Grace // News Critique // Grove City

Alistair Begg's sermon on grace here is very well done, and an important heart-of-the-gospel message for all Christian believers.

Pair it with this message from Doug Wilson on grace having a backbone, leading to sweat.

Carl Trueman and Todd at Mortification of Spin interviewed Megan Basham a bit ago.

 

Grove City's report on recent woke controversies there are now public here.  I found the report transparent and encouraging.  I'm still okay with my kids going there, and a little frustrated with the cancel culture on the right, that shuns teachers or institutions on a hair-trigger.

The Chosen: A Review thus Far

I watched the first two seasons of The Chosen recently online.  Here is a review.

 

 

Breaking from the usual “Jesus Film” mold, The Chosen takes a TV format of seasons and episodes.  It is also not a word-for-word from a Gospel.  I’d call it a mix of historical fiction and “based on actual events.” 

 

Going from the red-letter page to the screen is not easy.  It compounds the book-to-movie transition problem.  The Chosen does a great job of not being a stilted and literal word-for-word, filling out the text on screen, while also not taking liberties that violate the text for our current assumptions about how Jesus would have acted in person.  It puts the Gospel narrative into a modern cinematic format, not a straight-forward rendering, even close to verse by verse.  But at key points it gets close to word for word.

 

There are plenty of editorial additions that seem to fit, but are not at all in text.  But there are also a lot of additions that accurately reflect the history we’ve learned since earlier Jesus films.

 

The soundtrack was done by the Jars of Clay lead, and it is pretty good, though vocalizations and “mic-drop” vibrations are over used.  My biggest concern was using the slow motion, manly music, strut several times, for Jesus and the disciples.  I guess it conveys “going to do important work /slash/ take care of business” to the current generation.  But it came across as hokey.  Some of the humor is also cheesy, but it does convey our familiar sense that the disciples were a bit bumbling and clueless around Jesus.

 

The series is rather sentimental, by which I mean it grabs for your heartstrings at certain moments.  I usually don’t like this, but what redeems it is that those moments are quite significant: a miracle Jesus performs, someone realizes who He really is, or the viewer is reminded of Scripture pointing to His deity, etc.

 

The common objections to such films continue to apply.  Should we be depicting Jesus at all?  If that is okay, what about assuming that Jesus’ appearance and mannerisms, or details of the disciples’ lives, which are creative though informed guesses by the director, are gospel truth?  How do we keep our imagination grounded in the text, if we have a compelling visual image before us now in The Chosen?  Or is it helpful to have an accompanying image, devotionally?  Isn’t that similar

 

They are aiming to produce seven seasons, and only two are out yet.

Watch for free online at thechosen.tv

Who Is My Neighbor? A Review of Kinism

 

Who Is My Neighbor?: An Anthology In Natural Relations by Thomas Achord
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

Unlike most books I review, I only spent an hour with this one. A near-600-page encyclopedic gathering of quotes from Scripture, the Western canon, and scholarship, it calls itself a reference up front. So I read the summaries at the beginning of each section, and sampled the more interesting sources.

I borrowed this from a friend when we began discussing Kinism.

The strength of the book is the huge compilation of various sources.

The huge weakness is that most of the quotations do not support the thesis of the book. To quote the Puritans or Jewish sources on the importance of family and patriotism is a far cry from what the authors argue for in the introduction.

I’d like to lay out and then critique that thesis, from page 41:
Society is inescapably hierarchical, and so our duties are also prioritized, “favoring the near over the far. The implication is that we have obligations to our families, neighbors and countrymen over strangers and foreigners…. This is piety and gratitude.”

On one level, this is just common sense. I’m going to invest more time parenting my kids, than the kids next door. I take more time consuming news concerning my country than Zimbabwe’s, so I can vote and act faithfully where I live.

The problem comes with the flip side – a non sequitur which Scripture does not endorse: to favor those not of your kind is impiety. This turns out to be a call for segregation, though kinists don’t seem to like to use that word. A people’s culture should not be tainted by intermixing, they say, which breeds confusion in personal identity, and a dilution of energy which should be focused on positive, tangible culture building.

Insofar as this is a negative reaction to multi-culturalism, I get it. I recently heard Mark Bauerlein, of First Things, on the Theology Pugcast podcast, define decadence as an inability to distinguish the significant from the insignificant. These days in academia and sitcoms, we treat the history of cross-dressing basketweavers with as much seriousness as the themes of human nature in Macbeth. The neuroticism of George Costanza and trivial pet peeves of Elaine are as important as sleeping with the latest girlfriend. We ought to invest energy in significant, not trivial, things. Go to the opera. Read great literature.

If that’s Kinism, I’m for it. I have no interest in painting Kinism with the white supremacist or racist brush, if that truly isn’t there, without interacting with their self-described ideas. But this book’s thesis in the introduction is: don’t favor the foreigner over your own kin. That may be proverbial wisdom, like the common sense above, but it should not be made a moral absolute on racial or national lines.


Let’s look to Scripture for guidance.

I believe the Kinist standing in Boaz’ field would rebuke him for looking favorably on Ruth, the Moabite.
He would look on with horror as a faithful Israelite of the tribe of Judah, Salmon, married a Canaanite whore from Jericho – Rahab.
He would believe that Ahithophel’s family was sinning to allow the Hittite Uriah to marry a daughter of their clan - Bathsheba.

Yet each of these are mentioned in Jesus’ genealogy. Not as cautionary tales, but as laudable examples to God’s people that we are to “welcome the stranger.” This is a ubiquitous phrase in Deuteronomy, “for you yourselves were sojourners in Egypt.” So it was astonishing to see in print that we should NOT favor the stranger and foreigner.

Now, do we favor them to the impoverishment of our own estate and family or nation? Of course not. American immigration policy is insanely impoverishing us. But Kinism seems to go too far the other way, calling for separation. Ruth should have been sent back to Moab: “let her own kind take care of her.” I believe they would say this, regardless of her assumed spiritual conversion. Even as believers across cultures (it appears to me they assert), we ought to keep distinct tribes and cultures to flourish best.



Another way to come at this problem is to examine Acts 17:26:
“He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings.”

The Kinist emphasizes the second half of this, to the detriment of the first, assuming it means that the times and boundaries of nations are more static and set in stone than the verse intends. The point was more to assert God’s sovereignty over proud Greece, not to give Greece pride in its distinct civilization.

The first half of the verse is an indirect rebuke of the pervasive racial superiority found in Greece and Rome. “Hey, the African, and the ‘barbarian’ in Gaul is one blood with you, by God’s design.”


When the objection is raised that there is no Scripture commanding this, the usual response seems to be to agree, but also say that it is normal and according to nature. But in the examples above, we see that conversion trumps nature. We ought to seek covenantal succession from one natural generation to the next. But there is also the Ethiopian eunuch. Cornelius the Roman. Luke, the Greek doctor. All are welcomed into the church. They don’t continue building their own separate ethnic cultures, while just playing church on Sundays. The church herself is a new polis – a city on a hill. We spend and are spent for her as a family, and even if our family rejects us for it.

Nurture can determine culture-building as much as nature. Uriah chose to fight FOR David and Israel, though a Hittite. Rahab believed and feared the God of Israel. God’s enemies become His friends by redemption. That’s the heart of the gospel.

And this gets very practical. Almost everyone today is of some mixed race. I’m German-Dutch, but most people have even more mixed of an ancestry. This is not a problem, but we should claim and work for some specific nation and heritage. Yet to work for a specific RACE, is not Scripturally warranted, or even allowed. Every believer should say with Ruth, “your God and my God,” and we should go on to say, “your people and my people.” What people? The latter means the church, primarily, but also secondarily a specific family, nation, and culture. If you are part Latino and part white, for example, you are not Scripture-bound to choose the “superior culture” and only “act white.” But you want to make wise choices about where you will put your energy. Invest yourself such that you aren’t just sampling the fun parts from the smorgasbord of cultures you’ve been exposed to. Rather, form a solid identity for yourself and your children. (Solid doesn’t always mean white or Western.) So that you are building something for the long-term future, for your grandchildren.

Doing this contributes to keeping the tyranny of the state at bay (a prevailing motivation of most kinists). Mediating institutions are needed: church, art guilds, faithful extended families, universities, non-profit organizations, social groups, etc. Find ways to build these up. There were several quotes in this book by Communists, who sought to blur and eliminate natural distinctions, to eliminate mediating institutions, so it would be easier to control the masses. There’s something to that. But the way to counter it isn’t to promote segregation. We may need walls to protect the church or societies, but they need to be permeable. Too many liberal churches insist on no walls or boundaries at all. Everyone is welcome, no matter what you advocate for. Some conservative churches in response have a Checkpoint Charlie, shooting anyone attempting to cross the Berlin Wall they erect. The proper response is to fence the Lord’s Table each Lord’s Day properly, with the basic gospel. The dividing line is Christ, not kin.

We should be able to build and appreciate something positive in our culture (Bach, Rembrandt, Chaucer) without denigrating other cultures. Growing up in Holland, MI, we had the Dutch festival Tulip Time every year. It is a great way to celebrate your cultural heritage. But there were also sayings that crossed the line: “If you’re not Dutch, you’re not much.” Just as individuals have strengths and weaknesses, and need to interact to learn from each other, so do civilizations.

In the political sphere, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, and Walter Williams are great examples today of those like Ruth. Their people were not ours – they were marginalized outsiders. But their evident hard work, giftedness, and dedication to Western culture is a cause of celebration, and they rightly have/had places of prominence. There are many such recent immigrants today in the middle class that we should rejoice over, patriotically, not despise or separate from.

I am quite aware of the cultural relativistic dangers of woke-ism, and of the mass immigration of those who are intent on subverting our culture, etc.

But racial segregation, or even a milder definition of Kinism, is NOT the way to fight it.

View all my reviews

Is Easter Pagan?

The celebration of the resurrection of Jesus is not pagan, but many have questioned the name Easter, and the use of bunnies and eggs to celebrate it.

 

Glenn Sunshine, over at the Theology Pugcast, recently brought some historical perspective to this question.  Here are some summary points.

 

1. The name Easter likely came from the German word for dawn, which sounded like the Latin for “in albis.”  (In albis was a reference to the white robes worn on Easter by those baptized.)  This is more likely than the theory that the early church put a pagan goddess’ name from Britain (Eostre) or Babylon (Ishtar) upon the holiday.

 

2.  Eggs were forbidden by the church to eat during holy week, so were plentiful and feasted and painted upon when Easter rolled around.  Bunnies weren’t associated with Easter until the 1600s (only a tiny bit) and the 1800’s (more pervasive).

 

3. Why such a Gnostic and anti-historical tendency to discourage any physical celebration of holidays, and to critically dismiss the development of such practices by our Christian ancestors?  It’s almost the woke cancellation of any history we don’t like.

 

4.  CS Lewis points out that pagan myths were common grace foreshadowings of the true Christian story.  (Did he get this in part reading Carl Jung?)  Even if there was a linguistic connection between Astarte and Easter, it isn’t a huge problem.

 

5. We don’t object to using pagan gods to name our days of the week, so why the big deal about Easter?

 

 

This really got me thinking!  First some general thoughts, and then, practically, how we celebrate Easter.

 

1. I basically agree with the summary above, though they are over-reacting a bit to the gnostic and “no annual Easter celebration” crowd.

 

2.  Why isn’t it a good thing to question our traditions and reshape them when needed, to be more biblical?  This isn’t a woke canceling of our past, but a thoughtful and ongoing reformation.  Fasting from eggs was a questionable practice, and the resulting visibility of eggs at Easter is unnecessary.

 

3. It IS a good point that we shouldn’t eschew using material stuff to celebrate Christmas, Easter, etc.  Giving gifts at Christmas still makes sense to most of us.  But what is the best way to materially celebrate the resurrection of Christ?  The best I’ve come up with is ham dinners and candy, so I’m open to suggestions.

 

4. In the past, I was convinced of the close word connection with Easter to the Canaanite fertility goddess Asherah/Ishtar/Astarte.  Sunshine goes a long way to question this.  But isn’t there something to be said about the old gods fighting back, in medieval Christendom?  Thor is an example.  The pagan impulse to pursue fertility or mother Gaia as a god, is alive and well today, under our secular veneer.  Why use a name like Easter, so close to Ishtar, to name Christ’s Resurrection day?  It seems more to import pagan fertility thought, than it redeems such for Christ by His resurrection.  

I may hold this opinion because I know more than usual about the seductive, sexual worship of Ishtar in Canaan, in Israel’s day.  The sexual copulation of the gods had to be reproduced on earth by their priests, priestesses, and worshipers, for the town to have fertile fields and wombs.  When the prophets rebuked Israel for whoring after other gods, they weren’t using exaggerated analogies.  It was literally true.

 

5.  Maybe this is a “meat-sacrificed-to-idols” thing, where I have a weaker conscience because of that historical understanding.  But on the other side, we ought to have warnings not to adopt silly fluff like Santa and bunnies, which obscure the true meaning of the holidays.  We want neither a dry 2 hour family worship lecture on the meaning of the day, nor a mindless, sentimental tradition.  How to bring joy to the day that is based in its meaning?

 

6. It isn’t a big deal to keep calling every mundane Thursday Thor’s Day.  There’s no meaning to Thursday to be corrupted.  But to take the annual celebration of the resurrection of Christ and name it after (or at least similarly to) a fertility goddess seems abhorrent to me.

 

 

 

Practical

1. In recent years I have refrained from using the word “Easter,” preferring Resurrection Day.  Sunshine’s history of the German word for dawns as Eostorum makes me less averse to using the word “Easter,” but isn’t totally convincing.

 

2. I see no need to continue traditions of Easter bunnies, eggs, or baskets.  We’ve never done these as a family, and it hasn't impoverished us culturally.  But families should give more thought – like we do with Christmas – to how we are going to bless our children/families in our celebration of this day.  A direct call to this at the end of the podcast would have been a blessing.

 

3. The principle is to make the Lord’s Day more special in some tangible ways for your family.  Special foods, activities, games, etc.  And make Resurrection Sunday even more special yet.  It is a “high Sabbath” (John 19:31).

A Critique of modern post-Millennialism

I need your help.  Working alongside post-millennials for years, I’ve read several books, and listened to many resources.  I recently heard again a short lecture by Andrew Sandlin advocating for this school of thought.

 

But I have reservations.  Post-mil Advocates (PMA) today tend to confuse pragmatic and attitudinal postures with the actual exegetical view of post-millennialism.

 

I grew up a-millennial, Dutch Reformed.  So I come to this from a different view than many in the CREC. 

 

 

Let me expand.  It is not sufficient to define the Post-millennial view as:

 

1. Optimism

I hear too often today from PMAs the simplistic case that “Jesus wins.”  So we should be post-mil, of course!  But every a-mil and pre-mil believer would say, “Jesus wins.”  The question is if He wins on earth by His church, before His return.  Revelation 17:14, 17 are fairly clear that the beast will hold sway until the Lamb conquers it and Babylon.  Not the Lamb’s bride, but the Lamb Himself.

 

2. Rejection of the pre-mil rapture

Too many PMA’s seem to think that simply refuting or even mocking the rapture convinces of post-mil thought.  This is a lazy bifurcation, that my a-millennial upbringing can’t accept.  There are several views between the rapture, and post-mil thought.  What if one of THEM might be true instead?

 

3. Long-term thinking

Many PMA arguments I hear today are based on affirming the consequent.  It’s poor logic.  “If we believed pre-mil, we would be short-term in our thinking, and that would be wrong, so pre-mil must be wrong and post-mil must be right, because it is long-term thinking.”  Since when are post-mil thinkers like Greg Bahnsen’s disciples such crass pragmatists?  PMA’s should take heed not to employ this rhetoric.  Scripture portrays a fervent desire for Jesus to come quickly and soon, and we should welcome that.  We should also wisely consider history and work like cathedral builders for long term success.  The latter does not necessitate a post-mil position, exegetically.

 

4. Mere faith in the promises

Some PMA’s say that believing God’s promises alone makes you post-mil.  God promised Abraham seed like the stars, and that they would inherit the world.  Believing it was post-mil.  To not believe it would be apostasy: pre-mil or a-mil!!  This is rhetoric in service of a divisive purpose – again, logical bifurcation.  The question still remains, WHEN will God’s promises be fulfilled: before or after Christ’s return?

 

5. Anti-Gnostic

The PMA’s argument against the a-millennial viewpoint is often the anti-Gnostic one:  the a-mil “spiritualizes” biblical prophecy too much.  “My kingdom is not of this world” doesn’t mean the kingdom of God is ethereal and detached from physical and political results, they object!  I agree.  As an a-mil!  I’m as anti-Gnostic as the next guy.  (PMAs are often unfair to a-mils on this point.)  But many prophecies ARE meant spiritually, or metaphorically, and not literally.  Lots of PMA’s are pre-mil converts who haven’t understood this, yet.  They are still seeing biblical prophecy literally or physically.  Prophecy is often poetic, especially when it describes the consummation of Christ’s kingdom.  Poetic prophecy doesn’t necessitate Gnosticism.  PMA’s simply assume that consummation will take place before the resurrection of the dead, since it speaks of physical realities like the lion and the lamb, or the long life of the believer.  This is a false inference.

 

6. The Church on offense

I love Matthew 16:18: “on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”  The church should not be engaged primarily in a Dunkirk- or Vietnam-like, defensive, escape tactic.  We should be taking the initiative, discipling the nations.  Not holing up in our bunkers, hoping the far-more-powerful and hostile world doesn’t notice us.  The gates of Hell was a specific location where pagan gods were worshipped – near Caesarea Philippi.  Jesus cried out to their perverse worshipers that they need to deny themselves and follow Him (see Matthew 16:18-26!).  Does this make me post-mil?  To the extent that I want to advance the cause of Christ into the public square, acting as if God will help me win – YES.  Do I always expect victory in that cause?  The book of Revelation insists I answer, no.

 

 

The Exegetical Case

Scripture needs to determine this millennial position, not any tendency from secular minded views to positive thinking or progress.  The definition of post-mil is not simplistically that “Jesus wins,” but that, “The Gospel conquers the globe predominantly, and for a long time, before Jesus returns.” 

 

WHERE DOES THE BIBLE ASSERT THIS DIRECTLY?  As I said before, many OT prophecies that appeared to the former pre-millennial advocate to apply to a literal 1000 years after Jesus returns, now apply in the PMA’s view to the time BEFORE Jesus returns.  But as an a-mil, the case still hasn’t been made clear to me: these passages can also apply poetically to the consummation of the kingdom AT His return.  It remains insufficiently clear to me.  (Hab 2:14; Isa 11:9 is the primary example of this.)

 

PMA is not merely some practical insistence that we be optimistic, or that we be long-term in our thinking.  I’ve been happy to sojourn as an optimistic a-millennial with a bunch of PMAs for a good while, now, and don’t plan on stopping!  But what is the case for post-mil, vs. optimistic a-mil?  Honestly, most of the time this question is put, it is deferred with, “As long as your optimistic, we’re fine.”  Hm.

 

One concern I have here, as an aside, is that this exposes a functional works righteousness dynamic among PMAs.  They call it a self-fulfilling prophecy.  If you believe the church will be defeated in this age, then it WILL be!  If you believe God for victory, He will grant it.  This places far too much weight on our attitude and expectation.  I believe God is immediately responsive to our God-given faith, to justify us; that is very different from saying He will certainly give us cultural progress and advance, if we trust Him for it.  Faith certainly is the victory which overcomes the world (1 John 5:4).  But is that cultural conquest?  True, we should act in faith that God will help us culturally and politically, but the PMA could find themselves very unjustly condemning the Iranian or Pakistani Christian who takes wise precautions in their context.

 

So what happens when the PMA encounters Scripture?  I have been partially convinced by exegetical arguments (Rom 16:20; Josh 1:5-6; Matt 28:18-20), but many remain a question for me.

 

a. Daniel 2 – see verses 35, 44.  The stone that topples kingdoms and becomes the kingdom of God.  The kingdom inexorably grows to fill the world.  In Matthew 13:33 Jesus asserts the same, with the yeast in the bread.  The kingdom is “set up,” begun, in the time of the Roman Empire (Jesus’ work, Dan 2:44).  But PMA’s tend to assume that its growth and overcoming of other kingdoms will ALSO take place, before the return of Christ.  This is not clear in the text.  It is future tense in vs 44 of Daniel 2.  It is just as plausible that the church begins the work of the kingdom spreading, it meets opposition and cannot be completed, but Christ’s return completes it.

 

b. 1 Cor 15.25-26 – “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.  The last enemy to be destroyed is death.”

The PMA’s logic here is this: “Jesus will rule and not return, until all enemies but death are defeated.”  But this is a logical non sequitur.  Christ can rule while returning and subduing all remaining enemies to Him.  His reign is not just His sitting at the right hand of the Father.  It encompasses His return and subjugation of remaining enemies.  The a-mil view fits just as well into this verse: “Jesus will reign in heaven during the time when earthly powers strive with God’s kingdom.  But at His return He will conquer all His enemies, even death.”

 

c. Revelation – I would argue that the whole thrust of Revelation is NON-post-mil.  The saints will prevail, yes, but they are likely to be killed before the consummation.  Great wickedness rears its head and hurts the helpless people of God, who are called to faithfulness and patience.  It takes supernatural judgments of God to deal with the beasts.  

Our hope is not in the earthly conquest by the church before Christ returns.  Our hope is Christ’s return.  This is my main concern about the post-mil, regarding faith.  In over-reacting to Gnosticsm, the PMA looks to earthly things for his faith and hope.  Our ultimate hope should be Christ’s return, not the church’s success or progress in the culture, short- or long-term.  The end of the Bible emphasizes this with the earnest hope: “Come quickly, Lord Jesus.”

Sermons for the Soul // Podcasts for Wisdom

I listen to about a dozen audio podcasts.

It's a constant sifting process to know what to take in, and what to stop spending time on.

I forget to share much that is good, but here are two STRONG recommendations today.

1.  Christ Church Moscow sermons.

Doug Wilson is best known as a provocative blogger, and he pursues a particular message in his Canon Press videos.  But his best work is in the pulpit.  He knows how to address the soul to restore it to health in godliness.  "Inescapable Fear" is a great example, but any random pick will bless you.  Subscribe to these sermons if you want your soul nourished, without messing with all the controversy that usually surrounds him.

2.  I discovered Brian Sauve today.  He is articulate and inspirational at his "King's Hall" podcast about what the church should be, and in his critique of the current megachurch.  Start with episode two, here, and reconsider what you're trying to get out of church.  I'll probably be substituting this in instead of Ben Shapiro for a while, personally.  I've only listened to the first two.

Wine at Passover? At Communion?

The debate over this rages on.

Was first-century wine really alcoholic?  

Was it only 3-5%?

Did Jesus at Cana really turn water into that much wine, as we know it today?  

Modern-day views opposing the use of alcohol tend to get mixed up in the uncertain history of the usage of wine and alcohol in the first century.
 
Recently I considered again an argument that in the Upper Room, there would have been no leaven at all, according to God's command, and thus no fermented wine, either.  Fermented wine is basically the product of leavening from yeast, just like bread.  This would mean that the church shouldn't be using wine for Communion today, if Jesus didn't.  Here are my thoughts:

 
1. The OT doesn’t apply to wine the requirement to remove leaven.
The speed of Israel leaving Egypt at Passover is the best example.  Exodus 12:34 refers only to bread, not wine.  So when God establishes the feast of unleavened bread (the name is significant), He says 3 times don’t have leaven in your bread, and only once says, “No leaven at all,” without mentioning bread (Ex. 13:3-8).  God wanted Israel to replicate the Passover experience of having to eat bread unleavened each year.  They wouldn’t have had any wine, as slaves, probably.  

Exodus 12:15 is the most specific instruction on this I found, and refers to eating bread, or eating, only.  There is a whole separate group of words for drinking, and terms for fermented and unfermented wine, and none of them are used for this feast, or Passover, anywhere.  It applied to bread because that’s all they had to eat on the way out of Egypt.  It makes sense to apply this to any food in later celebrations, but applying it to wine isn’t warranted by the text, or by common parlance (we don’t speak of wine being leavened).  The point isn’t to avoid consuming any food product with yeast, leavened or fermented, but to remove leaven and use none in your baking/eating of food for 7 days.

 

2. Jews from Exodus to Jesus didn’t consider wine to be leavened, or not kosher, and they still don’t.
https://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/508672/jewish/Why-is-it-permitted-to-drink-wine-on-Passover-when-it-is-fermented-with-yeast.htm

3. I could not find anywhere in the Pentateuch (only a quick search!) a requirement that wine be offered as a sacrifice at Passover, so I was wrong about that this morning.  That there is a call for a drink offering at most other feasts may be a point in your favor.  The use of it at Seders appears to be a later tradition that Jesus used to establish Communion, just as He attended the feast of Hanukkah, an extra-biblical tradition, to teach the people.  Asserting that a practice is a tradition, and thus unwarranted, is a false inference.

 
4. The NT church used fermented wine in communion – 1 Cor. 11:21.
This refutes the argument that we only use the elements we do because of tradition.  Why did the NT church change to wine in Paul’s day (probably at his direction – he was in Corinth establishing the church a long time – Acts 18:11), if Jesus didn’t use it?
 
I see this and Ex 12:15 as the strongest arguments against this assertion.  I don’t think the scientific fact that the fermentation of wine and the leavening of bread are an extremely similar process, should trump the above.

Bible Notes on Zacchaeus

Thoughts on the Zacchaeus story

1. Why a sycamore tree? See Amos 7:14.  This is the only significant reference to sycamores in the Bible, and what was Amos' main concern in his book? Justice for the poor. Who was Zacchaeus? A tax collector, which class of people routinely exploited the poor.

2. Amos says a shepherd does justice and righteousness (charity) - Amos 5:24.  And what does Zacch do? Justice: he restores 4-fold what was stolen - this was required biblical restitution (Exodus 22:1).  Second, righteousness: he gives half his wealth to the poor (Luke 19:8).

3. Jesus responds by saying he came to seek and save the lost. This is a reference to Ezekiel 34:11-12. God rebukes the bad shepherds who don't take care of the sheep, and God says He will come and do it Himself.  Zacchaeus was a lost sheep.  God Himself, Jesus, came to reclaim him, and did it (Luke 19:10).  Jesus asserts in this verse that He is God, the good Shepherd.

Review: Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Straddling the genres of alternative history, fantasy, and historical novel, “Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell” (SN hereafter) is a slow start, over 800 pages long, with an unsatisfying ending. It seems moralistic at the beginning, and the character you’re waiting for to appear gets one page, 30 pages from the end.

But I still recommend it! That was all the bad stuff – there’s plenty of good.

Good writing
On almost every page, Clarke’s wry sense of humor and wit comes out. It’s enjoyable to read, even when you aren’t sure where the plot is going. This “saves” the book at points where it is weak, and readers may be tempted to give it up. The very craft of writing I believe is a major point of the book, and she does it well.

Clarke also draws on various English mythologies: fairies, the Raven King, etc. It was a bit disconcerting reading this along with Game of Thrones, which uses much of the same: King in the North, 3-eyed raven, etc. They draw on the same legends. This evokes a sense of wonder, of the supernatural – see below.


Critique of academia
I couldn’t find this in any online reviews, but I believe a major theme, especially at the beginning, is a devastating critique of the academic world, probably English literature departments, specifically. Norrell is the establishment, seeking to control the information flow and retain power. Strange is the gifted iconoclast with no respect for accumulated knowledge or tradition. The very format of SN, with its many extensive footnotes, caricatures academic writing. The footnotes veer from the superfluous to the extremely important, just as academia is awash in information but cannot often sift what is important.

The strongest critique is that the craft of magicianship (often a metaphor for the academic pursuit of literature, I think) is focused on reputational rivalry, and arguing about schools of thought, instead of evoking wonder in the reader. I found this very enjoyable, and an apt assessment. Clarke does her best in much of the book to evoke that wonder, hinting at the history of magic and the Raven King throughout. She pulls it off quite well, drawing on folklore like fairies, giving you a sense that there is more out there than you think: other worlds, dimensions, etc.


Realistic friendships
Norrell takes on Strange as a pupil/disciple. The two have an uneasy friendship, as Norrell wants to retain the upper hand, even though Strange is gifted. They have a serious falling out which isn’t resolved until the very end. Friendships sometimes fray, and need time to mend. C.S. Lewis noted once that friends unite around a common hobby or enterprise or interest. Clarke depicts this dazzlingly well at the end. Rivalry subsides with a common mission, which we must keep in view as primary.


Realistic spirituality
This one may surprise you, as SN incorporates all kinds of fantasy magic and mythology that isn’t real: fairies, ancient Raven Kings, etc. But it dawns on you over the course of the book that there are malevolent spiritual powers out there seeking to use and exploit you. We call them demons. This is real. In SN they are presented more benignly at first as fairies. But you shall know them by their fruits, and the unveiling is hideous indeed.

This is true also of various human characters, who find themselves facing poetic justice for their gossip, dissension, exploitation of others, murder, etc. Clarke does a great job describing them in all their despicableness in the first part of the book, and then letting them get away with it for 700 pages until their demise. Justice happens, but only after a long time coming, and only at the arrival/advent of the King.

Strange pursues his magic, sometimes to the detriment of his wife. I found this another realistic tension between marriage and career. I did not like the resolution. The message seemed to be, spouses need to give each other space to do what they feel they must, career-wise, even if they disagree. This puts vocation before marriage, which is a dangerous manifestation of the modern self-fulfillment idea.

One other aspect of realistic spirituality, or Christian worldview, is very similar to the Lord of the Rings. What do fallen people do when they get power? They pursue it for themselves, and use it to advance themselves. But here, at the end, for one brief moment, an unlikely character winds up with way more magical power than the magicians. And he uses it to stop wickedness from continuing. He redeems a hellish realm, Lost-Hope, to be a place of refuge again.


Christian symbolism
That was one of the several Christ figures in the book, whether Clarke meant them as such or not. Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth, whether magical, miraculous or otherwise. And He uses it to defeat the accuser and redeem us and restore hope. Another character is a scrubby street-sorcerer who most take as a charlatan. But he has the letters of the King written on his body – he is a living book (Word!). He is hanged from a tree by a fairy/demon, aided by a human under his enchantment, and later brought back to life by the King.


So it’s worth the read, but it isn’t for everyone. If you like the mystery of Medieval history, Merlin-esque fantasy, and magical novels, this is for you.
3 stars.


View all my reviews