You may first want to know that I’m talking about senile seniors (65+) rather than sinister seniors (~18), those who are about to graduate high school and make a lot of stupid decisions in college. My seniors are the precious elderly saints who live at a local independent-living senior apartment complex. About last year this time one resident came into the restaurant where I was then working and told me that there were several believers at the senior home but no regular Bible study. She eagerly desired that someone come and teach the Scriptures and share the gospel with the residents. Any seminarian would be a fool be approached in such a manner and decline to spend time with elderly saints opening the Scriptures with them. There was only one response: I’ll do it.

Sounds good but what does one teach? Where should I start? I started off alternating between Old Testament, Gospel and epistle, after reading about a similar teaching pattern in the ministry of John Calvin, although he taught at least three times a week, teaching OT, NT and epistle every week. I just meet with my elderly saints once a week. Because it felt like we were jumping around every week and it was three weeks before we returned to where we left off in a given book, I decided to singularly adopt the Gospel of Matthew as the curriculum. This past Sunday we coveredMatthew 6:25-34.

Anyone that has a grandmother and takes a quick glance at the content ofMatthew 6:25-34 will think what a great set of verses to cover with senior saints. Grandmothers are well-known worriers and prayer warriors. Jesus speaks right to worry in this passage and says, Don’t do it, child! Look at the flowers, look at the animals! God’s got it under control. In fact, if you were asked to be a guest speaker at a senior home, you may in fact choose this passage as your text, if you indeed do such antiquated things as preach from a text!

You would be asked to speak. You’d think about it, pray about it, and flip through your Bible wondering which passage these saints need to hear.Matthew 6:25-34 would be such an obvious choice. But why limit yourself to “obvious choices”?

Throughout the course of working our way through the Gospel of Matthew my senior saints have been the most appreciative and engaged with the less obvious choice of passages. Next week we’ll coverMatthew 7:1-6 which will bring us near the end of the Sermon on the Mount. (I love the German “Bergpredigt” for some reason.) This means that over the last year or so we’ve covered less obvious topics for seniors such as anger, lust, retaliation, divorce, and especially oaths. I dare say no one would when asked to speak at a senior home choose any of these sections from die Bergpredigt. Why in the world would I talk to seniors about oaths and truth-telling? Why would I even mention sexuality to people quadruple my age? Because Jesus talked about it.

My seniors have been the most appreciative, responsive and engaged in the teaching when we covered these lesser discussed areas. They attend the Bible study because they are genuinely concerned about hearing what Jesus had to say. If Jesus talked about it, they want to hear about it. Don’t give us psycho-babble, give us the Scriptures, they tell me. Occasional preaching and teaching is important, but well-rounded total preaching and teaching is more so. Teaching through books of the Bible accomplishes this.

We therefore sell short those whom God has entrusted to our oversight when we pick the menu. His people are hungry for everything that’s in the garden, not just what’s well-known and easily prepared.

Consider:

You know his name wasn’t really Jesus Christ, right?

Jesus is just the Greek translation of Yeshua, which translates from Hebrew to Joshua.

But his name wasn’t Josh Christ, either, since his parents weren’t Joseph and Mary Christ.

So it’s really not blasphemy to say “Jesus Christ”, because it’s not taking the right name in vain.

Isn’t religion fun?

To be honest I felt giddy when I read the above. It’s perfect to blog. It involves linguistics and Jesus and it’s moronic; the first two I love, the last just makes good blog fodder. Why’s the above moronic?

The Third Commandment

“Do not take up the name of the Lord in vain” (Exodus 20:7). The argument above borrows whatever potency the author believed it to have from this, the third commandment found atExodus 20:7. Blasphemy seems to be the issue, but what exactly is blasphemy?

How about misuse or use for no purpose. Or, use as if it were nothing, thus “in vain.” Check out the use of the same word in Jeremiah:Jeremiah 2:30,Jeremiah 4:30,Jeremiah 6:29,Jeremiah 18:15,Jeremiah 46:11. You’ll gain a sense of what’s going on real quick.

It would be a mistake, however, to narrowly limit “taking the Lord’s name in vain,” as the above does, to a particular word (e.g., “Jesus” or “Jesus Christ” in whatever language). “The ‘name’ of God stands for so much more than the mere pronouncing of his title of address. It includes (1) his nature, being, and very person . . . (2) his teaching or doctrine . . . and (3) his moral and ethical teaching.”¹

Thus, speaking irreverently about almost anything pertaining to God is easily considered blasphemy.  I shouldn’t need to provide examples, but the point is that blasphemy isn’t only blasphemy if and only if you utter the right word in the right language. Blasphemy encompasses the content of and the heart behind language.²

The Name of the Lord

The author concludes “So it’s really not blasphemy to say ‘Jesus Christ’, because it’s not taking the right name in vain.” The question then arises, Which name should one take in vain if one wanted to take “the right name in vain”?

Exodus 20:7 has shem yhwh or “the name of YHWH,” often translated into English as “the name of the Lord” instead of “the name of Yahweh” with YHWH as a proper name. Taking YHWH in vain can be a bit problematic though as the Hebrew text doesn’t preserve the original vowels for the divine name. According to the above argument then it should be impossible to take the Lord’s name in vain and thus blaspheme. But is that true?

Blasphemy in the Bible

One can blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, who is God (Matthew 12:31).

Jesus was accused of blasphemy for affirming that he is the Christ, the Son of God because some believed he was lying (Matthew 26:63;John 10:31-39).

In the first case one needn’t know God’s name in the right language to blaspheme against him. In the second, Jesus didn’t even use God’s name, but was called a blasphemer.

Isn’t religion fun?

Shooting Down the Upshot

It’s true that Jesus’ name wasn’t the Anglo-Germanic word “Jesus” nor was “Christ” his parents’ surname. It’s anachronistic to even assume so.

Do we then conclude that it’s not really blasphemy to say “Jesus Christ” when we accidentally stub a toe? Absolutely not.

The name “Jesus Christ” is the English result of that long etymological history given above that represents the man profiled in the Bible. “Jesus Christ” is how we can talk about that God-man. Therefore to use it in vain is blasphemous.

Two Examples

If the above argument holds true, Muslims shouldn’t have been offended at the now famous Danish cartoons depicting Muhammed because, well, that’s not really the prophet Muhammad because in order for the cartoon to be idolatrous it would have to be correctly labeled in Arabic rather than in Danish.

Or, if blasphemy or defamation of character can only be done correctly if used in the right language, there’s no such thing as international libel. Americans shouldn’t be offended by what any nation says about them, if not said in English.

photo credit: Lawrence OP

Sing for Joy

Every Sunday morning the pretentiously titled local classical station–The Classical Station–airs several syndicated programs featuring sacred music. One of those is Sing for Joy, a production of Minnesota’s St. Olaf College. Every week the College Pastor presents choral music selected to coincide with the readings from the revised common lectionary. The result is a beautiful production that is well worth your listen, especially if you come from a non-liturgical tradition such as I. I’ve found that keeping up with the common lectionary vocally enhanced by world-class choirs is a delightful way to connect with the Church universal. Sing for Joy presents that certain bountiful depth of sacred music that is too often forgotten. My only disappointment is that the broadcasts, as far as I can tell, are not available via podcast. There is, however, a vast streaming archive available on their site of current and past episodes. You can listen wherever you are no matter the day of the week. Check it out.

Lectionary at Lunch

I discovered this second gem on iTunesU. Concordia Seminary St. Louis hosts an enviable Lectionary at Lunch group every Wednesday that is led by a professor who reads through the OT and NT lessons in Hebrew and Greek, translates them and discusses particular points of interest. The podcast of the group is available free of charge and is well worth your listen, especially if you’re interested in exegesis, translation and original language study. I can’t tell you how beneficial this is to listen to. Check it out.

photo credit: I, Timmy

You must do
what you cannot do
with what you do not have
for the rest of your life.

But Jesus will do
what he can do
with what he does have
through you
for the rest of your life.

Quoted in Camper Mundy – Giving & Receiving (Mark 6:30-44) [MP3]

Needed this for a project. Thought someone else might be able to benefit from a comma separated list of the books of the Bible:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrew, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation

 
photo credit: krisdecurtis

We woke up yesterday and went to church here in Williamsburg where we’re vacationing for the week. I employed the best method possible in finding a solid, evangelical church to worship at on the Lord’s Day: the phone book. Flipping through, we had an extended list of almost every conceivable denomination. We decided that we wanted to do something a bit different and go to a service at a denomination of church that none of us had ever visited.

I was immediately partial to a Coptic Orthodox church, but my sister-in-law wasn’t so sure about the possibility of incense. I then suggested we go Presbyterian. Still, so many to choose from. Is it the PCA or PCUSA that are the more evangelical, missions-minded denomination? We went with a good orthodox sounding name:  Grace Covenant. We like grace and I’m interested in covenant theology. It seemed like a good fit.

Great service. I was struck by, and this is the main purpose of this post, the singing of carols after Christmas. All except for one of the songs sung yesterday morning were Christmas carols. They’re hymns nonetheless, but they’re primarily now known as Christmas carols.

Doesn’t it make all the sense in the world to sing most of our carols after Christmas rather than before? They tell of the newborn babe lying in a manger. If the purpose of Christmas is to re-live the advent of the Savior, then the month leading up to the Day should be spent reading prophecy and the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke, stopping short of the actual birth narratives. The songs sung should be sung to match. Instead, we sing of the Savior’s birth before we celebrate it happening. Yesterday morning, it was refreshing to reflect on the birth of Savior through Christmas carols after we had celebrated it–or should have–on Christmas Day.

There is so much theology packed into these carol-hymns. Check out the last verse of Hark, the Herald Angels Sing:

Adam’s likeness, Lord, efface,
Stamp Thine image in its place:
Second Adam from above,
Reinstate us in Thy love.
Let us Thee, though lost, regain,
Thee, the Life, the inner man:
O, to all Thyself impart,
Formed in each believing heart.

Let’s spend the month of January singing about the new-born King rather than jumping straight to Easter.

photo credit: tim caynes

For all the legend surrounding Santa Claus and Christmas, it’s surprising that the best story concerning the early Christian saint is forgotten.  Saint Nicholas was a real person. He was the bishop of Myra and defender of young women’s honor and Christian orthodoxy. It’s not only believed that he attended the Council of Nicea in 325 but that he also showed Arius who’s boss with a little fist-in-face action.

At the first Council of Nicea, Nicholas, bishop of Myra, met the arguments of Arius by bestowing upon the jaw of that venerable presbyter such a violent blow that a temporary disuse of that important organ of debate was rendered necessary (Lewis George Janes, A Study of Primitive Christianity, 294).

So when Santa comes to town, a lump of coal should be the least of your worries!

The publisher of Thomas D. Williams’ Can God Be Trusted? Finding Faith in Troubled Times sent me an early review copy of the book. I finally read through it today and now offer the following thoughts for anyone who might be interested. This review may be slightly peculiar in that I’m going to offer my thoughts on the actual book’s appearance and then simply list pros and cons of the content and appearance. It’ll be fun. Read on.

First Impression

The cover design is very unassuming. The background’s empty. Just white. Title at the top like you’d expect. A splash of red gives the subtitle and then the author’s name at the bottom. There’s nothing about the cover of this book that’s going to grab your attention. It’s all about the (scandalous?) title for this one. Why God in the title is over- and underlined is beyond me, which isn’t to minimize the importance of God by any means. I do find it quite tacky when author’s feel the need to append the title of their degree(s) to their name on the front cover. Nobody cares that you have a ThD. In fact, most readers probably think it’s a knock off a PhD anyways. There’s no reason for an author to include their degree(s) near their name on a book. Make a reputation for yourself by writing something worth reading and then we may check to see where you went to school and what degree you got, if we feel like it.

The book has no index. If you’re going to take the time to write a book worth anyone’s consultation, take the time to prepare or have prepared an index. Please.  The back cover gives no endorsements which to me is only of minimal importance.  I do appreciate a short bio of the author on the back of a book. That, however, is lacking here.

Cons

• No index
• Cheesy inset quotes with borders (you know the kind)
• ThD on cover
• Uses myriad Bible translations throughout the book (eight in all). Makes me wonder if he simply selected translations that fit the interpretation he wanted the text to have. Makes me uneasy.
• Borderline semi-pelagian at points (pp. 147-150).
• Synergistic view of God and man in salvation. E.g., “It is no exaggeration to say that he [God] depends on our cooperation for our own salvation…” (p. 166).

Pros

• Decent printing/typesetting/typography–what’s the best word?
• Catching chapter titles. Flicking through the table of contents is interesting enough to continue reading.
• Asks hard questions. For example, Chapter 9 “What To Do When God Lets You Down.”
• Addresses practical concerns (pp. 88-92). Can I trust God if he doesn’t bring me a spouse or if my wife and I are unable to have children?
• Quotes from a wide body of notable Christians including William Carey, Thomas Merton, Mother Theresa, St Augustine, C.S. Lewis and a pope or three among others.
• Illustrates points well. The story of the teacup on pp. 99-100 is exemplary.
• Not trite in the least. He lists God’s “nonpromises” to perhaps startle some readers out of a pet-god theology.

Who Should Read This?

Have you really struggled with trusting God and need practical pastoral guidance? If yes, read.

What Should I Read Instead?

John Piper’s Spectacular Sins, if you don’t mind a book that doesn’t pussyfoot (not that Williams does).

Can God Be Trusted?

Yes.

Overall Rating

6/10

photo credit: law_keven

Exodus 3:8 (RSV)

I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

Exodus 2:5-10 (RSV)

Now the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river, and her maidens walked beside the river; she saw the basket among the reeds and sent her maid to fetch it. 6 When she opened it she saw the child; and lo, the babe was crying. She took pity on him and said, “This is one of the Hebrews’ children.” 7 Then his sister said to Pharaoh’s daughter, “Shall I go and call you a nurse from the Hebrew women to nurse the child for you?” 8 And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Go.” So the girl went and called the child’s mother. 9 And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Take this child away, and nurse him for me, and I will give you your wages.” So the woman took the child and nursed him. 10 And the child grew, and she brought him to Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son; and she named him Moses, for she said, “Because I drew him out of the water.”

Coming down, seeing, taking out of current affliction, bringing up into luxurious foreign land (Pharaoh’s household for the infant). Similarities notwithstanding, the lexical parallelism is largely lacking in the Hebrew; still found it interesting.

photo credit: bartvandamme

Edward VIII was an unlikely third Adam.

In December 1936 Edward VIII, King of England for less than a year, chose to abdicate his place as king in order to marry American socialite Wallis Simpson.

Our first father Adam similarly abdicated his throne to chase after a forbidden love.

Christ temporarily abdicated his to win a people for himself, fallen kings.

Doesn’t your unhappiness point to a previous kingship? Pascal thinks so.

Who would indeed think himself unhappy not to be king except one who had been dispossessed?