The Rabbi

Mary's speech in Luke held my thoughts earlier today. I was intrigued by her indirect references to Isaiah, God's arm of might and Israel as servant, but more so by her final reference to Abraham. God extends mercy because of his promise made to Abraham. Does all of God's mercy, much of the bible recounts examples of God's mercy, relate to his promise to Abraham?

And so it would seem. Gen. 1-11 certainly relates man's failures, so God intervenes with a promise to Abraham: you may hold me accountable. What a promise! After all this is God I am talking about; he consented to maintain Abraham's descendents, somehow extending to the whole world, regardless of their behavior. Moving downward to man's plain, God allows himself to be abused by his own, but yet to answer their cries for mercy, again and again.

What would the world be like without God intervening in the life of Abraham? Read Gen. 1-11, it's rather ugly.

Goldsworthy ends with a prophecy: so fascinating is Julius Caesar that more books will follow. How few in history command such interest. As proof, I myself have read more than several biographies of Caesar in addition to stumbling through his commentaries in Latin class (what a waste not to have pursued the classical languages--how ignorant one remains who works in only one language).

For some reason I remain enthralled with the revolt of Vercingetorix and the double siege at Alesia, the Romans encircled the Gauls while another Gaulic army besieged the Roman. Who but Caesar could escape, hardly an escape but rather a complete destruction of the enemy.

The Rubicon continues to grip; just imagine the audacity, let alone the ability to carry out such ambitious plans. Yet Caesar defeats Pompey on several fronts, Spain, Greece, Egypt, and finally Africa only to be tragically assassinated five years later. What's interesting about Caesar's end lies in the motivation of the conspirators, some had long standing motives, but several could not tolerate a dictator, enlightened though he proved to be. This last tells much about man's thoughts: some desire input regardless of the ability of the leader. See psalm 2.

Goldsworthy writes readibly, I am already ordering several other of his works on ancient Rome.

Amy-Jill writes, as an orthodox Jew teaching NT studies at Vanderbilt University Divinity School, about Jesus the Jew in an attempt to alert Christians to their presuppositions (for many naively so) which superimpose Christianity on the Jew, Jesus, who lived, taught, and engaged his peers according to their norms and in a fashion recognized by them (but frequently not by us) with a desire to affect their behavior and their relationship with their God.

Although not agreeing with all her interpretation of what Jesus meant as he engaged his audience, I would ask if our Christianization of Jesus, would not be recognized by the very man who actually spoke the words. The primary approach to Christian scholarship routinely divides studies into three concerns, OT, NT, and systematic theology, the second two of which divorce the life of Jesus from his historical context. I have read of some who would rather not even consider that Jesus lived and taught in a context, how sad.

She walks on ground that calls me, but also repels; that is, interfaith dialogue. With whom should I talk? FGraham occupied much time and effort in the southern tier; is the only benefit those several ones "saved," or should the dialogue continue among the churches? What is more important, the church or my church? Few would answer and back it up with practice, number one. We are all more interested in our small communities than working together to develop God's.

Just two comments on Levine's work, first on public prayer. How does one "end"? Option 1: "in Jesus name amen"; which, I agree with Amy-Jill, is parochial in a mixed religions audience. She offers a better option: "As I pray in the name of Jesus"; focusing on the god that I worship versus those of the audience. Her third option challenges: "As I pray in the name of Jesus, and we all pray to the God who has many names and many childern." Do we acknowledge that many of our non christian neighbors worship other gods, and they do so sincerely? Are we willing to engage in religious conversation with them? Are we willing to put our god to the test versus others? And if not, are we ashamed or scared that he may lose such a confrontation?

Second, she proposed that the best way for christians to fulfill the great commission is to "work for justice." Put the love your neighbor commandment to work. How many of us would agree with her? How many of us are putting her advice into practice, one way or the other? Sometimes I have to ask myself, if I really am, when it gets down to it, nothing but a Sunday only christian.

The book is a great read, although it will be an eye opener for most.

Psalm 18:3
The God, the one who arms me with strength
He has made my way complete (blameless)

I would rather this poetic line be broken
Separate, each stands well
Together portends life's stuggles

God as the source of strength, guarantees victory
But then there's Jeremiah, Jesus, and Paul
God enabled, provided victory
but at what cost

To walk blameless is to walk God's path
wherever, whenever, however--few do

Neal Bascomb holds his reader's attention as well as Louis L'Amour, but with a subject out of history not fiction. Set in 1905 on the Black Sea, for eleven days sailors in the Russian navy held the world's attention, as they hijacked the fleet's fintest, the battleship Potemkin. The Romanov tsar, Nicholas II, lay trapped in a heritage that doomed Russia to failure that real movement toward shared power would have avoided.

The leader of the revolt, Afanasy Metyushenko, a tragic figure concerned only for the oppressed, led a successful takeover of the ship, even encouraged another to temporarily join the "revolution," but in the long run failed, as the inspiration he conceived failed to significantly impact. I would liken Metyushenko to a secular, if one may use that term, Bonheoffer, so passioned was he for the revolt that he returned to Russia unable to live the expatriate life--of Vladimir Lenin and others, ending his journey suspended from a hangman's noose.

So how about some comparative analysis. When will the proletariat of USA fundamental Christianity revolt from the dominate authority of their aristocratic "pastors" and bourgeoisie adult sunday school teachers, who control via "doctrine" a culture of Christian pacifism that hardly engages the lost society in which it lives. Perhaps this deliberately overstated opinion reacts to a layer of "professional Christianity" that has turned God's revelation into an idolatrous religion, but action always speaks louder than words.

A difficult word to handle, that "blameless."
Here's a range of possibilities: be complete, innocent, blameless, perfect, honesty, loyalty.
But on to some thoughts on God's way.
What is the way of God?
Where goes the path that God treads?
Is it unmistakable?
Is it so clearly signed that decisions may be without consideration?
Or has it twists and steep grades?
Is it Frost's path less traveled?

Does his highway sometime appear a lonely, dark road
with missing or ambiguous signs?
David equates God's way with that "blameless"
He does not say that it is easy, safe, or without detours
But then he does say it is God's
And that is enough
Want to go for a ride?

I, Jeremiah, have seen G-d
he has abused me
I am so angry, I must be a sinner
I am a sinner
how am I supposed to act?
how would Jesus handle the situation?
how much of my irrationality is caused by my mistakes?
ok, so let's get on with life
how do I handle what's going on?
what I am supposed to do?
be what a christian should be,
do what a christian should do

I, Jermiah, have seen G-d

(psalm 18, a thanksgiving psalm)

He brought me forth also into a broad place; He rescued me, because He delighted in me (v19).

As asked, God rescued David

But what follows challenges the pious, Calvinistic--totally depraved christian

The LORD has rewarded me according to my righteousness; According to the cleanness of my hands He has recompensed me.
For I have kept the ways of the LORD, And have not wickedly departed from my God.
For all His ordinances were before me, And I did not put away His statutes from me.
I was also blameless with Him, And I kept myself from my iniquity.
Therefore the LORD has recompensed me according to my righteousness, According to the cleanness of my hands in His eyes.

Boldly David approaches his saving, delivering God in thanksgiving for work rendered
But just read those words: You, yhwh, did it because I "earned" it!

I guess that's one way to misread this text, and perhaps the initial response of many christians
but then how often have I taught that God blesses obedience,
here David obeyed, God blessed, David thanked rehearsing the prior situation
Gerstenberger calls David's response a declaration on integrity
why is such so foreign to the interpretation of the NT taught and preached?
Should I question that basic OT premise: obedience>blessing?
And if it's true, may I not so claim, or better hold God to his promise?
David did, but I say arrogance! Why?
Something here does not resonate
If behavior counts, and many would deny that it does, and I behave
can I not thank God working with me, just as I would if he worked in spite of me?
For now, I will hold onto David, but question the understanding of the OT taught

Philip says to Nathanael, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph" (John 1:45 ).
GSJr says, "Don't read Jesus back into the OT, but watch him coming out of it."
I guess only one of us is correct?
I would rather say we both are.
Like many, I can read; but then unlike many, I am a simple reader: what do the words say?, what do the words mean? The word "Jesus" does not occur in Moses, nor does any implied reference to the same. As for the prophets, messiah, yes, son of God, likewise, but both of these titles were given to any king sitting on the throne. Suffering servant? Never even closely identified. A mystery to Isaiah as much as to his audience.
But then what of Genesis 3:15, surely Moses "wrote" of the coming Messiah who would bruise Satan's head. That's my problem, I thought we were talking about reading Moses not the Gospels. Anyone who "sees" Jesus in Genesis doesn't read the words as written.
I would ask those who see Jesus, to what was Jesus himself referring when using the phrase the "mysteries of the kingdom of God"? If Moses and the prophets knew Jesus, what's so mysterious about him? Paul concurs with Jesus, "the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past." To use a baseball metaphor, God threw his people a slider: it looked like a fastball but at the end it swerved. Now I know that many Pharisees and other leaders were spiritually blinded so that they could not recognize their own messiah, but then when he returns everyone will know him. So what's the difference, much of course, but part of the answer has to be that the 1st century Jewish community was not expecting their messiah, the son of God, to show up how he did. I wonder why? Most likely because the messiah described in their sacred texts, was not the one standing in front of them. At least according to their interpretation.
So to end this, what was Philip saying? Not that Moses and the prophets wrote about Jesus, but that the story presented had an ending, and Jesus fit exactly. Now not having all the puzzle pieces, this perfect fit could only be seen clearly from hindsight not foresight.
Makes sense to me, but then I am only a simple reader of words not a theologian.

And just what is a theophany? (god appears)
Did God appear to David?
Did God fight the actual battle later described (37-42)?
When David saw his soldiers vanquishing Philistines,
did he likewise "see" God coming down from the heavens to do the same?
Or was David so in tune with God that one was the result of the other?

I have never experienced a theophany, should I?
Am I just so out of touch with my savior,
that I never "see" him defending his own?
Or am I as blind as those Pharisees who claimed to see?

Even in this revelation, God holds back
The psalmist saw surrounding manifestations, but not God
He hid behind the dark

Drawing "out of many waters" suggests to many Moses from the Nile
But for Gunkel, the primodial chaos waters appear
Theophanies, sea monsters, divine victories,
how little we engage God in his world
and how much we leave him out of ours!

Grayling provides a biographically focused look at Descartes (1596-1650), who as much as anyone, introduced modernity to a dying medieval world hanging onto its classical roots. Somewhat surprisingly Descartes (dakart) remained a Jesuit, who attempted to have his natural history and philosophical works used as text books in Jesuit schools.
I was impressed with the similarity between the scholarly community's (read church's) reluctance to adopt his thought and the same body's animosity toward post-modern thought today. In a letter Descartes describes why his theories were rejected: (1) they opposed traditional philosophy, (2) it turns the young away from traditional thinking and the technical vocabulary commonly used in arguments and lectures, and (3) new opinions result which conflict with orthodox theology (pp. 182-83).
Wow! Haven't I heard those same arguments applied to the church's place today. As then, so now: tradition rules. I find myself sitting in the audience listening to Descartes debate the theologians of his day: yes, God is sovereign, but that does not mean that the biblical text waxes control over all aspects of science. For them the issue was helio- versus geocentricity. Descartes was a man of faith, we, I am sorry to say, claim to be but evidence demonstrates that we live by sight: doesn't the need to prove the miracles of the bible, somewhat negate their miraculousness?
An interesting read for a somewhat similar time. History in the eyes of Qohelet ever repeats. What a waste!