Let us not love in word, but in deed

"But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him." (I John 3:17-19 ESV)

"And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."  (II Peter 1:5-8 ESV)

Leithart and The Tree of Life (film)

Only three chapters into Peter Leithart's latest theologically sophisticated work, Shining Glory: Theological Reflections on Terrence Malick's Tree of Life, and I couldn't resist posting something from the book. For those who have not seen Malick's film, The Tree of Life, it is available for purchase here, or for those who like renting movies before buying, a 24-hour rental can be found here. 

This particular comment caught my eye early on in the book:

Juxtaposition of scenes, and the layered overlap of scenes and dialogue are crucial techniques for Malick. Early in the film, as Mrs. O'Brien completes her opening meditation on nature and grace, she says "The nuns taught us that no one who lives in the way of grace comes to a bad end." At that moment, the camera closes in on R.L., whose early death appears to be a standing contradiction to the nuns' simple message. In a charming moment early in the second half, we see toddler Jack being led by a mysterious female figure through a forest. Then he is in an underwater bedroom, his teddy bear floating nearby and his crib rising and beginning to overturn. He swims through the door and Malick cuts to Mrs. O'Brien in the final stages of labor. The underwater bedroom is the womb, the swim out of the door is Jack's birth. This juxtaposition sets up visual allusions later on. When Jack is a young teen, a boy drowns in the local swimming pool, and it is as if Jack has passed through a second birth into questioning adulthood. Near the end of the film Mrs. O'Brien swims out a door into a new life. What was initially a figure of birth finally becomes a figure of new birth, resurrection.1 

Commenting a few pages later on Terrence Malick's "thematic breadth and exploitation of the aesthetic capacities of the film," Leithart concludes:

I have watched Malick's earlier films with appreciation, occasionally with awe, but none comes close to the majesty, beauty, and challenge of the Tree of Life. ...All the life of everything is here--creation and consummation, birth and death, laughter and tears, success and failure and the failures embedded within success, male and female, sin and shame, trees and water and sky and sun, distant galaxies and the neighbor's lawn. One of the purposes of art is to enhance our attention to the world around us, and by this standard Malick's film is art of the highest order.2

1.  Peter J. Leithart, Shining Glory: Theological Reflections on Terrence Malick's Tree of Life [Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2013], p. 6

2.  Ibid. pp. 8-9

Miserable Comforters, Infinite Fullness

We can see in affliction that the world is not what it seems, not what it promises, and not what we expected and flattered ourselves with. Whatever a man makes his riches, whether friend, wealth, or earthly interests, they cannot deliver out of the hands of death and judgment (Prov. 11:4). The soul finds by experience the unsuitableness and dissatisfaction in all these things. There is no comparison between an invisible soul and visible comforts; an immortal soul and perishing contentments; a spiritual being and an earthly portion. The air we breathe will as soon fill a hungry belly as creature-comforts will satisfy the spirit. In the hour of trial the soul says, 'Miserable comforters you all are, you physicians of no value' (Mark 5:26). Ah, but there is infinite fullness in Jesus Christ. He is suited to all the needs of poor undone sinners. No king was anointed with such power; no prophet with such wisdom; no priest with such grace, for God gave him the Spirit without measure (John 3:34), and of his fullness we receive grace for grace. ...He infinitely transcends all the beauty and glory of the world. He is our King to govern; our Prophet to teach; our Priest to save. 

-- Thomas Case, Select Works, A Treatise of Afflictions 

 

Thinking in terms of "we"

In Acts 2, every day believers met together in the Temple courts, broke bread in one another's homes, and ate together with glad and sincere hearts. Hebrews 3:13 suggests that many years later, Christians were still meeting daily. For this to become a part of our daily living we must develop covenant consciousness; this is a away of thinking that begins with the congregation rather than the individual--that is, thinking in terms of "we" instead of "me". It's in the context of the covenant community that we find rest and restoration.1  

...One of the serious deficits in the broader culture is that people are oblivious to others--it's all about "me." We see this in the way people talk, walk, dress, drive, and so forth. This has seeped into the Church, and, under the guise of "accepting people the way they are," we have allowed them to continue to be the way they are, and thus we contribute to the atrophy of the culture. People come to church, or come late, or fellowship, or serve, or give, or worship, or participate if they feel like it, never considering how this impacts the community. Children have often grown up with this apathy toward others. It is the epitome of immaturity.2 

1.  Randy Booth, The Church-Friendly Family [Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 1012] p. 22

2.  Ibid. pp. 24-5

St. Augustine: Gathering to worship the one supreme and true God

This Heavenly city, while it sojouns on earth, calls citizens out of all nations, and gathers toether a society of pilgrims of all languages, not scrupling about diversities in the manners, laws, and institutions whereby earthly peace is secured and maintained, but recognizing that, however various these are, they all tend to one and the same end of earthly peace. It therefore is so far from resinding and abolishing these diversities, that it even preserves and adapts them, so long only as no hindrance to the worship of the one supreme and true God is thus introduced. 

-- Saint Augustine, The City of God, book 19, paragraph 17

The Poetry of John Calvin

Without the gospel

All of us are useless and empty;

Without the gospel

We are not Christians;

Without the gospel

All wealth is poverty;

Wisdom is foolishness before God,

Strength is weakness,

All human justice is condemned of God.

But by the knowledge of the gospel,

We are made children of God,

Brothers of Jesus Christ,

Fellow citizens of the saints,

Citizens of the kingdom of heaven,

Heirs of God with Jesus Christ,

By whom the poor become rich,

the weak powerful,

the fools wise,

the sinners justified,

the desolate comforted,

the doubting certain,

the slaves set free.1

1.  John Calvin, Originally from the preface to Pierre Robert's French Translation of the New Testament, Neuchatel, June 4th, 1535. Cited in Ford Lewis Battles, The Piety of John Calvin: A Collection Of His Spiritual Prose, Poems, and Hymns [Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009], p. 206

The Obedience of Faith

"What is special about Paul's work is that Gentiles, through faith in Jesus and the reception of the Spirit, are changed from disobedient Gentiles into obedient nations."1

1.  Jakob Van Bruggen, Paul: Pioneer for Israel's Messiah [Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2005], p. 204 

Shall we be nothing for him?

  We may say, "Lord, condemnation was yours, that justification might be mine; agony was yours, and victory mine; pain was yours, and ease is mine; stripes were yours, and healing mine; vinegar and gall were yours, that honey and sweet might be mine; the curse was yours, and the blessing mine; a crown of thorns was yours, that the crown of glory might be mine; death was yours, and eternal life mine!"

  ...He left the highest enjoyments in his Father's bosom, to set himself apart for death and suffering for you. Are you ready to leave the bosom of the best and sweetest enjoyments you have in this world to serve him? He did not refuse the worst and hardest part of service for you, even bleeding, groaning, and dying. O Happy souls that are so engaged for Christ! Was he all for us, and shall we be nothing for him?

-- John Flavel, Works, 1:101 

For Pentecost: Michael speaks the gospel to Adam

His death for man, as many as offered life

Neglect not, and the benefit embrace

By faith not void of works: This God-like act

Annuls thy doom, the death thou shouldest have died,

In sin for ever lost from life; this act

Shall bruise his head of Satan, crush his strength,

Defeating Sin and Death, his two main arms;

And fix far deeper in his head their stings

Than temporal death shall bruise the victor's heel,

Or theirs whom he redeems; a death, like sleep, 

A gentle wafting to immortal life.

Nor after resurrection shall he stay

Longer on earth, than certain times to appear

To his disciples, men who in this life

Still followed him; to them shall leave in charge

To teach all nations what of him they learned

And his salvation; them who shall believe

Baptizing in the profluent stream, the sign

Of washing them from guilt of sin to life

Pure, and in mind prepared, if so befall,

For death, like that which the Redeemer died.

All nations they shall teach; for, from that day, 

Not only to the sons of Abraham's loins

Salvation shall be preached, but to the sons

Of Abraham's faith wherever through the world;

So in his seed all nations shall be blest.

Then to Heaven of Heavens he shall ascend

With victory, triumphing through the air

Over his foes and thine; there shall surprise

The Serpent, prince of air, and drag in chains

Through all his realm, and there confounded leave;

Then enter into glory, and resume

His seat at God's right hand, exalted high

Above all names in Heaven; and thence shall come,

When this world's dissolution shall be ripe, 

With glory and power to judge both quick and dead;

To judge the unfaithful dead, but to reward

His faithful, and receive them into bliss,

Whether in Heaven or Earth; for then the Earth

Shall all be Paradise, far happier place

Than this of Eden, and far happier days.

-- Paradise Lost, Book 12

If only they had Tic Tacs back then

Martin Luther began one of his sermons on 1 Peter 1:15-16 with an illustration of St. Bernard of Clairvaux. I couldn't resist sharing his wisdom in this matter:

Saint Bernard...denied his body so much that his breath stank and he could not associate with people. Later, however, he came to his senses... He realized that he had made himself unable to serve his brothers. ...St. Peter [also] demands no more than that we be sober, that is, that we stint the body as long as we feel that it is still too lascivious. He does not prescribe any definite length of time for fasting as the pope has done; but he leaves it to everyone's discretion to fast in such a way that he always remains sober and does not burden the body with gluttony. He must remain reasonable and sensible, and he must see to what extent it is necessary for him to mortify the body. It does no good at all to impose a command about this on a whole crowd or community, since we are so different from one another.1

1.  Martin Luther, Christian Freedom: Faith working through love [St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2011] p. 98 

 

Martin Luther and his naiveté

Many protestants will be surprised to learn that Martin Luther, who is most famous for jump-starting the "Great Protestant Reformation" by nailing his Ninety-five Theses to the church door in Wittenberg, Saxony, was convinced that the Pope (at that time, Leo X1) was morally innocent in the following threat of excommunication against him. Instead, Luther honestly thought that the Roman Curia2 was the real problem. 

The Chronology of these events is actually quite simple, but they're important for grasping the significance of Luther's responsive letter to Pope Leo's threat. In 1517 Luther posted his "Ninety-five Theses" (or so they're called3). The next year, 1518, Pope Leo X ordered the Augustinians to control Luther and his teaching. Two years after that, on June 12th, 1520, Leo issued his papal bull Exsurge Domine ("Rise up, O Lord"), threatening Luther with excommunication from the Church, which Luther received in October. Under the threat of excommunication, Luther heeded some council of the Augustinians, who wanted Luther to write a letter to Leo explaining that he never intended to attack him personally. Below is a series of excerpts from his letter to Pope Leo X:

   In the midst of the monsters of the present time, with whom the affair and controversy surrounding me has now entered its third year, I am compelled from time to time to look also to you and be mindful of you, most blessed father Leo. 

   ...As far as I am aware, whenever it has been necessary to mention your person, I have said nothing but the best and most splendid things about you. If indeed I had done otherwise, I myself could by no means have approved it and would have supported wholeheartedly the judgment of those men concerning me. Nothing would have been more pleasing than to recant such rashness and godlessness on my part. I have called you Daniel in Babylon, and every reader knows quite well with what exceptional zeal I defended your well-known innocence against your slanderer Sylvester.

   ...Wherefore, most excellent Leo, I beg of you to allow that by this letter I have been cleared of all charges, and to persuade yourself that I have never thought any evil concerning your person; furthermore, that I am such a one as to wish the best things to befall you for eternity, and that I have no dispute with any man concerning morals, but only concerning the Word of truth. In all other things, I will yield to anyone, but I am neither able nor willing to forsake and deny the Word. He who thinks otherwise of me, or has imbibed my words in another sense, does not think rightly, and has not imbibed the truth.

   Your See, however, I have of course denounced the institution that is called the Roman Curia. Neither you nor any man can deny it to be more corrupt than any Babylon or Sodom. As far as I can tell, it has that kind of deplorable, desperate, and lamentable unrighteousness. I have been filled with indignation that the people of Christ should be deceived under your name and the pretext of the Roman Church, and so I have resisted, and will resist, as long as the spirit of faith lives within me. Not that I am striving after impossibilities, or hoping that any good can be accomplished in that most disorderly Babylon by my work alone, with the fury of so many flatterers standing against me; rather, that I recognize myself to be a debtor to my Roman brethren. In their interest, it is necessary for me to consider in what way fewer of them may be ruined, or how they may be less ruined, by the Roman plagues. For nothing else from Rome has flooded the world for many years now---of which you yourself are not ignorant---than the laying waste of goods, of bodies, of souls, and the worst examples of all the worst things. For these things are clearer than light to everyone. From the Roman Church---at one time the most holy church of all---there has been fashioned the most lawless den of thieves, the most shameless brothel of all, a kingdom of sin, death, and hell, so that not even Antichrist, if he should come, would be able to think of anything to add to its wickedness. 

   Meanwhile you, Leo, are sitting like a lamb in the midst of wolves, like Daniel in the midst of lions. You dwell with Ezekiel among scorpions. What can you alone do against these monsters? ...Is it not true that there is nothing under the vast heavens more corrupt, more pestilential, more hateful, than the Roman Curia? For she incomparably surpasses the impiety of the Turks. So, in actuality, she who was once the gate of heaven is now lying open as a sort of mouth of hell. She is such a mouth as cannot be blocked up. Due to the pressing wrath of God, one course alone is left to us pitiable men: to call back and save some few, if we can, from that Roman abyss, as I have called it. 

   Behold, Leo my father, with what intent, with what cause I have raged against that seat of pestilence. I am far from having raged against your person. I even hoped that I would win favor and establish your safety, if I were to strike energetically and sharply at that prison of yours, or rather at your hell. For whatever assault contrived by any gifted men that can be mounted against the confusion of this godless Curia will be beneficial to you and to your safety, and to many others with you. They do their duty to you who do harm to her. They glorify Christ who in every way curse her. In short, they are Christians who are not Romans.4 

1.  Giovanni de' Medici of the famous Florentine Medicis
2.  The Roman Curia was the council of cardinals and officials upon whom the Pope depended for making plans and implementing decisions for the bishops, abbots, parish priests and laity.
3.  The real name of the "Ninety-five Theses" was Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences
4.  Martin Luther, Christian Freedom: Faith Working Through Love [St Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2011] selections from pp. 27-32

America's Nihilism

I recently started reading Os Guinness' new book, A Free People's Suicide: Sustainable Freedom and the American Future, and so far it is outstanding. Below are some clips from the first chapter which caught my eye:

"...freedom always faces a fundamental moral challenge. Freedom requires order and therefore restraint, yet the only restraint that does not contradict freedom is self-restraint, which is the very thing that freedom undermines when it flourishes. Thus the heart of the problem of freedom is the problem of the heart, because free societies are characterized by restlessness at their core."1 

"America's nihilism of untrammeled freedom has so far been a soft and banal nihilism that flowers and fades harmlessly within the confines of the consumer paradise of the shopping mall, the online catalog, and the video game. ... no one is fully consistent to his or her own philosophy, and there is always a long stretch of the downhill slope from the adolescent stage of soft nihilism to the delinquent and then to the decadent. But such ideas in such a society will always have consequences, and when the causes of disordered freedom also spread to such vital spheres of American society as the government, the economy, law, education, medicine, science and technology, the consequences will at some point become lethal and unstoppable. The gap between the lightning and the thunder may be delayed, but such disordered freedom will one day prove disastrous when taken to the very end. It is literally irrational and irresponsible, for untrammeled freedom has no need to justify itself either by rational criteria or by any moral standard outside itself. It just is, an untrammeled will to power that is self-evident, self-justifying and self-destructive, and a mortal menace to the society that harbors it. The conclusion for American freedom is inescapable. It is not enough to espouse freedom as the essence of America and to keep mouthing its matchless benefits. Freedom must be guarded vigilantly against internal as well as external dangers. However soft and however banal it is, unbounded freedom simply cannot restrain itself by itself..."2

1.  Os Guinness, A Free People's Suicide: Sustainable Freedom and the American Future [Downers Grove, Il: IVP Books; 2012], p. 20
2.  Ibid., p. 23

Fathers, may I have your attention?

Fathers, may I have your attention?  

Now that I have your attention, you need to know that there is a book you need to get. The book is called Father Hunger, and it's author is Douglas Wilson. Get this book in paperback, e-book, or Mp3 audiobook, but make sure you get it somehow. Then after you get it, read it multiple times. Take it with you wherever you go for the first few weeks and read a portion of it at every break until it's text is tattooed in your mind. "What's the urgency?," you might be asking. Well, if you're a father, and you have not already read this book, you wouldn't be asking that question. And so, just to tease you a bit, read and re-read an excerpt from that book which I have provided below. Afterward, get this book. The excerpt below is under the heading, "Loving the Standard":

    If you cannot get the kids to love the standard, then lower the standard. I am not talking about God's commandments (His standards), which we have no authority to lower, but rather addressing the questions that surround what might be called house rules. Lower the standard to the point where everyone in the family can pitch in together. This is not actually lowering the standards, but rather raising the parental standard, which is the real reason we don't like it. Fathers must embrace the task of communicating, in a contagious way, love for the standard. 

    Some parents might protest that this is impossible. But what does this example teach the young people in the home?  It teaches them that nobody around here has to do "impossible" things, and since the requirement to make your bed, or to comb your hair, or to stop texting so much, are all clearly impossible, then they don't have to be done. If you want your children to be obedient, then show them how. Giving up when it seems "impossible" is not showing them how it is done. Apart from a context of love and loyalty, fatherly discipline is just clobbering a kid. And since clobbering a kid is not what God said to do, the child is learning the fundamental lesson that, in this house, we don't have to do what God says to do. Instead, we learn to be sneaky enough to not get clobbered. 

    Each member of the family is supposed to understand that the whole family is a unit. All the members are on the same team. If a family has drifted into an adversarial set of roles, then the parents have to do something to stop the game or maybe change the rules. They have to do something that works. Let us suppose the whole family is flunking high school calculus. Wouldn't it be far better to all go back to sixth grade and pass that grade together? We have to remember that the standard set in the above passages from Proverbs1 is not an impossible standard. That was not written for angels in heaven. It was written for us. These things are set before us now. There will be more on loving the standard in a subsequent chapter. 

    The hardest thing to maintain in this unbalanced world is balance. We react, we pull away, we lurch, and we tumble. We do this in many ways. And, having heard the exhortation that we should teach our children to love the standard, but if they don't then we should lower the standard, what temptation will confront us? The temptation will be to think that laziness and apathy are grace, and that defensiveness when confronted is zeal for the law of God. But loving God with all your mind, soul, heart, and strength is a love with balance. 

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "Honor your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with a promise), "that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land." Fathers, do no provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (Eph. 6:1-4)

    Here are some of the basics of Christian living within the family. We begin with the duty of obedience. When children are young and living at home, honor entails obedience, necessarily. When children are grown and out on their own, the duty of honor remains, but it is rendered differently (Mark 7:10-13). This is obedience rendered by children in the Lord. The word for obedience could be rendered literally as "listen under" -- or, as we might put it, "listen up." This attentiveness to what parents say is described here by Paul as a form of honor, and he goes on to describe how much of a blessing it will be to the children who are taught by their parents how to behave in this way. This commandment, to honor parents, is the first commandment with a promise. The promise from God Himself is that things will go well for you throughout your long life on the earth (Eph. 6:3). And then fathers are presented with an alternative -- one thing is prohibited and another is enjoined. Fathers are told not to exasperate their children to the point of wrath or anger, and instead are told to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Note that they are not told to provoke their children to anger with the nurture and admonition of the Lord -- one excludes the other. 

    One of the things fathers can stop doing (that provokes children) is to stop experimenting on them. In construction work, one of the good things about a concrete pour is that, no matter what, a couple hours later, you're all done. This is also one of the really bad things about it. You don't want to start out with a long foundation wall and wind up with a patio. Kids are a concrete pour. The time they will spend in your home goes by a lot faster than you initially thought it would. Fathers are tasked with the responsibility of bringing them up in the Lord, which means that fathers are tasked with the responsibility of working in harmony with the nature of the child. It is, of course, debated what that nature is actually like, and so how are parents to deal with this?

    Too many Christian parents are like that old joke about the Harvard man. "You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can't tell him much." Because we have successfully established the principle that parents have true authority in the home, many foolish parents have concluded that this means that anything they may happen to think about child rearing, or education, or nutrition, or training, or courtship standards, is therefore automatically blessed by God. But fathers are told not to provoke their children, because in this fallen world, this is a very easy thing to do. This is a very easy thing for Christian fathers to do. If it had not been an easy temptation for Ephesian fathers, Paul could have saved his advice for the occasional dad who really needed it. Paul does not make the mistake of thinking that authority makes folly impossible -- he cautions against authoritative folly.

    The hallmark of whether or not a father is experimenting on his kids, as opposed to bringing them up in obedience, is how open he is to the idea of someone else actually measuring what he is doing. How open is he to true accountability?  "Not that we dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those who are commending themselves. But when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding" (2 Cor. 10:12). Note that phrase "without understanding." How can you tell if parents have undertaken their solemn responsibilities as parents with a demeanor of humble confidence? "Let a righteous man strike me -- it is a kindness; let him rebuke me -- it is oil for my head; let my head not refuse it" (Ps. 141:5). The question can be easily answered. How open is he to outside accountability? If he wants his children to have high levels of accountability, while he himself has virtually none, then this is the way to a bad family disaster.

    The Christian faith is a road, sure enough. But it is also a way. This means that how we walk is as important as where we walk.  If someone has questions about what a man is doing, it does not answer the concern to point at the road. It does not answer to bring out various books and websites that argue for this particular kind of asphalt. That's as may be, but there is something else going on. How does a father conjugate the verb firm? Does he say, I am firm, you are stubborn, he is pig-headed? If he does this easily, then he has wandered from the way, whatever road he is on.2

1. A few pages earlier, he referenced Proverbs 1:8-9, 3:1-4, 21-22, and 6:20-22.
2.  Douglas Wilson, Father Hunger: Why God Calls Men To Love And Lead Their Families [Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson 2012] pp. 168-172

John meets Mr. Enlightenment

It was another late night with only a little sleep. It was also another night of random book selections from my library. Last night's pick: The Pilgrim's Regress, by C. S. Lewis.  Below is an excerpt which I just had to share because it describes in vivid details the honest curiosity and skepticism of a young Christian man in the face of rationalism and the autonomous wisdom of the world.

The story below is about a young man named John from the land of Puritania who meets a man named Mr. Enlightenment for the first time; and as they both travel down a road together in a horse buggy, John encounters the intriguing perspectives of an "enlightened" life for the first time:

"And where might you come from, my fine lad?" said Mr. Enlightenment.

    "From Puritania, sir," said John.

"A good place to leave, eh?"

    "I am so glad you think that," cried John. "I was afraid ---"

"I hope I am a man of the world," said Mr. Enlightenment. "Any young fellow who is anxious to better himself may depend on finding sympathy and support in me.  Puritania! Why, I suppose you have been brought up to be afraid of the Landlord."1

    "Well, I must admit I sometimes do feel rather nervous."

"You may make your mind easy, my boy. There is no such person."

    "There is no Landlord?"

"There is absolutely no such thing -- I might even say no such entity -- in existence. There never has been and never will be."

    "And is this absolutely certain?" cried John; for a great hope was rising in his heart.

"Absolutely certain. Look at me, young man. I ask you -- do I look as if I was easily taken in?"

    "Oh, no," said John hastily. "I was just wondering, though.  I mean -- how did they all come to think there was such a person?"

"The Landlord is an invention of those Stewards.2 All made up to keep the rest of us under their thumb: and of course the Stewards are hand in glove with the police. They are the shrewd lot, those Stewards. They know which side their bread is buttered on, all right. Clever fellows. Damn me, I can't help admiring them."

    "But do you mean that the Stewards don't believe it themselves?"

"I dare say they do. It is just the sort of cock and bull story they would believe. They are simple old souls most of them -- just like children. They have no knowledge of modern science and they would believe anything they were told."

John was silent for a few minutes. Then he began again:

    "But how do you know there is no Landlord?"

"Christopher Columbus, Galileo, the earth is round, invention of printing, gunpowder! !" exclaimed Mr. Enlightenment in such a loud voice that the pony shied.

    "I beg your pardon," said John.

"Eh?' said Mr. Enlightenment.

    "I didn't quite understand," said John.

"Why, it's as plain as a pikestaff," said the other. "Your people in Puritania believe in the Landlord because they have not had the benefits of a scientific training.  For example, I dare say it would be news to you to hear that the earth was round -- round as an orange, my lad!"

    "Well, I don't know that it would," said John, feeling a little disappointed.  "My father always said it was round."

"No, no, my dear boy," said Mr. Enlightenment, "you must have misunderstood him. It is well known that everyone in Puritania thinks the earth is flat. It is not likely that I should be mistaken on such a point. Indeed, it is out of the question. Then again, there is the paleontological evidence."

    "What's that?"

"Why, they tell you in Puritania that the Landlord made all these roads. But that is quite impossible for old people can remember the time when the roads were not nearly so good as they are now. And what is more, scientists have found all over the country the traces of old roads running in quite different directions. The inference is obvious."

John said nothing.

"I said," repeated Mr. Enlightenment, "that the inference was obvious."

    "Oh, yes, yes, of course," said John hastily, turning a little red.

"Then, again, there is anthropology."

    "I'm afraid I don't know --"

"Bless me, of course you don't. They don't mean you to know. An anthropologist is a man who goes round your backyard villages in these parts, collecting the odd stories that the country people tell about the Landlord. Why, there is one village where they think he has a trunk like an elephant. Now anyone can see that that couldn't be true."

    "It is very unlikely."

"And what is better still, we know how the villagers came to think so. It all began by an elephant escaping from the local zoo; and then some old villager -- he was probably drunk -- saw it wandering about on the mountain one night, and so the story grew up that the Landlord had a trunk."

    "Did they catch the elephant again?"

"Did who?"

    "The anthropologists."

"Oh, my dear boy, you are misunderstanding. This happened long before there were anthropologists."

    "Then how do they know?"

"Well, as to that . . . I see that you have a very crude notion of how science actually works. To put it simply -- for, of course, you could not understand the technical explanation -- to put it simply, they know that the escaped elephant must have been the source of the trunk story because they know that an escaped snake must have been the source of the snake story in the next village -- and so on. This is called the inductive method. Hypothesis, my dear young friend, establishes itself by a cumulative process: or, to use popular language, if you make the same guess often enough it ceases to be a guess and becomes a Scientific Fact.

After he had thought for a while, John said:
    "I think I see.  Most of the stories about the Landlord are probably untrue; therefore the rest are probably untrue."

"Well, that is as near as a beginner can get to it, perhaps. But when you have had a scientific training you will find that you can be quite certain about all sorts of things which now seem to you only probable."3

1.  The "Landlord" is the owner of the entire country in which all the characters of the story live.
2.  "Stewards" are people delegated by the Landlord to make rules and uphold moral standards for the entire country.
3.  C. S. Lewis, The Pilgrim's Regress [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co: Grand Rapids, MI; 1992] pp. 20-22

Christ's Body: Broken or Given? Part I

I recently shared in a discussion with a faithful Christian brother about Paul's words in I Corinthians 11. In I Cor. 11:23-26, the English Standard Version (ESV) records these words:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for [footnote] you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

The "footnote" which I added in brackets is important because it states that "some manuscripts" contain the words "broken for". I will discuss more about the importance of this footnote in part 2 of this series of posts.

Let's now compare the ESV with the New King James Version (NKJV). The words are recorded as follows:

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till he comes.

Which is it? Did Jesus say "This is my body for you" or did he say "Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you"?

In Luke's gospel, the Word of Jesus are also different from what Paul records concerning the institution of the Lord's Supper (but they read the same between the NKJV and ESV). Luke 22:19-20 (ESV) records Jesus' words as follows:

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

So now, from the historical perspective of English translations, we have three possible statements of Jesus: First, he said "this is my body for you" with no reference to his body being "broken" or "given"; second, he did indeed say "broken for you", not "given"; and third, he did indeed say "given for you", not "broken".

• Which one is it?
• Which of the two translations contains the "better" reading?
• Why are there three different options from which to choose?
• Why did the ESV translators choose a different reading than the NKJV?

Some important answers to these questions will be discussed in Part II.

Incarnation & Sacrament

This book looks really good. 

For further information on what this book is about, download or stream the MP3 audio interview with author Jonathan Bonomo and Pastor Uri Brito of Providence Church, Pensacola Fl. 

How well do you know the Gospels?

About two years ago, I had the privilege of teaching the book of Hebrews to a fine group of Christians from the Milwaukee area, but after that study was complete, we needed to start something new. At that time I wasn't sure what book to teach next, particularly because I still had much to learn about the people in our small group. I wasn't quite sure which other books of the Bible were too theologically "heavy" for the group. I definitely wanted to offer something less heavy than Hebrews. And so my wife came up with the great idea of having a Bible trivia night to mellow things out a bit and provide room for discussing what book of the Bible we all wanted to study next. And as an extra bonus, the winner of the Bible trivia would get a prize! (The gift was a card to Half-price Books, the perfect gift idea for our small group because we all like to read books. And that was the idea of our great friend, Jenny Provost. Thank you Jenny!)

A bunch of people were interested in studying the gospels, and so I decided to narrow our trivia & discussion to the Gospels, and other general information relating to them. It was a very fun night, a night which I'll never forget, because I got to learn the perspectives of each and every person in our small group and just how much they learned (and didn't learn) from their Pastors or teachers in Sunday School.

Below are the 40 trivia questions I asked that night. (Fun fact: 40 is a biblical number for "testing".)

How well do you know the gospels? 

The person with the most correct answers wins.

1. Which of the following is not a synoptic gospel: Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John?
2. How many "gospel" books are there and who wrote the longest one?
3. How many books of the New Testament were written by Gentile (non-Jewish) authors?
4. Which gospel emphasizes Christ as a "king" the most, both in it's frequent use of that word, and in its literary structure?
5. Which gospel frequently says that the words or actions of Jesus have taken place "to fulfill" the Scriptures?
6. In which gospel does Jesus speak of "the days of vengeance"; and what city was Jesus preaching in when he spoke of those soon-coming "days"?
7. Which author of the gospel mentions the last words of Jesus on the cross as saying, "It is finished."?
8. Which gospel focuses the geographical scope of Jesus's life and ministry within Jerusalem?
9. Which gospel does not mention the institution of the Lord's supper (i.e. "This is my body," "take, eat,...", "This is my blood of the covenant...", etc...)?
10. Which gospel does not mention Jesus' Olivet Discourse?
11. Which synoptic gospel does not mention the Lord's Prayer at all?
12. Which gospel frequently emphasizes the "knowledge" of God and the way in which his readers "know" that Jesus' words are true?
13. What is the only gospel that does not mention the veil of the temple being "torn apart" during the crucifixion of Jesus?
14. What is the only gospel that mentions the graves of dead people opening and many dead bodies rising out of their graves?
15. Which synoptic gospel contains more references and illustrations of the Holy Spirit's work than the other two synoptic gospels combined?
16. What is the only gospel that records the words of the thief who was crucified with Christ?
17. In which gospel are "the times of the Gentiles" mentioned by Jesus?
18. When did "the times of the Gentiles" begin in history (i.e. what era of biblical history)?
19. In which gospel do we find four, and only four, consecutive beatitudes?
20. Which of the synoptic gospels gives us no information about Jesus' birth or his early childhood?
21. Which author mentions Peter in his gospel more than any other disciple?
22. Which author wrote his gospel with what scholars consider to be "elegant" and "proper" Greek?
23. Which author wrote his gospel in the most grammatically poor and "common" style of Greek?
24. Which author incorporates both Aramaic and Latin phrases in his (Greek) gospel?
25. Which author incorporates the most Semitic (Hebrew/Aramaic) styles and phrases in his (Greek) gospel?
26. Which gospel-author had the surname of Levi?
27. Which gospel-author was the nephew of Barnabas?
28. Which gospel is structured around five main discourses (i.e. topical speeches)?
29. What is the repeated phrase that author (just mentioned) uses to indicate that his gospel is structured around five main discourses?
30. Which gospel author emphasizes the "power" and actions of Jesus rather than his discourses (i.e. which author shows Jesus doing a lot of things, instead of saying a lot of things)?
31. Which gospel mentions the "Kingdom of Heaven" the most (instead of "Kingdom of God")?
32. What are the first words of Jesus recorded in the gospels?
33. What is the first miracle of Jesus recorded in the gospels?
34. What is the second miracle of Jesus recorded in the gospels?
35. Which gospel contains the most quotations from the Old Testament (i.e. Genesis through Malachi)?
36. Which gospel was written first, and why?
37. Which gospel was written last, and why?
38. To whom was John's gospel written: Palestinian Jews, Hellenistic Jews of the Dispersion, Gentiles, or all of the above?
39. To whom was Matthew's gospel written?
40. To whom was Luke's gospel written?

Thankful for many versions

From time to time I like to look at the variety of Bible translations in my library, and every once in a while, when I pick up a really old English version, I remember how much more thankful I should be to have a variety of modern Bible translations. In order to illustrate what I mean, I have posted a sampling of the exact english type-set used for John chapter one, verses one through five, from five different English Bible versions.

Which version do you prefer to study?

In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word. This was in the bigynnyng at God. Alle thingis weren maad bi hym, and withouten hym was maad no thing, that think that was maad. In hym was lijf, and the lijf was the liyt of men; and the liyt schyneth in derknessis, and derknessis comprehendiden not it.

Joon (1:1-5)

John Wycliffe Version, New Testament, 1388

In the begynnynge was that worde, and that worde was with god; and god was thatt word. The same was in the begynnynge wyth god. All thynges were made by it, and without it, was made noo thinge, that made was. In it was life. And lyfe was the light of men, And the light shyneth in darkens, and darcknes comprehended it not.

The Gospell off Sancte Jhon (1:1-5)

Tyndale Version, New Testament, 1526

1.  In the beginning was the Worde, and the Worde was with God and that Worde was   God.
2.  The fame was in the beginning w God.
3.  All things were made by it, & without it was made nothing that was made.
4.  In it was life, and the life was the light of men.
5.  And the light fhineth in y darkenes, & the darkenes comprehended it not.

The Holy Gospel of Iefus Chrift, according to Iohn  1:1-5

Geneva Version, First Edition, First Printing, 1560

1.  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2.  The same was in the beginning with God.
3.  All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.
4.  In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5.  And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not.

According to John 1:1-5

American Standard Version, 1901

1.  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2.  He was in the beginning with God.
3.  All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4.  In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5.  The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

John 1:1-5

English Standard Version, 2010