God responded to Leah. She became pregnant and gave birth to a fifth son for Jacob. 18 Leah said, “God gave me what I paid for, what I deserved for giving my servant to my husband.” So she named him Issachar. 19 Leah became pregnant again and gave birth to a sixth son for Jacob, 20 and she said, “God has given me a wonderful gift. Now my husband will honor me since I’ve borne him six sons.” So she named him Zebulun. 21 After this, she gave birth to a daughter and named her Dinah.

22 Then God remembered Rachel, responded to her...

Take that, you Augustinians!

Take away free choice and there is nothing to be saved. Take away grace and there is no means of saving. Without the two combined, this work cannot be done: the one as operative principle, the other as object toword which, or in which, it is accomplished. God is the author of salvation, the free willing faculty merely capable of receiving it. None but God can give it, nothing but free choice receive it.—Bernard of Clairvaux as cited in Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity, pages 76–77

It really is a prayer

But this view [that the LP is a compendium of doctrine] neglects (or chooses to overlook) the fact that according to those who first recorded our text, and presumably to Jesus himself as well, the Disciples’ Prayer is from first to last not a summary of doctrine or a miniature catechism, but a particular verbal, heartfelt, and purposeful act of human communication. As such, not only was it given by Jesus in a concrete historical context (first-century Palestine, under Roman occupation), but it is also just what it says it is: a prayer.—The Disciples’ Prayer, page 43

How it is said matters

Take languages seriously. Whenever there is some overt difference between two constructions X and Y, start out on the assumption that this difference has some kind of functionality in the linguistic system. Rather than pressing X into the preconceived mould of Y, try to find out why X and Y are different, on the working assumption that such a difference would not be in the language unless it had some kind of task to perform.— The Theory of Functional Grammar Part 1, The Structure of the Clause, page 17

<idle musing>
Seems obvious, doesn't it? But we don't do that. We say, "What he or she really mean is..." I'm in the midst of Lakoff and Johnson's marvelous little book, Metaphors We Live By, and one of the things they stress is that the way we say things matters. A lot. A whole lot. Grab the book and read it, especially pages 136–37.
</idle musing>

Thought for a Good Friday

Our task is to “put on the new man” (Col. 3:9–11). If we can bring ourselves to do this, and if the boredom of our theology and our Christianity has not already killed us, we can become people enthusiastic for Jesus. If Christ alone is our light and life, then we can possibly be a little helpful. Religious talk is useless.—Christoph Blumhardt in The Hidden Christ, page 34

What about Phoebe?

Good article in the latest issue of JSPL by Matt Harmon, "Letter Carriers and Paul’s Use of Scripture." After surveying the various uses of private letter carriers in the ancient world, he concludes

Given the role of letters carriers as apostolic envoys who communicated the παρουσία [(virtual) presence] of the sender/author, it is reasonable to conclude that the carrier was expected to be an extension of Paul’s own ministry in that location, of which teaching was a central component. The glimpses of the responsibilities that Tychicus, Timothy, Titus, and perhaps even Phoebe had as letter carriers correspond with the kind of ministry Paul instructed his envoys Timothy and Titus to carry out in the letters he wrote to them. p. 147(emphasis original)

which has interesting ramifications for those who don't believe women should teach...

With thanks to Matt for sending me a copy!

Prevenient grace endorsed

In fact, Arminian theology can find consensus with [the Synod of] Orange [529 AD] as its decisions affirmed both human inability and divine enabling. Moreover, Orange rejected a strict Augustinian interpretation that simply affirms prevenient grace: “The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God’s sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him.” [Conclusion of The Canons of the Synod of Orange (529 AD)] The council did not insist on divine predestination as the solution to human inability; instead it endorsed a Semi-Augustinian version of grace that can be understood as a doctrine of prevenient grace, in which the Spirit initiates an individual’s faith potential, and that person must then seek out God, who prompted the process of salvation.mdash; Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity, pages 73–74

<idle musing>
Truth be known, strict Augustinianism was actually named anathema at one of these synods—Take that Synod of Dort!
</idle musing>

Unconscious transformation (grammar?)

What they think they are praying for when they say, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” is either a remittance of expected punishment for the sins they have individually committed or a release from any and all guilt experienced on account of them, since more often than not the pronouns “us,” “our,” and “we” are transmuted, consciously or unconsciously, into “me,” “my” and “I.”—The Disciples’ Prayer, page 38

But my theory has to be correct!

Wherever certain linguistic facts are such that they cannot “naturally” be handled by means of the principles of F[unctional] G[rammar], it is the theory, not the language in question, which will have to be adapted.— The Theory of Functional Grammar Part 1, The Structure of the Clause, page 15

<idle musing>
Indeed! Would that more "theories" of all sort were that willing to change. Usually what happens is that we create "exceptions" to justify our preconceived ideas.

And not just in linguistic theories, either. How many times have you heard or thought, "Jesus didn't really mean that!"? Ouch! Maybe, just maybe, our theories or theology might be wrong. Radical thought, but probably true.

Just an
</idle musing>

Ouch!

A movement of the Spirit will never come from religion – especially not from church rectories and parsonages. The institutional churches, in their so-called wisdom, use their authority to crush every free stirring of the Spirit, or at best to ignore it.—Christoph Blumhardt in The Hidden Christ, page 21

<idle musing>
I hope that isn't true! But, sadly, church history bears it out. As one church history book puts it, "and in the finest tradition, they killed them" in talking about renewal movements. Even Andrew Murray was freaked out when revival came to his church. Why? Because it began amongst the children! It didn't come from the pulpit and he wanted to shut it down because of that!

Old habits die hard, don't they? We're still judging by the world's standards: power, status, hierarchy, prestige!

Lord, forgive us! May we adopt the way of the cross.
</idle musing>

About that atonement thing

Holy Week can produce some of the worst in theology sometimes, but it can also produce some of the best. Brian Zahnd's post is in the latter category. Here's a bit of it, but read the whole thing.

What the cross is not is a quid pro quo where God agrees to forgive upon receipt of his Son’s murder. What the cross is not is an economic transaction whereby God gains the capital to forgive. These legal and fiscal models for understanding the cross simply will not do.

Jesus does not save us from God, Jesus reveals God as savior. What is revealed on Good Friday is not a monstrous deity requiring a virgin to be thrown into a volcano or a firstborn son to be nailed to a tree. What is revealed on Good Friday is the depths of human depravity and the greater depths of God’s love.

And a bit further

The death of Jesus was a sacrifice. But it was a sacrifice to end sacrificing, not a sacrifice to appease an angry god. It was not God who required the sacrifice of Jesus, it was human civilization. A system built upon violent power cannot tolerate the presence of one who owes it nothing. The sacrifice of Jesus was necessary to convince us to quit producing sacrificial victims; it was not necessary to convince God to forgive. When Jesus prays for forgiveness on the cross he was not acting contrary to the nature of God, he was revealing the nature of God as forgiving love.

And yet further

The crucifixion is not what God inflicts upon Jesus in order to forgive, the crucifixion is what God in Christ endures as he forgives. The cross is where God absorbs sin and recycles it into forgiveness.

The crucifixion is not the ultimate attempt to change God’s mind about us — the cross is the ultimate attempt to change our mind about God. God is not like Caiaphas seeking a sacrifice. God is not like Pilate requiring an execution. God is like Jesus, absorbing sin and forgiving sinners.

<idle musing>
Yep. And while we're thinking about atonement, you might want to check out Michael Bird's post from the other day. Here's the conclusion, but read the whole thing.

However, if we were to pick one ring to rule them all, one model which is perhaps capable of linking together the others without relativizing them, then I’d probably say Christus Victor. I say that because the CV is the model which best unites Christology, kingdom, and soteriology together.

In want of a summarizing statement about what the cross achieved, we could say that the atonement is the climax of God’s project to put the world to right through the cross of Jesus. The cross brings God’s people into God’s place under God’s reign to share in God’s holy-loving-glory on account of the love that is demonstrated in the cross and the justice that is satisfied on the cross.

I couldn't put it better myself.
</idle musing>

New book from Carta

I just received a new book from Carta, Jerusalem:

In the Master's Steps: The Gospels in the Land
R. Steven Notley
Carta, Jerusalem, 2015
88 pages, English
ISBN: 9789652208514
Price: $25.00

Description: This volume, the first of four in The Carta New Testament Atlas, is about recent advances in history, geography, toponomy, and archaeology, the tools necessary to shed fresh light on the Gospels.

According to the forward, parts of it are extracted from The Carta Bible Atlas, but I haven't had a chance to see which ones.

I have looked it over, and as usual, it is up to the high standards that Carta has for its products. The maps are clear and crisp, the choice of photos is excellent. And the parts of Steven's commentary that I have read are good. I specifically looked over Chapter 7: Jesus and the Myth of an Essene Quarter in Jerusalem, which appears in The Sacred Bridge as Excursus 22.1. I haven't, however, compared them, so I don't know to what degree they overlap. Further, I have the original 2006 edition, not the updated 2014 one, so even if I did compare them, it wouldn't say much.

Here's the Table of Contents:
Preface
Chapter 1: The Birth of Jesus and the Flight into Egypt
Chapter 2: The Ministry of John and the Baptism of Jesus
Chapter 3: The Travels of Jesus
Chapter 4: The Sea of Galilee: Development of an Early Christian Toponym
Chapter 5: The First Century Environs of the Sea of Galilee
Chapter 6: The Last Days of Jesus
Chapter 7: Jesus and the Myth of an Essene Quarter in Jerusalem
Chapter 8: The Arrest and Death of Jesus
Chapter 9: From the Empty Tomb to the Road to Emmaus
Index

As you can see, it covers the whole of the Gospels. According to the back of the book, the second volume will be Jerusalem City of the Great King, volume three will be From Jerusalem to the Ends of the Earth: The Spread of the Early Church, and volume four will be Armageddon & The Apocalypse: Mapping the End of Days.

If you are looking for an atlas that covers just the Gospels, then this would be it. Even if you owned the shorter abridgment of The Sacred Bridge, Carta's New Century Handbook and Atlas of the Bible, you would benefit, as it doesn't include the excursus (what's the plural of excursus? Isn't it fourth declension? If so, it would simply be excursūs...).