Be holy...

Today, Boda summarizes the first section of Leviticus based on the four previous observations:

What the priestly legislation provided then was an intricate theological-symbolic world designed to preserve God's presence in the midst of his people. The people were constantly reminded of his holy character through their failure to follow his commands but at the same time experienced his gracious character as they received atonement for both cleansing and forgiveness. Through these priestly encounters with God's holiness and grace, they were reminded of their need to “be holy as he is holy.”—A Severe Mercy, page 76

<idle musing>
What a great segue into Hebrews...in the old covenant, it was failure and atonement; in the new covenant, it is sacrifice and cleansing, resulting in rest! Rest for the people of God as they walk by faith in Christ's accomplished work on the cross. Not just forgiveness, but deliverance. What more could anyone want?

Anything less than deliverance, and you are still walking in the old covenant...
</idle musing>

The communal effect of sin

Today's fourth, and final, observation from the first section of Leviticus:

Fourth, the need for reparation and restitution in the priestly legislation showed that sin had an impact on others and demanded that a person change his or her behavior practically in light of the grace that was afforded through the sacrificial rite.—A Severe Mercy, page 76 (emphasis his)

<idle musing>
Sin always has a communal effect. I know it is hard for us in our individualistic society to fathom that, but it's true. What happens in the darkness of a corner room has a society-wide ramification. Of course, the answer isn't more legislation, but instead repentance and reformed behavior by the power of the Holy Spirit.
</idle musing>

Preserving the presence

Today, we get the third observation from the first section of Leviticus in Boda's A Severe Mercy:

Third, the need for purification of the sanctuary and its altars shows that sin endangered the community's relationship with their God. The Creator of the universe, the covenant God who had spoken with such power from Sinai, was the same God who had descended in Exodus 40 into the tabernacle at the center of their camp. The people were shown on a regular basis that they should not take their sin lightly, lest this God abandon a defiled and unworthy tabernacle.—A Severe Mercy, page 76

<idle musing>
A good reminder to us all! Again, I'm struck by the continuity between the covenants...
</idle musing>

The second observation on Leviticus

We're still camping on page 76 of Boda's A Severe Mercy. Today is the second observation from the first section of Leviticus:

Second, knowledge, recognition, and confession of guilt are important to remedying sin. Recognition may come from the violator, but at times the community was to play a role in bringing violations to the attention of its members. The constant reference to 'recognition of guilt' suggests that the sacrificial system was designed to foster the formation of conscience within the community, but the constant references to 'knowing' suggest that it was designed also to foster accountability. Demanding verbal confession I cases of certain deliberate sins brought these two aspects together, forcing the worshiper to recognize guilt and expose sin before covenant God and community.—A Severe Mercy, page 76 (emphasis his)

<idle musing>
Isn't that a nice picture of what the church should be like with the various members of the body encouraging and holding each other accountable in love?
</idle musing>

Ouch

I don't follow television at all, so I don't even know the individual replying in the video, but I'm sure most of you do. Anyway, apparently Mr. Limbaugh last night asked what Jesus would take. Today this gentleman replied:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

<idle musing>
Ouch. I'm reminded of Bonhoeffer's Discipleship. We try to explain away what Jesus is saying, but we can't...why not just embrace it? The Holy Spirit is waiting and willing to take over!
</idle musing>

Mitigated Punishment-again

This week we are going to camp on one page in Boda's A Severe Mercy, page 76. Page 76 is a summary of the first section of Leviticus from which he draws four observations. Here' the first:

First, the rituals involving various animals and their blood suggest the costly character of sin. Not only does one's sin demand the loss of a life, but it means the economic loss of that animal from one's head. Forgiveness meant mitigated punishment: one avoided death, but it cost something.—A Severe Mercy, page 76 (emphasis his)

<idle musing>
There's that recurring theme of mitigated punishment. No cheap grace in the Hebrew Bible!
</idle musing>

I served my time

OK, a week ago Wednesday, they came for me:



And they hauled me away and put cuffs on me and a strange suit of clothes:



Because my cell phone was dead, they let me go, otherwise some of you would have heard from me. But, you can still help me out by going here: Kosciusko, IN Lock-Up 2011: James Spinti

Thanks!

Good Friday

It seems appropriate that on Good Friday, there should be a post on the cross. So, perusing the blog world today, I found a very good one, by Roger Olson. Here's a snippet, but read the whole thing; he's riding a favorite hobby horse of my own...

I will take the risk of putting forth a theory here. It seems likely to me that whenever and wherever and to the extent that the objective view of the atonement (viz., that the death of Christ reconciled God to the world as much as the world to God) diminishes, the cross will diminish in importance for worship and piety. A subjective theory of the atonement will not do; it cannot sustain long term, profound commitment to the gospel of the death of Jesus Christ as our salvation.

Some contemporary Christians, including some evangelicals, worry that the preaching of the cross in any traditional sense (viz., objective) risks sanctioning child abuse. That seems to me to be utter nonsense because it completely ignores the Trinity in the background of objective atonement. No theologian defending objective atonement has ever regarded the atonement as anything other than God the Son’s voluntary suffering and death. Even Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory and the Puritans’ Penal Substitution Theories pictured it that way and NOT as God simply taking out his anger on an innocent person against his will.

On this Good Friday I call on evangelicals especially to return to their roots and rediscover the good news of the cross as God’s way of reconciling himself to a sinful, rebellious world as well as God’s way of drawing us to himself.

<idle musing>
Amen! I've mentioned before my experience with the loss of the cross. It truly is central to Christianity; without it, there is no atonement. Of course, we can't stop there; we need the resurrection too! But, you can't get to the resurrection without going to the cross first. And on that cross, you and I died with Christ that we might live with him. No cross, no resurrection. No resurrection, no deliverance from the power of sin—let me emphasize here that I'm talking about deliverance; not just forgiveness!
</idle musing>

God is...

"God is Love, but that same God self-describes with “I am holy.” Yes, I agree — the witness of the Bible is that God is love, but how can we simply avoid God’s self-identifying words about holiness? And what does holiness say about some of the topics in this book? Can we simply dismiss the robust view of holiness at work in the Bible when it comes to descriptions of God? For some holiness is the defining attribute of God, for others it’s love. I don’t know why we get into such battles – both are true. God is holy and God is love, and God is lovingly holy and holy in his love. Holiness does not mean wrath; holiness means purity and moral perfection and utter differentness — the ineffability and the infinity of God."—Scot McKnight

<idle musing>
Yes. Yes! YES! YES!
</idle musing>

Forgiveness

“The nature of סלח [selach], however, is slightly different from the Western conception of forgiveness. Numbers 14 shows that סלח involves not necessarily the eradication of the penalty by the offended party (Yahweh) but rather 'the substitution of a mitigated penalty (non-entry into the land) for a much more severe penalty (immediate destruction by plague).' (Sklar 2005:84-85) This suggests that the sacrificial animal functioned in a similar way to modern-day fines. Instead of the harsher penalty of incarceration, a mitigated financial penalty is demanded.”—A Severe Mercy, page 71

<idle musing>
I'm not quite sure what to do with this. Any ideas? Maybe it will become clearer as I read further in the book.
</idle musing>

Understatement of the decade award...

Goes to Mark Boda for this statement:

“Although most introductory Hebrew students are taught that this latter conjunction [ו, waw] should be translated as 'and,' is is unquestionably the most versatile particle in the Hebrew language.”—A Severe Mercy, page 65

<idle musing>
Not at all like Greek, with its plethora of particles, so much so that there is a 574 page book called Greek Particles—which should be in every Greek student's library, by the way—, Hebrew has a much more limited repertoire of particles to choose from. Of course, that leads to interpretive issues :( But, remember, context is always king and the number of times the meaning isn't clear is minimal.
</idle musing>

What a deal!

Now through April 30: $10 standard shipping on all international orders



That's right: standard shipping on any retail order, of any size, anywhere outside the U.S. is just $10 until the end of April! Prices for Air Mail and other shipping services will stay the same. This incredible deal won't appear during the checkout process, but we'll adjust it before we bill your card.

* This won't apply to existing backorders, is valid for retail customers only, and you have to place your order on the website. Picky, picky, picky. It's still a good deal.

And the response was...

After the golden calf incident:
“Although the mediator secures forgiveness from Yahweh for the people's rebellion, they do experience mitigated punishment. The people are not rejected and destroyed by their holy God but rather preserved because of God's gracious character and action...The remedy for sin is thus complex, involving the just punishment of a holy God, the passionate intercession of a mediator, and the merciful forgiveness of a gracious God. What is striking is the lack of emphasis on the response of the sinful community...—A Severe Mercy, page 48

<idle musing>
Ouch! The people are all about to die in the wilderness. But, before we throw stones, what will be our response to Christ's invitation?
</idle musing>

Collapse

No, not the kind of collapse you were thinking. This is far more tragic.

“The tragic irony is that, at the heart of the tabernacle legislation, the legislation that was designed to make possible the unthinkable act of the holy Creator dwelling in the midst of his kingdom of priests and his holy nation, one finds the community falling into the most deplorable sinful behavior: idolatry (chaps. 32-34). Their awe before the appearance of God in chap. 19 and twofold commitment to obedience in chap. 24 has been revealed as hollow promises as they quickly break the first and second commandments. Interestingly, the answer to this dilemma is not the repentance of the people but rather the faithful intercession of a mediator...”—A Severe Mercy. page 48 (italics original)

<idle musing>
Seems to be laying down a pattern...and how appropriate following on the previous post
</idle musing>

Some good thoughts from around

the blogosphere that I read over the weekend.

A Place for the God-hungry addresses honesty in preaching

“3. Present the opposing view as if very intelligent, good people believe this. In other words, don’t make fun of the opposing view or talk as if those who hold such a view are obviously not intelligent, thoughtful, or spiritual. When presenting an opposing view, present the strongest argument for that view, not the weakest. In other words, you may not agree with the view but you can respect those who happen to hold that view.”

While Alan Knox talks about trying harder

“Throughout the book of Colossians, Paul first exhorts his readers to trust Christ (only), and then describes what a life in Christ would look like. If we take this out of order, we turn the gospel into a exhortation to try harder. However, Paul’s instructions were not 'try harder,' but 'trust Christ.'”

And, I couldn't have asked for a better segue, as Joel talks about rules, sorta

“Therefore, 'right living,' according to life in Christ, is never a matter of going back to law or rules or our own sense of morality. Laws and rules might sometimes cause temporary outward changes of behavior, but in the long run they cannot truly deal with the issues of the flesh. That’s why we had to die to the law in order to be joined together with the One and only source of real life and godliness. Right living, then, comes not from external rules and laws, but rather internally, from the very life of Christ who indwells us. Through Him, God gave us a new heart and a new spirit. He made us into a new creation. He caused us to become partakers of the divine nature (His very nature).

“...Note that living by the Spirit doesn’t involve 'steps' to godliness or morality, or 'steps' to overcoming sinful behavior. This isn't a 'how to' or a set of 'principles for godly living.' What this is about is the power of a resurrected life (we have been 'raised together' and 'made alive together with Christ'). This is about God, who is 'at work in us' (Phil 2:13) and who is faithful to complete the work that He began (Phil 1:6). This is about God's grace at work in us.

“...So how do we overcome the addictions and indulgences of the flesh? Again, it’s not a set of rules or principles and it’s really not a 'how to.' It’s a Who. It’s a Person. It’s the work of God in us. It’s giving up the old life of trying to overcome flesh with self-effort (fleshly effort) and walking in the miraculous life of the living God who richly indwells us. Which will we choose? Fleshly right vs. wrong – or supernatural and miraculous co-resurrected life with Christ!”

Enjoy!

The fear of YHWH

“Israel's experience of the manifest presence of Yahweh in this covenant ceremony in Exodus 19-20 is designed to keep them from sinning by producing the fear of Yahweh within them.—A Severe Mercy, page 46 (italics original)

<idle musing>
Didn't work, did it? Still won't work; you can't scare the hell out of people. They have to want God.
</idle musing>

Some good thoughts

from around the Internet:

From Roger Olson on the ambiguity of theological categories:

...some people seem to be so allergic to ambiguity they simply cannot open their minds to flexible boundaries; they feel compelled to be able to know with absolute certainty who is “in” and who is “out” of a category. It’s simply not that simple in most cases.

I find that such people are what I call theological absolutists. There’s a category. What do I mean by it? By “theological absolutist” I mean someone who so identifies his or her theological concepts with revelation itself that they are unable even to consider the possibility they might be wrong. Such people also tend to hold theological categories as bounded sets when, in fact, they are centered sets without firm or definite boundaries.

How about a view of how publishing has changed over the last 25 years? And from an insider, no less:

...When Cuomo delivered the finest speech of his career at the San Francisco Democratic Convention, he flew back overnight and called Jason Epstein, Random House's legendary editorial director to complain that his wife Matilda could not find copies of his book in stores around the Cow Palace, where the convention was held. Jason listened to Cuomo's lament and quietly observed: "Governor, no author since Homer has ever found his own book in a bookstore."

Whatever else has changed in publishing over the years, that wry insight still resonates...

If you've been living in a cave, you might not know it, but Amazon has come out with an ad-based Kindle. Personally, I don't think the price difference is worth putting up with ads, but it was interesting to see that ad in books aren't new. I had forgotten it, but do remember seeing them in paperbacks way back when.

And, in what has got to be one of the craziest bills introduced into a state legislature, Hawaii introduced

H.B. 458 would have imposed civil liability on writers and publishers of travel guides – including books, websites, and advertisements – that depict or describe an attraction or activity if a reader suffers an injury or dies after trespassing to reach the site. The bill would also have imposed a duty to warn readers of any dangerous conditions “typical to the area” where the attraction or activity is located.

<idle musing>
OK, I believe in corporate responsibility, but this is craziness! Where is any sense of personal responsibility?! The bill died, but might/will probably be introduced again next year...
</idle musing>

Sin...

“The various laws define sin for Israel, with the core Decalogue in Exodus 20 revealing that sin is first and foremost linked to Israel's relationship with God, especially related to exclusive worship of Yahweh. But sin is also violations against Yahweh's will for human-human relationships as seen in the second part of the Decalogue. The Sabbath law at the center of the Decalogue reminds the reader that sin is not just against God and fellow humans but also against one's animals (creation). This broad definition of sin is confirmed in the larger Book of the Covenant that follows in Exodus 20-23. It must be remembered that, while the various laws define sin for Israel, the penalties attached to the laws in the Book of the Covenant are designed to remedy sin, no only by discouraging commitment of sinful acts through the threat of penalty, but also by enacting justice through the application of punishment for deliberate sin.”—A Severe Mercy, page 46

<idle musing>
Yes; sin isn't just against God and God also cares about justice...no cheap grace allowed!
</idle musing>

Various garden and related stuff

Well, we tried the sauerkraut last night. It had fermented for 7 days and we figured it was worth a taste test. I opened the jar (we made it in 3-one quart jars) and it made a popping sound as the air escaped—a good sign. It certainly smelled like sauerkraut!

I stirred it up a bit with a fork, then filled the fork with kraut. A bit hesitantly, I put it in my mouth...it sure did taste good! Still a bit mild, but we have 2 other quarts still aging, so that's not a problem. I must admit, I was a bit nervous about it turning out after my experience in Kentucky way back when. But, the finished product is very good. We put the opened quart in the refrigerator after munching on a bit more. It will disappear very quickly, I suspect.

We started growing alfalfa and broccoli sprouts a few weeks ago. I started some in a quart jar and we enjoyed them, so we got a Bioset sprouter. Not sure if I like it as well as the jar; the sprouts from it taste watery. The principle is that the Bioset leaves a bit of water on the seeds. The quart jar, on the other hand, is drained each time you add water... We're going to run a test later next week with both ways; if I remember, I'll post our final preference.

I transplanted the Roma tomatoes into the hoop house on Monday evening. The next night it froze, but they came through fine in the hoop house. I'm getting ready to put out the potatoes this weekend (or maybe sooner...). We do straw potatoes, so I put down a layer of compost last night; I cut up the seed potatoes earlier the week. Once I put the seed potatoes out, I will place a 6 inch layer of straw over them and add row cover to keep everything in place.

I transplanted the cabbages into the basement under the grow lights; 16 plants for the early cabbage. I think I'll do another 16 for later harvest; that would give us about 32 quarts of kraut, which should be enough—I hope!

It's real!

Lots of things are real, but this one is special to me. I attended the University of Chicago back in the 1980s (remember those days?) as a Ph.D. student. One of the languages I took was Akkadian (some would say it took me...). And, the foremost tool that I had on my desk was the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary. It wasn't complete at the time, so the other lexicon was the Akkadisches Handwörterbuch (how's your German?). Now, 22 years after I finished my classroom work and 90 years after its inception in 1921, the final volume—Chicago Assyrian Dictionary U/W—is shipping from the printer next week. Long journey, lots of people, lots of file cards. Pretty cool stuff!

I never worked for the CAD, but I did work for the related Chicago Hittite Dictionary Project, so I know a bit of what the CAD involved. But, the corpus of Hittite texts is miniscule compared to the corpus of Akkadian texts! Our file cabinets only took up one wall of an office; theirs took up almost an entire floor!

So, congratulations to the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary Project and all its many employees over the years.

UPDATE: Chuck Jones, long-time archivist at the OI, has collected some interesting stuff here on the CAD.