Contrary to popular opinion, the Older Testament is not the Word of God Emeritus. Sometimes it takes a little serious study, or even critical thinking (yes, I said the "T" word) from the Bible -- about the nature of the Bible itself -- to understand the greatness of what God has given to His people in the first 39 books of the canon.
Let us consider then some of the features of the Older Testament, comparing them with those of the Newer. First, neither testament was created as a stand alone. They are interdependent by nature.
The First prophecies the coming of the Messiah, and the Second reflects back upon the First, interpreting it in many places for us, giving us a hermeneutical framework within which we may be certain we have properly understood it. The Lord Jesus and His apostles and prophets provide an authoritative guide of just how we are to handle the christological "pointing forward" texts of the First Testament.
But the interpretation they offer is not new, and was native to the actual texts of the First Testmament from the start. Theirs could have been, and SHOULD have been, our interpretation of the texts they consider all along.
What the First Testament promises, the Second displays as fulfilled in Jesus and His people (which are not covenantally separate, but one, on account of their legal identity (adoption into the same family is a legal transaction in the Bible) and for the mystical union of God's people with Christ by the Holy Spirit, the gift of God.
One cannot fully understand the greatness of what was promised apart from seeing how the promise comes to be fulfilled (executed in history). Each highlights and explains the crucial features and benefits of the other. For instance, one cannot properly understand the creation narrative of Genesis (I will brazenly argue) apart from understanding the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, the pinnacle of new creation to which Genesis points.
For this is what is meant in the resurrection, "Let there be light." For the Bible sees the resurrection of Christ as the redemption, not merely of the elect (humans predestined for glory), but of all creation since they are raised up as kings over the creation to make it new. What kind of renewal could a thousand (ten thousand? More?) resurrected saints bring to planet earth? That remains to be seen. But it WILL be seen. They will do (derivatively, with wisdom and power from God, like that of a thousand -- actually many more -- Solomons upon the earth) what God did originally -- they will set it in order. The Bible thus speaks of the "restoration of all things" (Acts 3:21).
The First Testament carries a complete (perfect and sufficient) manual of praise for the worship of God as He has appointed it (for the work of the Lord's priests) in the Psalter of David, Asaph and others. This "Bible within the Bible" God gave to all his people of all ages, which continues into the New Covenant era, according to the commands of BOTH Testaments.
The New Testament has no such manual, because it both presupposes and implies, the sufficiency of the one already given in the First Testament. This shows that the First Testament has ABIDING AUTHORITY in God's Church, and in the nations. For all the priests of Christ are kings also (see Rev. 1:6-8).
Moreover, when we turn to the books both of the Torah and the Wisdom literature, we find self-references from the First Testament telling us that it's wisdom -- statutes, ordinances, precepts, judgments, proverbs and psams -- are the very wisdom of God which is eternal, from before the foundation of the earth. These therefore share in God's INcommunicable attributes. Thus, the First Testament calls itself, righteous, pure, holy, eternal, good, wise, sufficient, perfect, powerful, inviolable, and the like.
Moreover, the Lord Jesus and the apostle often reiterate just such sentiments in the very sayings to which we have become perhaps too familiar -- "It IS written" (Gk. gegraptai carries the duplicating prefix characteristic of the perfect tense, signifying the perpetual sense of abiding strength, "It forever stands written." This is made very clear from the fact that the simple present passive indicative COULD have been used instead ("it is presently written"). But the author had something else in mind.
Not to belabor the point, but the sense of the deliberate use of the perfect tense indicates an action performed in the past with continuing force up to the present moment, now matter how far into the future from the point of origin -- the original act -- that present moment is. Perpetuity is the point. We know this all the better since the Bible -- in both Testaments often self-refers as "eternal." When the theology of the Bible perfectly matches the grammar in an unmistakable fashion, we have strong assurance that we have acquired precisely the author's intended sense.
The Lord Jesus regularly cited the FIRST Testament with such a commanding introduction, as with the three temptations of Satan, which seductions the Lord rebuffed altogether (this was not the first time the Lord had systematically refuted Satan -- see the book of Job -- effectively a contest to see who is the wise man) with the Scripture of the FIRST Testament to show His people how to resist the devil, that he may flee from them. This resistance of the suggestions of Satan, the New Testament COMMANDS, and yet when we see the great example of just how we are to go about this, we find citations of the FIRST Testament upon the lips of our Lord.
His appeal was to the duty of MAN, not Israelites under the Older Covenant. It stands written, "MAN shall not live by bread alone, but on EVERY WORD which proceeds from the mouth of God." Thus, the authority of the Newer Testament rests upon, and much depends upon, that of the First Testament.
The apostles say nothing else. For when Paul cites Luke 10:7 for the instruction of Timothy his apprentice, He says right alongside it "Do not muzzle the ox while it treadeth out the grain" (Deuteronomy 25:4). If Luke's Gospel carries any authority for believers in Jesus today, then also Deuteronomy. This shows much the more that we must live by EVERY WORD which proceeds from the mouth of the Most High, not just those of the final 27 books of the Word.
Paul said also to Timothy that the "Scriptures [writings] are able to make you wise unto salvation" which reference was primarily too the Older Testament, the New not being penned altogether at that point, but existing some in writing, and some as carefully-guarded dominical and apostolic oral tradition (apodosis).
Additionally, we must affirm that the ethical and legal system taught in the First Testament -- which calls itself a legal code from heaven (the "law of the Lord") upon which all men ("MAN") are to depend for wisdom in every nation -- does not repeat itself in the Newer Testament. Altough all believers in Jesus detest the wicked practices of the nations surrounding Israel -- wherein it is despicable even to mention what the disobedient do in secret -- are yet repulsive to God and all his holy ones under the Newer Covenant also.
Yet the prohibitions against most such practices are not repeated under the Newer Covenant, for God need not say something twice before we must give it heed, lest we be absurd in our assumptions regarding God's authority. These, all manner of perverse sexual practices and religious abominations (as with the giving of children to Molech in the flames) had to be mentioned for the moral protection of God's people, and so are found in His Word plainly, though His eyes are too pure to look upon sin, and He hates even to make mention of such, but for our necessary protection and guidance unto wisdom must it be so.
In refusing therefore to repeat these, the Lord has assumed that we know them fully well as binding upon all men of all ages from the First Testament only. And where he has imposed regulations intended to make an ethical point -- whose service for teaching is no longer required under the Newer covenant -- (but yet the point taught by them continues forever to bind us to either the performance of what is commanded or the avoid what is thereby prohibited to us) - the Lord has told us plainly enough, or else by the authoritative example of the Lord Jesus and the Twelve, or else by good and necessary consequence in which we must reason from the Scriptures as the Lord did.
So we know that the dietary laws represent training wheels no longer appropriate to the mature state of the Church in redemptive history. Hebrews makes clear that all ceremonial laws (called ordinances in the Word) tied to the Temple complex, with its holidays, sacrifices, priestly and musical instruments, washings, etc are no longer of any use to God's people; and the providential and prophesied destruction of the Temple and the genealogical records of the tribes in A.D. 70 was a very helpful hint).
The laws governing land and inheritance uniquely tied to the tribes of Israel, the commanded abolition of the 7 Canaanite nations in Israel, the many clean-unclean laws regarding the deceased and diseases, etc, we know that these have ethical points to them, and that such points bind all men of all times and nations, but that the media chosen to convey them no longer serve any good or useful purpose.
Finally, many today note that the health benefits which may follow upon continuing to uphold such dietary laws confuses the point for which they were originally given. These were plainly DIDACTIC, and their side-benefits simply display the goodness of God in them to aid and abet the welfare of his people. Yet does Genesis plainly tell that all animals since the time of Noah are available to be eaten of men should it prove necessary or beneficial to them. The special didactic strictures of the First Testament forbid "mixed characteristics" to teach that the Lord's people must not covenant wantonly so as to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers.
The point was covenantal, not culinary. We may note that there are many foods which are known of scientists now to be very healthy for us, which are nowhere commanded to be eaten in the Scriptures - fish, rice, and the like - and that substances like Aloe Vera -- which were known to men in the times of the Older and Newer Testaments and used for salve to heal -- these are not commanded as one might expect if the Lord merely sought to give us healthy recipes in His dietary instructions. But this was NOT the point.
So said the Lord Jesus, "It is not what goes into a man which defileth him ... but what comes out of his heart." Mark adds: "By saying this, Jesus made ALL FOODS CLEAN." Sweet and sour pork is IN. Praise the Lord, for He is good; His mercy endures forever. If you like shrimp, then "to the red sauce!" with thanksgiving to the Lord, it is set apart by prayer for the benefit of His people. Consider that God was not required to create shrimp. But He did. He gave men rule over all the sea-dwellers from the beginning, as well all other lower creation. This implies that they are good and were created good by God FOR US and FOR OUR CHILDREN forever.
There is nothing evil about ham and bacon either. The profitable saying is that one who eats these and lives unto God does well. The one who eats to much of them will yet obtain to heaven by the grace of God, albeit much sooner. And how ridiculous the man who thinks that a single shrimp unrepented of will keep a man from the Lord's presence. No, but Long John Silver's will condemn no one to the flames. And how foolish the man who holds that a wrong turn in your recipe will snuff out your lamp for all time. That is -- by lex talionis -- the theology of swine, who add to the Gospel of Christ, saying "do not touch, do not taste, do not handle."
Rather, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!" "Taste and see that the Lord is good." And tartar sauce is optional.
When Solomon wrote, "Now all has been heard, here is the conclusion of the matter: fear God and keep His commandments; for this is the whole duty of MAN, he referred to the commandments of the First Testament, which would later be qualified by further revelation.
The Lord Jesus (Mark 2) reflecting back on the giving of the commandments in the First Testament said, "MAN shall not live on bread alone, but on every WORD which proceedeth of the mouth of God," and "The Sabbath was made FOR MAN."
The Newer Testament, by the Great Commission, sees the resurrected Lord with all authority in heaven and ON EARTH, which explains the basis for the fact that the redeemed under the Newer covenant are of "EVERY tribe, tongue and nation."
The Gospel had gone international because of the transcendent nature of Christ in the resurrection. He was no longer a Jew. He DIED king of the Jews, and ROSE King of ALL NATIONS. Thus said Peter, "You men of Israel, be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucifed, both Lord and Christ." Here, Christ or Messiah means king of the Jews, adn Lord (Kyrios) was the title of Caesar the Emperor of all Gentiles, the king of kings, and master of every nation then considered of any consequence. Thus, did Peter declare that Jesus was "Lord of both Jew and Gentile" -- prefigured by "Melchizedek" whose name is Canaanite and was yet king and priest of SALEM (Jerusalem before Jerusalem, the city of God).
This risen transcendence and power of Christ -- universal authority -- made Him the federal head of all who would believe in him of all time and from every nation. He is BOTH Lord and Christ, so the Gospel went first to the Jew, and then to the Gentile.
But the Gospel is all the Word of the Lord, and the First Testament cannot somehow be cut from its canonical moorings; for its legal code, when men from every nation are trained by it, and raised up as priests and kings, will rule by the whole of the international legal code, hating all the practices it forbids not found decried in the Newer Testament.
The transcendent nature of the First Testament is the same as that of the Second, and the same as that of Jesus Christ risen, and all His people after Him. For He is the "firstfruits of them that are raised from the dead." Here, the firstfruits were the tithe of God, the best part which represents the whole of like kind.
When Christ, the living Word of God was raised by the mighty power of God, it was not as though only one half of the Word was raised with Him, for He was and IS the incarnation, the living counterpart to all of that which God commands. If in Christ some see the Older Covenant (as it were) put to death, then how much more has it been established in His resurrection with authority over all nations. For He is destined to rule them with a rod of iron -- the whole of the Word of God and Law of the Lord.
And what will His people sing in the resurrection to praise the Lord with all the heart -- or does one stupidly suppose they will quit praising God when raised rather than much the more -- For it says in the Proverbs, "the heart of the righteous sings for joy." Sings what? And Hebrews says of Christ [to the Father], "in the presence of the congregation, I will sing your praises." What will the living Word of God sing, if not the manual of Praise He alone perfectly embodies? If we will then sing it, in our limited and foolish understanding -- for all understanding is folly compared to that of the incarnate God - how much more the One who said, "I have set my Word even above my own Name"?
This Word of God, we have noted shares in the incommunicable attribute of God, those exceedingly great traits most worthy or our praise and adoration which God alone possesses - eternality, the original source of power (power to shape history, for once promised it MUST come to pass, whatsoever is written there) and wisdom (infallibility, supreme subtility, perfection of detail, and innate inerrancy), irreducibility and irrefragability (the Word has permanent integrity, and internal goodness and necessity, to which God suffers not the least compromise at any time), and all the many other incomparable excellenices by which it is shown to be the Word of God.
Never has any book spoken as this one. And it converts the heart of every man for whom the Spirit has designed that it should, doing all things well, and enlightening the mind in all manner of knowledge and wisdom, such that He who understands its teaching thoroughly would of necessity be like Solomon in all the earth. It makes wise even the simple, said Solomon. Now a good teacher can add to a wise man's learning, but to make wise the simple is miraculous, and beyond the scope of any mortal teacher. For the simple and fool hate learning and wisdom. But the Scripture is able.
It can overcome the sin that so easily entangles men, fighting against it with power mightier than that which wins battles. For which of the greatest warriors can make a fool into a wise man, or teach a man of vice to behave like a king? Or who among the mightiest can teach kings to do their duties with excellence? But the Word of God brings forth the treasures of wisdom, treasure both old and new, to the instruction of kings. Thus is the Word in all its teachings -- cover to cover -- a king to kings. Is not this like the Lord Jesus, or why is it called "the Word of Christ"?
Now the New Testament tells (1 and 2 Peter) us plainly of the First Testament that the Spirit of Christ "carried along" the prophets and holy men of old, who wrote the first 37 books of the Word, which being called the "law, the Psalms and the prophets" all speak of Christ, who must first suffer, and then enter His glory?
As the product of immediate inspiration, made for every man to obey, the First Testament teaches of Christ, truly, fully and finally, with authority over all the kings of all the nations. Or was the Queen of the South not the wiser for her visit to hear the preached wisdom of Solomon from the Word of God? Or was she also a Jew? And the men of Nineveh, when were they exempted from obedience to the commands of the God of the Older Testament? Or who commanded Pharaoh Necco to battle against the enemies of Israel in Josiah's day if it was not the same Lord who said to the king of Egypt by Moses, "Let my people go"?
Was Egypt stricken of ten plagues because they violated 11 commandments? Was this not the decalogue which God gave to Israel for which Egypt was punished? Or did God make only the Jews in His image, and not the Gentiles also, thus requiring all men to act as Adam ought to have done (and which only the second Adam did)?
Was the First Testament -- the Word of God enshrined forever in the canon - and which is destined to be the law of kings of every nation -- and of all their peoples, just for the Jews? And does God command only Jews to be wise?
Therefore, we can see from its several features, and its relationship to the Second Testament, that the First Testament (qualified by the New) forever binds the people of God, and all men who bear His image, as it was from the beginning (No, Adam and Eve were not Jewish, and their sin did not pass to Jews only but to all; Noah was a Gentile, and so was Abram, until the day of his circumcision, by which time God had considered him righteous by faith already). Now the Lord said of Abram, "I know him [Abraham], that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.
We know this of the First Testament because:
1. It is inextricably linked to the later Testament, by prophesy, by promises, by wisdom, by those obligated to its laws (all men, or "man")
2. It shares in the incommunicable attributes of God, just as does the Newer Testament
3. It's wisdom is for all men, for kings and commoners of every nation, for all those saints raised in power to obey it.
4. It bound Gentiles of every nation to its obedience from the first (Adam, Noah, Abram, Queen of the South, Job the servant of God was a "man of the eastern country," Ninevites, the Egyptians, the 7 nations who failed to do it and were ousted, Rahab the Jerichoitess, Naaman the Syrian, the widow of Zarephath in the time of the prophet Elijah, all the nations (1 Kings 4) which came up to hear the scriptural wisdom of Solomon, all those empires against which the prophets railed (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, etc)
5. Melchizedek the Canaanite was priest of the Most High God, and holiness according to the law was a requirement for piacular and intercessory (priestly) service. Remember that Abiathar was fired upon losing his holiness, and Melchizedek was "greater than Abraham" the friend of God; he blessed Abraham, putting into effect the promises of God concerning the Abrahamic covenant. "And without a doubt, the lesser is blessed by the greater." (Heb. 7:7).
6. Jesus and the apostles compared its authority to that of New Testament passages. They also argued with their opponents from the tenses of the voice of First Testament passages (Exodus 3:15 -- it says "is" not "was" -- as in "I AM who AM; So God is the God of the living, not [was] of the dead. And from plural versus singular nouns -- Gal. 3:13-15 -- It [the First Testament] says "And to the Seed of Abraham, not seeds of Abraham, so the text refers to one person only, that is to Christ, the Seed of Abraham." For Paul was skilled in the Word of the Lord beyond all his opponents. And this apostle clearly considered every letter of the Older Testament binding upon all men, for the promise to Abraham is to all who believe in Jesus from every nation. Or was Paul not the apostle to the Gentiles, who are the seed of Abraham by faith in Jesus apart from circumcision? And was the promise of God to Abraham before or after he was circumcised? It was while Abraham was yet a Gentile that it says, "He believed God and it was credited to him for righteousness." Faith is what makes one the seed of Abraham, and faith is from the transcendent Spirit as the gift of God (so that no man of any nation can boast).
Jesus said, "Do not suppose that I come to abolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill. Here, abolish means the opposite of "fulfill." So fulfill cannot mean to abolish (as many foolishly assume in direct violation of the local context, which is the king of all hermeneutical principles), just the opposite. They would have it, " I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill in such a way as to abolish," which is nonsense. Rather, it means "to restore its proper meaning against the abuses of the pharisees, and to establish that proper sense." For this is precisely what Jesus proceeds to do in all the Gospels as the one True Priest of God and teacher of all God's people. For priest were the appointed teachers of Israel. And we have but One Teacher, that is, Christ. This is why it was said to Nicodemus the priest, "Are you Israel's teacher and know not these things?"
7. All the commandments of God, both Testaments tell us, are "for man."
8. Men were made to obey God, and one can only obey commands. Therefore, all men, being made after the likeness of their Creator must obey His commandments. Most of God's commandments are found in the First Testament.
9. A man is born from above by the Word -- all of the Word -- and the Spirit, both of which are transcendent, not bound to any one nation. In which nation does the wind fail to blow where it wills? So it is with everyone born of the Spirit. His new nature is given to obedience of all the commandments, not just those appearing in the latter part of the canon, for the same Spirit of Christ which works in him mightily to produce obedience inspired ALL THE CANON of the Holy Scripture. Do we hear His voice in some books only?
How will the Spirit working in a man ignore most of His OWN WRITING? No, but Christ is not divided against Himself, lest His kingdom cannot stand. For, it is written, "The secret things belong to the Lord, but those things REVEALED belong to us AND TO OUR children -- forever." This text is from Deuteronomy, just as is the commandment, "You shall love the Lord your God with all the heart, with all the soul and with all the mind."
10. If one decide that some passages of the First Testament bind to the performance, but not others, he is left hopelessly adrift in a sea of cherry-picking obscurity. This is both hermenuetically reckless and logically impossible. The only tenable position is the one so far described - God commands and we must obey, until he says otherwise in the canon itself by the several modes of commanding: explicit, by authoritative example (as when the apostles celebrate the Christian Sabbath on the First day of the week, no longer the last); or else by the logical force of one or many passages taken together in their proper sense.
The contrary is both logically impossible and ethically repugnant to the Holy Scripture itself (for no one can show from the New Testament that incest or many of the other sexually perverse acts prohibited in the Scripture constitute sexual immorality. They must assume the binding nature of the First Testament to fill in the missing premisses of their argument in order to justify what we all know is true ahead of time by the light of nature. For even nature tells us that men are for women and women for men, as also the apostle Paul says (1 Cor. 11), according to the holy doctrines of Genesis, which the Lord Jesus cites as well.
11. It follows that Christians and men from every nation must obey the commands of the First Testament from the reign of Christ over all nations as king of kings, for he rules them by one standard only -- differing weights and differing measures, both alike the Lord detests (Prov. 20:10) -- For that God has made this Jesus BOTH Lord and Christ, who was crucified by Jew and Gentile alike. These were the priestly and kingly representatives of both the Jewish nation and of Caesar. Therefore, for this wrongful death did the Lord Jesus inherit both jurisdictions as his own. For He rightly reproved all men -- king and priest alike -- establishing the law of both Testaments forever as the law of every nation.
He has all authority in heaven AND on earth. Yet He rules by one standard. Does heaven think the Older Testament is passe? There is no sin in heaven. So what standard of righteousness do the angels obey to make it thus? And why do we pray for God's kingdom to come upon the earth as it is in heaven if we do not like heaven's standard of perfect righteousness? They obey it perfectly and we do not; but only one standard obtains, for this is but One God, who created both men and angels.
When Christ reproved angels -- for what is Satan but a fallen angel, and Christ cast out countless demons -- did he cite only the Second Testament? Three times he cited the First Testament to a non-Jewish (nationally transcendent) being. "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test," "Man shall not live by bread alone..." and "You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only."
When casting out demons, he often simply spoke by his own authority. Other times -- as with Satan -- he cited the authority of the First Testament. This shows that the Holy One considers His own new words (captured only in the New Testament Gospels) as of precisely equally authority with Deuteronomy and the Psalms.
12. The earliest baptismal formula - Jesus is Lord (Kyrios) implies this as well, since His Spirit inspired the Older Testament, and we are told by the Holy Spirit, "No one speaking by the Spirit says "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13). The first phrase here (Gk. "Anathema Iesous") was required by the Romans as a PUBLIC renouncing of the Christian faith, which, at times of persecution was just what Rome commanded for a martyr to "spare himself the final penalty." Whereas, the contrasting phrase, "Jesus is Lord" was the public declaration of faith in Jesus required by Christian baptism. Now this often might cost a man his life, for it carried the cultural implication -- "Jesus, not Caesar, is the final authority in heaven and earth."
Each was a PUBLIC declaration showing, under the specific circumstances of threat to one's person or property, what the one so saying was really "made of," as we say. the courage to risk one's own life for fidelity to Christ -- Esther-like obedience, and in some cases just that of Daniel -- who was thrown to the lions as were many Christians -- such courage was born of the Spirit, or else the failure to possess it showed that the one failing His Lord was not truly ever born again in the first place.
Thus, the nature of baptism as applicable internationally, without respect to gender or social class, and the teaching of the baptismal formula itself (given the attitude of Jesus toward the First Testament, its inspiration by the Spirit of Christ, and the baptismal formula Jesus commanded [which implies the transcendence of the Older Testament and its consequent universal authority]) show that the First Testament is "Christian," (international) not merely "Jewish" in its authority to bind men to its performance.
Remember, baptism unlike circumcision, was required of Jew and Gentile alike, and of men and women. For in Christ, there is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male or female, for all are [baptized into] one [family] in Christ." As a brief aside, the biblical doctrines and sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper form the bulwark of a refutation of feminist and Marxist class- and gender-based critical theories. For they broke down the class and gender distinctions of the ancient world, setting the rich alongside the poor in the Church not showing favoritism (See James 1 for a sermon on the evils of class distinction in the Church), the slave and free, men and women. For there, entirely regardless of the distinctions so important to Greek and Roman cultural values, each sat along side the other calling them "brother" and "sister" -- which the Romans hated and Tertullian rebuffed them for it -- as equals -- a thing never heard of in Greek or Roman societies.
But this is highly unpopular on college campuses, to note the transcultural (and counter-cultural but not multi-cultural) character of the preached Gospel, the law of the Lord and the sacraments. The Lord surely beat the Marxists and Feminists to the punch by thousands of years, where they had anything of value to impart. They say, "Marx," we say "Barnabbas." They urge "Women's rights," we say "Esther and Lydia." Been there, done that. Which of the Marxists or Feminists has advocated that women rule as Queens in righteousness for a thousand years with Christ? They know nothing of women's rights, for it has never entered into the mind of man or woman the good things God has prepared for those that love Him. Entrance into the Christian faith with the whole heart is adoption by the King of Kings. This adoption renders one royalty in the nature of the case. Recently, women in the U.S., have won the right to vote. Godly women of old have won the privilege to rule nations long ago. As it was promised to Sarah, "Kings shall come from your loins." Comparatively, voting is the stuff of paupers.
The fact that Jews and Gentiles, men and women, each have only one baptism - for the formula was the same for all -- a public declaration of the transcendent and universal authority of Christ -- shows that the Word of Christ, as an undivided unit which binds across cultures, carries abiding authority to command us how we should live our lives, what we must believe, and to whom we must answer as appointed authorities.
Now more reasons could be given for the qualified, and absolutely abiding, authority of the First Testament (as its very canonicity suggests -- for the canon is for all the saints of all generations, and God never gives us what is unnecessary) but these more than suffice for the logical rigor of the task at hand.
Adopting the more popular "Dispensationalist" approach of picking and choosing which parts of the Bible we need to address this or that social problem (few Dispensationalists hesitate to quote the Older Testmament -- even its case laws -- to reprove the evil practice of abortion) leaves one with no objective guide, no guide other than the personal preferences of this or that Christian, for determining which biblical teachings of the Older Testament remain in force with respect to the principle it instances, or whether the mode of instancing the principle itself remains socially obligatory.
The "All of the Bible for all of life for all men of all nations" position -- usually dubbed "Theonomy," (which is much shorter) has no such ethical or epistemological problems. And the earlier cut and paste position has precursors we should wish to find less than desirable, such as Marcion and other well-known gnostics. Today, the so-called "Jesus Seminar" has procured its own man-made criteriology (which criteria and their methodological and philosophical assumptions humorously eliminate each other like an encircled firing squad) and highlights the same dispensational problem in principle, though such persons are far more historiographically self-conscious. They even know of some of the problems they face, and have admitted such in print.
Personally, I have been forced (and completely caved in) to admit that they have these irresolvable dialectical tensions and other problems too. In fact, using their own criteria, I have decided that most of the works of the Jesus Seminar developed over time, with legendary parts accruing as each group added its own redactions; and so these were not really written by the authors they purport. Many parts are inauthentic, and some are simply ahistorical. To determine just which are for real, however, we will need the local Presbytery to cast votes in the form of multi-colored beads.
The problem is the same in both cases. Without the Older Testament to sufficiently inform and explain the New, and the New to control the final interpretation of the Earlier, one either adopts no particular methodology (which is just personal prejudice) for deciding which of the commandments binds men which way, or else he constructs a man-made set of rules wholly inadequate to the task they pretend.
This is evident from the complete lack of any remnant of a biblical social theory found in Dispensational writings -- they do not wish to reform a "sinking ship" and so have no biblical platform for making such amends to society as the Gospel is wont to bring when men's hearts are changed and inclined to do the commands of God -- and by the many and conflicting portraits of Christ resulting from wanton and unwarranted (did I mention mutually conflicting?) criteriological standards and historiographic methods common to the post-modern Marcionite writers. Heresy by any other name, self-cancels just as beautifully.
They key to avoiding the arbitrariness of interpretation and application of passages -- on the one hand -- and the self-refuting rules of detecting "historical" or "authentic" passages remains the only biblical solution to each dilemma: the firm conviction that the Older Testament carries the same authority and the New, as Testament each defines the authority of the other. The first does so by promise and prophesy, and the second by retroactice reflection and dominical-apostolic interpretation.
For the gospel was preached to them beforehand in the Older Testamental era, and the law receives its full and balanced interpretation and application in the life and teachings of the Lord Jesus, and in the apostolic doctrine of the Newer Testament.
Here, the right hand is fully aware of what the left hand does, for one and the Same Spirit of Jesus spoke the words of all the prophets, from Adam to the apostles, which is what makes the Holy Scripture like a seamless garment, each part mutually consenting to the others. Unity of logical effect, in other words, stems from the unity of the Source.
Therefore, "The Scripture [The entirety as a single canonical unit] cannot be broken." But the nations He shall dash to pieces like so much pottery, ruling them with a rod of biblical iron.
These are a few things they may have forgotten to tell you about the First Testament.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
The Bible On Unity and Catholicity in Churches
Let's face it, many churches have grown pretty lax about their liturgy today; some of them have such a loose understanding of just what this means that they do not even look like true churches. When Paul reproved the Corinthians for failing to see to it that their women covered their heads in worship, he added "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we [the apostles] have no other practice; nor do the churches of God."
This clearly implies that the apostles built churches according to one single pattern, so that ALL the churches of God had the same practices in the worship and government of the Church. For all the churches of God did the same thing when it came to head-coverings. They did this because the apostles only taught one pattern of worship. To put it crudely for the sake of clarity, the apostles trained ministers to have a cookie-cutter church, which conformed in every way to the practices of the others. The churches looked and sounded identical. This is a priestly order the apostles carefully followed, that of the priesthood of Melchizedek (the Lord Jesus). This is why Paul introduced 1 Corinthians 11 with praising the Corinthians for keeping the [apostolic] traditions, which the apostles had obtained from Christ. For the Lord Jesus taught them all things concerning the kingdom of God for 40 days after he was raised up, as Luke outlines.
They were steeped in the training they got from the Lord Jesus, beginning from Genesis and in all the law and the prophets, he showed them all things. So they memorized his words (with the help of the Holy Spirit as Christ promised), and passed them down unaltered to the leaders they appointed in the churches everywhere. Thus all the churches had one and the same dominical and apostolic liturgical pattern. It is because they have "one Lord" that they also have "one faith" and "one baptism." You will notice that "the faith" shortens the "Christian faith" or "the faith of Jesus," and that baptism being a sacrament is a matter of worship (liturgy).
So the fact that Christians have one Lord leads them to have one set of doctrines, and one set of liturgical practices only. The Revelation confirms this emphatically and repeatedly with its seven-fold picture of the Church taken from Exodus and 1 Kings.
Revelation 1:10-18:
I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day [This tells us right away that the text is about Christ and the Church, concerning holy things, matters between God and his people] and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:
[This book concerns a uniquely transitional time, the end -- last days -- of one era, and the beginning -- first days -- of another, and Christ is the cause of both; this is why He is also called here the BRIGHT morning star -- for Venus both pre-signals sun-down, the day's end, and sun-up, a new beginning] and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
[These churches are -- for their symmetry, nay identity, one. But one what? The most obvious answer is one Presbytery, which is composed of seven churches, at the midway point between the eastern and western Church -- it situates right between Europe and the Middle East as a gateway or centrepiece. This is "every presbytery" a federal representation of the whole catholic Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, who redeemed them from every tribe, tongue and nation on the face of the earth.]
And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
[This description of the Lord, as a priest after the order of Melchizedek, shows that he is both King and Priest, and that his mission of redemption is the reason for his shining strength -- this means that he shows Himself mighty to save, unstoppable against the kings of the earth.]
His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; [this is from Isaiah, regarding the redemption of sinners] and his eyes were as a flame of fire [fire here symbolizes purification and piercing knowledge, which he displays in his comments to the churches]; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. [Many waters in Daniel are many peoples, those redeemed will be from every land] And he had in his right hand seven stars: [The stars are God's people in glory, he redeems and keeps them by oath -- the source of His priesthood and of theirs -- The Lord Jesus has sworn that they will not fail, and He will uphold them; the right hand is that with which one swears an oath as does the angel in Rev. 12] and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: [This is the Word of God preached as we know from later texts in this book] and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength [Christ empowers his people to preach the Word with great authority and clarity, as with the spirit of Elijah in John the Baptist]. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
[John here prefigures what will happen to the saints who preach with power. Like John the Baptist, they are beheaded, but then raised up to life, to reign as kings and priests in the land where they were killed, as its new rulers to replace the "kings of the earth." Jesus' own example provides the pattern for his people. He was a preacher who was martyred, raised up again, and then made king over the kings of the earth.
Here is that three-fold self-reference by the Lord -- Rev. 1:5-6 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness [witness and martyr are the same Greek word], and the first-begotten of the dead [first one raised from the dead], and [consequently] the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
[Here, we learn from the word "AND" that what befell Christ also comes upon His people. For a student, when he is fully trained, is LIKE his Teacher. God's people are priests after the order of Melchizedek (priests AND kings - this was impossible under the Older covenant priesthood, and only two priesthoods are mentioned respecting the saints]. So Jesus is 1. faithful witness-martyr 2. Raised up from the dead following his ministry 3. Ruler of the kings of the earth
Psalm 2 adds that He rules them with a rod of iron, meaning via the Law of the Lord precisely; and this same promise the Lord offers to His people in Revelation 2 (i.e. "even as I overcame and sat down [on a kingly throne] twith my Father")
The same pattern comes upon the saints in the book of revelation, and here John (or the Lord) opens its major theme.
1 Kings 7:48-50
And Solomon made all the vessels that pertained unto the house of the LORD: the altar of gold, and the table of gold, whereupon the shewbread was, And the candlesticks of pure gold, five on the right side, and five on the left [Here, we learn that the churches and the law of the Lord go together in some sense; in Revelation we learn that this signifies their kingship over the nations in the resurrection; for this is that by which they shall rule with a rod of iron; Revelation has only 7, not 10. The reason for this is the emphasis upon the priesthood of believers and of Christ], before the oracle, with the flowers, and the lamps, and the tongs of gold, And the bowls, and the snuffers, and the basons, and the spoons, and the censers of pure gold; and the hinges of gold, both for the doors of the inner house, the most holy place, and for the doors of the house, to wit, of the temple.
[These are the very same bowls and censers which show up in the Revelation in the hands of the angels, by which they pour out God's wrath in 21 steps -- which is actually three sets of 7. That by the testimony of two OR THREE witnesses is every matter established. Now each set of seven in the revelation actually turns out to represent a 7-fold version of what is portrayed. So these are actually 3 judgments from God, each of which is expressed in a seven-fold manner. For example, the 7 churches are THE catholic CHURCH; the seven promises -- if you isolate them and then line them up next to each other, you will see this -- are really simply 7 ways of promising one glorious truth -- the resurrection of all believers in Jesus to be kings and priests "with Him." With him signifies not His immediate personal presence, but their representation of Him -- for he has appointed them, and nothing will be more obvious than that when they rise from their graves and begin talking -- preaching the same message as that which they held when they died in faith. For they still have "One Lord, one faith, and one baptism."
These are presented in the Bible by way of typology earlier, where Esther and Solomon are the types of Christ, and of those in Christ (the Church), in the resurrection. The promises of Revelation, which Christ gives to believers, make this clear enough.
Now when Solomon was crowned, it says in Chronicles that "Solomon sat down on the throne OF THE LORD." It does not say, the "throne of Israel," or some other expected title. Solomon reigned on behalf of God as His appointed (adopted) son. At the coronation of the king it was pronounced "You are [now] my [adopted] son; this day have I begotten thee." Kings were seen as uniquely the sons of God. Therefore, when Luke retraces the genealogy of Christ to "Adam, the son of God," he implies the obvious -- Adam was the appointed ruler of planet earth with his wife. They were in charge by default if by no other means, and yet God clearly had ordained this. He said, take dominion over the birds, creatures and fish (i.e. rule them).
If only Adam had known -- serpents taste like chicken. And he had all the plants and herbs he needed to make a great barbecue sauce.
Thus, biblical sonship already entails the kingship of believers with their priesthood. It is the job, we learn from the example of Josiah, of both kings and priests to set the House of the Lord in order, to follow just so the liturgical pattern set forth in God's word for all his churches.
Thus, when Paul reproved the Corinthians for deviating from this pattern, he said, "the rest I will set in order when I come" [to see you personally]. To compel the believing people of God to do all according to the pattern Jesus gave to the apostles for the worship and government of the Church is to set in order the seven lampstands.
Exodus 39:37 forsees this happening -- in referring to the lampstands -- "The pure candlestick, with the lamps thereof, even with the lamps to be set in order ..."
The churches are to be set in order. Their purity depends upon this.
Exodus 40: 4 and 22-23 read:
And thou shalt bring in the table, and set in order the things that are to be set in order upon it; and thou shalt bring in the candlestick, and light the lamps thereof.
And he put the table in the tent of the congregation, upon the side of the tabernacle northward, without the vail. And he set the bread in order upon it before the LORD; as the LORD had commanded Moses.
Precise liturgy is a divine command. It must proceed according to divine "command." All things had to be set and carefully adjusted just so, if anything is plain from reading the excruciating details of the making of the tabernacle of Moses. This is not different in the New Testament, and is often called the "Regulative Principle of the Worship and Government of the Church."
Since this one principle is to govern every Church, they should look identical -- for the 7 lampstands look not one whit different one from another. Nor did the 10 lampstands of Solomon's making. In worship, diversity is idolatry, because it is a thing the Lord never commanded, and ought not to be done in all the Lord's House. The fact that it is HIS HOUSE means we need HIS permission by way of commandment, authoritative example, implied command (via the principles of the Word), or other form of divine warrant recognized in the Word itself as amounting to a divine command (as from the logical force of several commands taken together in their proper context).
Diversity of liturgy in God's house is plainly UNWANTED, or else the Lord would have said it. Thus it says, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." If the Church is to be holy, catholic or one, it MUST BE apostolic in doctrine and liturgy. This can only come by faith (golden lampstands are golden for a reason). Apostolicity needs a warrant from the Word, or else the practice in question must be abolished. The "twelve" as the apostles are called, together with the Scripture-writing prophets form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20), which is what makes it the "pillar and ground" [foundation] of truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
This means they form the foundation of the Church because they wrote the canon. There is no apostolic or prophetic voice apart from the canon.
Now these three elements, the altar of gold, the table of the showbread, and the lampstands (here candlesticks, as with revelation) -- each of these has applied to it uniquely the phrase "set in order," from the description of them found in Exodus 39 and 40. These were constructed under Moses originally, at the able hands of Bezalel, son of Ahisamach, and Oholiab his servant. What do these three elements have in common? Worship. The altar is the place of sacrifice. The table of the showbread somewhat obviously finds its counterpart in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. And the lampstands form a picture of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church -- with its liturgy set in order.
The Church can no more have diversity of its liturgy than it can have diverse Gospels to preach. If anyone preaches a different Gospel, Paul has a word from the Lord for them. It begins and ends with an "a." How can we regard the worship of the living God any less? The Reformers held that the worship of God was the one area of biblical teaching more important than even getting the Gospel straight. Now that's something. Where do you suppose they got that idea? "Whatsoever you do, whether in what you eat or in what you drink, do ALL THINGS for the glory of God."
To set them in order required them to follow exactly the divine pattern which was given to Moses from Mount Sinai. Just so, King David received the divine pattern for the making of the Temple from the Lord, which he gave to Solomon for the building of it, together with all manner of treasure for its building. Moses was told, and Hebrews repeats for us the divine command: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the Mount." You will notice there is no place in the word where it says regarding the liturgy, "you figure it out," "Use your own wisdom," or "just wing it."
The notion of one single [liturgical] pattern to which all churches of Christ must outwardly conform finds its teaching in Genesis [for the Lord set the creation in order and then had the tabernacle and Temple modeled upon it], all through the canon. Some of the textual features of these passages before us today, which make this clear are:
The very fact that only one pattern is given and there are many churches. This implies that all churches have the identical liturgical pattern; for "different weights and different measures, the Lord detests them both." He has but one standard and many churches which must follow it.
Second, each of the lampstands or candlesticks was made of identical features; there was supposed to be no difference in principle by which you could tell one lampstand from another; for they were of the same weight, size, shape, and color. They were all composed of pure gold, which signifies the faith of the community of saints before God.
Exodus 25:31 confirms that these were to be identical by divine design:
"And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made: his shaft, and his branches, his bowls, his knops, and his flowers, shall be of the same."
The purity of the churches depends upon the biblical integrity of their liturgical obedience to the Word of God.
Exodus 25:9 forms the general instruction under which all the work of the tabernacle was to proceed, including the making of the lampstands (above) --
"According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.
"Even so" means just precisely as ordered, without deviation from the pattern. What is the point of having a pattern if you can deviate from it?
Third, Revelation tells us plainly that these lampstands are the churches -- or seven-fold Church -- of the Lord Jesus. He walks in their midst, standing (as it were) exactly equadistant from each of the churches.
Fourth, he reproves and/ or praises all of them, treating them with no favoritism, but according to the special characters of each. These result from their IMPERFECTIONS -- sins -- which when eliminated would make them glorifed (which the brilliant beauty of the gold displays) and identical. This shows that liturgical diversity results from SIN, which is to be removed, so that the lampstand itself is not removed from Christ's presence.
Whole churches, even denominations, can be removed from His immediate presence. Even nations are to Him as a drop in the bucket for smallness. There is only safety in repentance and faith in Jesus, which requires conformity to the heavenly pattern God has given.
Fifth, All believers in Jesus share in one and the same priesthood. In the Bible, each priesthood has an exact order -- a priestly order -- in which all things holy have a precise divine design. It is the duty of the priests to conform all things under their charge to this order.
Sixth, it is the duty of kings to set the church of the Lord in order under their jurisdiction. The original Westminster Confession of Faith confirms this, leaning to passages like 1 Chronicles, where King Josiah has the praise of the Holy Spirit for setting in order the Church of the Lord and holding the most biblically faithful passover ever, since the days of Samuel the prophet and priest.
Technically precise liturgical fidelity is not considered undue fastidiousness in the Word. Just the opposite. It is considered loyalty to God and such fidelity displays holiness, and zeal for God. The one who treats the worship of God lightly is the one the Scripture points to as the slacker, who either shows a lack of concern about God's glory, or simply does his ministerial work incompetently, or half-heartedly.
2 Chronicles 34:33 says of King Josiah by way of summary:
"And Josiah took away all the abominations out of all the countries that pertained to the children of Israel, and made all that were present in Israel to serve, even to serve the LORD their God. And all his days they departed not from following the LORD, the God of their fathers."
The next chapter continues (2 Chronicles 35: 1-3):
Moreover Josiah kept a passover unto the LORD in Jerusalem: and they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month. And he set the priests in their charges, and encouraged them to the service of the house of the LORD, And said unto the Levites that taught all Israel, which were holy unto the LORD, Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel did build; it shall not be a burden upon your shoulders: serve now the LORD your God, and his people Israel ..."
Verse 18 summarizes Josiah's fidelity to God thus:
"And there was no passover like to that kept in Israel from the days of Samuel the prophet; neither did all the kings of Israel keep such a passover as Josiah kept, and the priests, and the Levites, and all Judah and Israel that were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah was this passover kept."
Thus the Holy Spirit heaps praise upon Josiah for his great zeal in pursuing the commandments of God to their least detail, to see to it that the worship of God proceeds only according to the divine commandment.
Today's lesson? Go ye and do likewise, according to what the Lord has commanded. See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you in the Word. The catholicity of the Church of Jesus Christ, and its purity, begins here. For the law of the Lord is perfect; and the commandment is a lamp for our feet, and a light for our path.
This clearly implies that the apostles built churches according to one single pattern, so that ALL the churches of God had the same practices in the worship and government of the Church. For all the churches of God did the same thing when it came to head-coverings. They did this because the apostles only taught one pattern of worship. To put it crudely for the sake of clarity, the apostles trained ministers to have a cookie-cutter church, which conformed in every way to the practices of the others. The churches looked and sounded identical. This is a priestly order the apostles carefully followed, that of the priesthood of Melchizedek (the Lord Jesus). This is why Paul introduced 1 Corinthians 11 with praising the Corinthians for keeping the [apostolic] traditions, which the apostles had obtained from Christ. For the Lord Jesus taught them all things concerning the kingdom of God for 40 days after he was raised up, as Luke outlines.
They were steeped in the training they got from the Lord Jesus, beginning from Genesis and in all the law and the prophets, he showed them all things. So they memorized his words (with the help of the Holy Spirit as Christ promised), and passed them down unaltered to the leaders they appointed in the churches everywhere. Thus all the churches had one and the same dominical and apostolic liturgical pattern. It is because they have "one Lord" that they also have "one faith" and "one baptism." You will notice that "the faith" shortens the "Christian faith" or "the faith of Jesus," and that baptism being a sacrament is a matter of worship (liturgy).
So the fact that Christians have one Lord leads them to have one set of doctrines, and one set of liturgical practices only. The Revelation confirms this emphatically and repeatedly with its seven-fold picture of the Church taken from Exodus and 1 Kings.
Revelation 1:10-18:
I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day [This tells us right away that the text is about Christ and the Church, concerning holy things, matters between God and his people] and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:
[This book concerns a uniquely transitional time, the end -- last days -- of one era, and the beginning -- first days -- of another, and Christ is the cause of both; this is why He is also called here the BRIGHT morning star -- for Venus both pre-signals sun-down, the day's end, and sun-up, a new beginning] and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
[These churches are -- for their symmetry, nay identity, one. But one what? The most obvious answer is one Presbytery, which is composed of seven churches, at the midway point between the eastern and western Church -- it situates right between Europe and the Middle East as a gateway or centrepiece. This is "every presbytery" a federal representation of the whole catholic Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, who redeemed them from every tribe, tongue and nation on the face of the earth.]
And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
[This description of the Lord, as a priest after the order of Melchizedek, shows that he is both King and Priest, and that his mission of redemption is the reason for his shining strength -- this means that he shows Himself mighty to save, unstoppable against the kings of the earth.]
His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; [this is from Isaiah, regarding the redemption of sinners] and his eyes were as a flame of fire [fire here symbolizes purification and piercing knowledge, which he displays in his comments to the churches]; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. [Many waters in Daniel are many peoples, those redeemed will be from every land] And he had in his right hand seven stars: [The stars are God's people in glory, he redeems and keeps them by oath -- the source of His priesthood and of theirs -- The Lord Jesus has sworn that they will not fail, and He will uphold them; the right hand is that with which one swears an oath as does the angel in Rev. 12] and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: [This is the Word of God preached as we know from later texts in this book] and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength [Christ empowers his people to preach the Word with great authority and clarity, as with the spirit of Elijah in John the Baptist]. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
[John here prefigures what will happen to the saints who preach with power. Like John the Baptist, they are beheaded, but then raised up to life, to reign as kings and priests in the land where they were killed, as its new rulers to replace the "kings of the earth." Jesus' own example provides the pattern for his people. He was a preacher who was martyred, raised up again, and then made king over the kings of the earth.
Here is that three-fold self-reference by the Lord -- Rev. 1:5-6 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness [witness and martyr are the same Greek word], and the first-begotten of the dead [first one raised from the dead], and [consequently] the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
[Here, we learn from the word "AND" that what befell Christ also comes upon His people. For a student, when he is fully trained, is LIKE his Teacher. God's people are priests after the order of Melchizedek (priests AND kings - this was impossible under the Older covenant priesthood, and only two priesthoods are mentioned respecting the saints]. So Jesus is 1. faithful witness-martyr 2. Raised up from the dead following his ministry 3. Ruler of the kings of the earth
Psalm 2 adds that He rules them with a rod of iron, meaning via the Law of the Lord precisely; and this same promise the Lord offers to His people in Revelation 2 (i.e. "even as I overcame and sat down [on a kingly throne] twith my Father")
The same pattern comes upon the saints in the book of revelation, and here John (or the Lord) opens its major theme.
1 Kings 7:48-50
And Solomon made all the vessels that pertained unto the house of the LORD: the altar of gold, and the table of gold, whereupon the shewbread was, And the candlesticks of pure gold, five on the right side, and five on the left [Here, we learn that the churches and the law of the Lord go together in some sense; in Revelation we learn that this signifies their kingship over the nations in the resurrection; for this is that by which they shall rule with a rod of iron; Revelation has only 7, not 10. The reason for this is the emphasis upon the priesthood of believers and of Christ], before the oracle, with the flowers, and the lamps, and the tongs of gold, And the bowls, and the snuffers, and the basons, and the spoons, and the censers of pure gold; and the hinges of gold, both for the doors of the inner house, the most holy place, and for the doors of the house, to wit, of the temple.
[These are the very same bowls and censers which show up in the Revelation in the hands of the angels, by which they pour out God's wrath in 21 steps -- which is actually three sets of 7. That by the testimony of two OR THREE witnesses is every matter established. Now each set of seven in the revelation actually turns out to represent a 7-fold version of what is portrayed. So these are actually 3 judgments from God, each of which is expressed in a seven-fold manner. For example, the 7 churches are THE catholic CHURCH; the seven promises -- if you isolate them and then line them up next to each other, you will see this -- are really simply 7 ways of promising one glorious truth -- the resurrection of all believers in Jesus to be kings and priests "with Him." With him signifies not His immediate personal presence, but their representation of Him -- for he has appointed them, and nothing will be more obvious than that when they rise from their graves and begin talking -- preaching the same message as that which they held when they died in faith. For they still have "One Lord, one faith, and one baptism."
These are presented in the Bible by way of typology earlier, where Esther and Solomon are the types of Christ, and of those in Christ (the Church), in the resurrection. The promises of Revelation, which Christ gives to believers, make this clear enough.
Now when Solomon was crowned, it says in Chronicles that "Solomon sat down on the throne OF THE LORD." It does not say, the "throne of Israel," or some other expected title. Solomon reigned on behalf of God as His appointed (adopted) son. At the coronation of the king it was pronounced "You are [now] my [adopted] son; this day have I begotten thee." Kings were seen as uniquely the sons of God. Therefore, when Luke retraces the genealogy of Christ to "Adam, the son of God," he implies the obvious -- Adam was the appointed ruler of planet earth with his wife. They were in charge by default if by no other means, and yet God clearly had ordained this. He said, take dominion over the birds, creatures and fish (i.e. rule them).
If only Adam had known -- serpents taste like chicken. And he had all the plants and herbs he needed to make a great barbecue sauce.
Thus, biblical sonship already entails the kingship of believers with their priesthood. It is the job, we learn from the example of Josiah, of both kings and priests to set the House of the Lord in order, to follow just so the liturgical pattern set forth in God's word for all his churches.
Thus, when Paul reproved the Corinthians for deviating from this pattern, he said, "the rest I will set in order when I come" [to see you personally]. To compel the believing people of God to do all according to the pattern Jesus gave to the apostles for the worship and government of the Church is to set in order the seven lampstands.
Exodus 39:37 forsees this happening -- in referring to the lampstands -- "The pure candlestick, with the lamps thereof, even with the lamps to be set in order ..."
The churches are to be set in order. Their purity depends upon this.
Exodus 40: 4 and 22-23 read:
And thou shalt bring in the table, and set in order the things that are to be set in order upon it; and thou shalt bring in the candlestick, and light the lamps thereof.
And he put the table in the tent of the congregation, upon the side of the tabernacle northward, without the vail. And he set the bread in order upon it before the LORD; as the LORD had commanded Moses.
Precise liturgy is a divine command. It must proceed according to divine "command." All things had to be set and carefully adjusted just so, if anything is plain from reading the excruciating details of the making of the tabernacle of Moses. This is not different in the New Testament, and is often called the "Regulative Principle of the Worship and Government of the Church."
Since this one principle is to govern every Church, they should look identical -- for the 7 lampstands look not one whit different one from another. Nor did the 10 lampstands of Solomon's making. In worship, diversity is idolatry, because it is a thing the Lord never commanded, and ought not to be done in all the Lord's House. The fact that it is HIS HOUSE means we need HIS permission by way of commandment, authoritative example, implied command (via the principles of the Word), or other form of divine warrant recognized in the Word itself as amounting to a divine command (as from the logical force of several commands taken together in their proper context).
Diversity of liturgy in God's house is plainly UNWANTED, or else the Lord would have said it. Thus it says, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." If the Church is to be holy, catholic or one, it MUST BE apostolic in doctrine and liturgy. This can only come by faith (golden lampstands are golden for a reason). Apostolicity needs a warrant from the Word, or else the practice in question must be abolished. The "twelve" as the apostles are called, together with the Scripture-writing prophets form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20), which is what makes it the "pillar and ground" [foundation] of truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
This means they form the foundation of the Church because they wrote the canon. There is no apostolic or prophetic voice apart from the canon.
Now these three elements, the altar of gold, the table of the showbread, and the lampstands (here candlesticks, as with revelation) -- each of these has applied to it uniquely the phrase "set in order," from the description of them found in Exodus 39 and 40. These were constructed under Moses originally, at the able hands of Bezalel, son of Ahisamach, and Oholiab his servant. What do these three elements have in common? Worship. The altar is the place of sacrifice. The table of the showbread somewhat obviously finds its counterpart in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. And the lampstands form a picture of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church -- with its liturgy set in order.
The Church can no more have diversity of its liturgy than it can have diverse Gospels to preach. If anyone preaches a different Gospel, Paul has a word from the Lord for them. It begins and ends with an "a." How can we regard the worship of the living God any less? The Reformers held that the worship of God was the one area of biblical teaching more important than even getting the Gospel straight. Now that's something. Where do you suppose they got that idea? "Whatsoever you do, whether in what you eat or in what you drink, do ALL THINGS for the glory of God."
To set them in order required them to follow exactly the divine pattern which was given to Moses from Mount Sinai. Just so, King David received the divine pattern for the making of the Temple from the Lord, which he gave to Solomon for the building of it, together with all manner of treasure for its building. Moses was told, and Hebrews repeats for us the divine command: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the Mount." You will notice there is no place in the word where it says regarding the liturgy, "you figure it out," "Use your own wisdom," or "just wing it."
The notion of one single [liturgical] pattern to which all churches of Christ must outwardly conform finds its teaching in Genesis [for the Lord set the creation in order and then had the tabernacle and Temple modeled upon it], all through the canon. Some of the textual features of these passages before us today, which make this clear are:
The very fact that only one pattern is given and there are many churches. This implies that all churches have the identical liturgical pattern; for "different weights and different measures, the Lord detests them both." He has but one standard and many churches which must follow it.
Second, each of the lampstands or candlesticks was made of identical features; there was supposed to be no difference in principle by which you could tell one lampstand from another; for they were of the same weight, size, shape, and color. They were all composed of pure gold, which signifies the faith of the community of saints before God.
Exodus 25:31 confirms that these were to be identical by divine design:
"And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made: his shaft, and his branches, his bowls, his knops, and his flowers, shall be of the same."
The purity of the churches depends upon the biblical integrity of their liturgical obedience to the Word of God.
Exodus 25:9 forms the general instruction under which all the work of the tabernacle was to proceed, including the making of the lampstands (above) --
"According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.
"Even so" means just precisely as ordered, without deviation from the pattern. What is the point of having a pattern if you can deviate from it?
Third, Revelation tells us plainly that these lampstands are the churches -- or seven-fold Church -- of the Lord Jesus. He walks in their midst, standing (as it were) exactly equadistant from each of the churches.
Fourth, he reproves and/ or praises all of them, treating them with no favoritism, but according to the special characters of each. These result from their IMPERFECTIONS -- sins -- which when eliminated would make them glorifed (which the brilliant beauty of the gold displays) and identical. This shows that liturgical diversity results from SIN, which is to be removed, so that the lampstand itself is not removed from Christ's presence.
Whole churches, even denominations, can be removed from His immediate presence. Even nations are to Him as a drop in the bucket for smallness. There is only safety in repentance and faith in Jesus, which requires conformity to the heavenly pattern God has given.
Fifth, All believers in Jesus share in one and the same priesthood. In the Bible, each priesthood has an exact order -- a priestly order -- in which all things holy have a precise divine design. It is the duty of the priests to conform all things under their charge to this order.
Sixth, it is the duty of kings to set the church of the Lord in order under their jurisdiction. The original Westminster Confession of Faith confirms this, leaning to passages like 1 Chronicles, where King Josiah has the praise of the Holy Spirit for setting in order the Church of the Lord and holding the most biblically faithful passover ever, since the days of Samuel the prophet and priest.
Technically precise liturgical fidelity is not considered undue fastidiousness in the Word. Just the opposite. It is considered loyalty to God and such fidelity displays holiness, and zeal for God. The one who treats the worship of God lightly is the one the Scripture points to as the slacker, who either shows a lack of concern about God's glory, or simply does his ministerial work incompetently, or half-heartedly.
2 Chronicles 34:33 says of King Josiah by way of summary:
"And Josiah took away all the abominations out of all the countries that pertained to the children of Israel, and made all that were present in Israel to serve, even to serve the LORD their God. And all his days they departed not from following the LORD, the God of their fathers."
The next chapter continues (2 Chronicles 35: 1-3):
Moreover Josiah kept a passover unto the LORD in Jerusalem: and they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month. And he set the priests in their charges, and encouraged them to the service of the house of the LORD, And said unto the Levites that taught all Israel, which were holy unto the LORD, Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel did build; it shall not be a burden upon your shoulders: serve now the LORD your God, and his people Israel ..."
Verse 18 summarizes Josiah's fidelity to God thus:
"And there was no passover like to that kept in Israel from the days of Samuel the prophet; neither did all the kings of Israel keep such a passover as Josiah kept, and the priests, and the Levites, and all Judah and Israel that were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah was this passover kept."
Thus the Holy Spirit heaps praise upon Josiah for his great zeal in pursuing the commandments of God to their least detail, to see to it that the worship of God proceeds only according to the divine commandment.
Today's lesson? Go ye and do likewise, according to what the Lord has commanded. See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you in the Word. The catholicity of the Church of Jesus Christ, and its purity, begins here. For the law of the Lord is perfect; and the commandment is a lamp for our feet, and a light for our path.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Money Supply 101: The U.S. and Your Wallet
I once was told of a new law firm -- the joke goes -- "Duey, Cheetum and Howe," not to be outdone by "Lye, Cheetum and Steele." Sometimes one might feel like something is going on in the U.S. economy which approximates the sentiment conveyed by the joke known by all law students. There are in fact good reasons for this -- three to be precise. By name these are:
1. The Fiat Creation of Money
2. Expensive Regulatory Costs
3. Fractional Reserve Bilking (er, Banking. That was a Freudian slap).
According to the first of these, the U.S. government can create money (print dollars) de novo without any form of collateral -- liquid collateral -- to enable one to possess or redeem his money in specie (as they used to say), meaning, in the form of gold or silver. If you or I do this, it is called "counterfeiting," and it is against the law.
The laws of supply and demand tell us that when one adds more dollars to the pre-existing money supply, without a parallel addition to the money supply reserve of inherent value for which the new dollars stand, each dollar in circulation devalues by a small amount. In effect, the new dollars siphon off economic value from the existing dollar pool, shrinking the purchasing power of pre-existing dollars.
This creates inflation. Inflation represents the total cost of the new dollars to you and me. There is no free lunch, and there are no free dollars to buy it with when you pay for it. Put a little more "historically," the de novo production of money amounts to "taxation without representation." You don't vote for the Fed Chairman, and the other bureaucracies wouldn't let you even if it were legal.
The biblical commentary on this practice is short and decisive: Thou shalt not steal.
Second, Regulation is a form of taxation. Most people do not recognize this, and no one is going to tell you this, especially not the Democrats. Each time a new law is passed which requires businesses, corporations, and/ or individuals to change some form of behavior, it has sweeping effects across the entire economy, since each economic unit involved -- millions potentially -- must spend money to comply with the new law. Some are more expensive than others, but all of them cost. The precise cost to people in the economy depends on where the money goes which is paid for compliance. Often, the money leaves the national economy.
This also can make items purchased commonly in the U.S. more expensive, since businesses must pass this cost onto their customers, or else simply lose money. By regulation then (some of which is necessary), we drive UP the cost of domestic goods and services, making it more likely that customers will buy elsewhere (reducing our gross national and domestic products).
Over-regulation then amounts to theft as well. This implies that we need an objective standard by which to judge just WHICH regulations are warranted and which are not - for the latter are excessive (theft). These create inflation by rendering domestic goods and services more expensive.
When one combines the shrinking dollar with the more expensive goods and services, we have a "double-whammy" inflation producing mechanism in the economy.
Third, what is called "Fractional Reserve Banking," contributes to our overall money supply problems. Wikipedia describes the dubious practice thus:
"Fractional-reserve banking refers to the common banking practice of issuing more credit than the bank holds as reserves. Banks in modern economies typically loan their customers many times the sum of the credit reserves than they hold."
How does the law allow a bank to lend far more than it has on hand in reserve assets? Wiki explains it this way:
"Reserves (silver, gold, and U.S. Bonds in past banking eras and U.S Bonds or Credit in the present banking era) are a special form of money which can be held by the commercial banks either in their vaults or on deposit at the central bank. They are generally described as a "high-powered" form of money and are needed to perform fractional reserve banking. When a bank is in possession of [such] bank reserves this means that it is able to lend more currency to others than it has on deposit."
"If we imagine a bank which has $100 in reserves, with a 20% reserve ratio the bank would be able to lend up to $400 without breaching the ratio."
If this sounds counter-intuitive to your ethical sensibilities -- leaving you saying HUH? -- you are not alone. You have sixty-six biblical books on your side. This practice can put large numbers of investors and bankers at great financial risk.
The net effect of FRB is to create additional capital for investing in the short run at a very high cost in the longer run. This is short-term thinking at odds with the postmillenial teachings of the Bible.
Here is the wikipedia explanation from the Austrian school of just what happens historically with FRB allocated investment resources [God bless the Austrian economists]:
"Fractional Reserve Banking allows an increase in the supply of currency available to make loans to purchase investment capital, without increasing the quantity of investment capital or real savings. The quantity of loans will be higher than the actual supply of saved resources available for investment. Investors will assume that the quantity of loans available represents real savings. This misinformation leads investors to misallocate capital, borrowing and investing too much in long-term projects for which there is insufficient demand and real savings. As investors spend borrowed currency, segments of the economy will boom. Later investors will find the prices of their outputs falling and their costs rising, leading to the failure of new projects and a bust."
Okay, let me try this one on you. First, your goverment creates funny money, shrinking your dollars, then overregulates business to drive up the cost of the stuff you buy. This third insult means that central banks can pretend to loan your bank -- and your business -- money it does not really have. This is a deliberate (self-conscious and systematic) overextension of credit. Now why would anyone do this?
This practice enables banks in effect to "create money" out of the blue -- credit dollars let us call them, by extending their lending power like one extends a telescope. This means that banks ARTIFICIALLY grow and shrink the money supply at will, within the constraints allowed them by Uncle Sam. This allows them to manipulate the cost of money.
What does it mean to say "the COST of money?" When one lends money, he charges interest. Interest is what you pay to rent the money. It shows how much you will have to pay to rent (borrowing is renting at interest rather than at a flat fee like a boat) the money. So money has a COST, if you wish to borrow it.
By increasing or shrinking the money supply, banks can make money more rare or more common. Now supply and demand tells us that more rare items are more expensive, and ones more common are cheaper. One of the reasons a single ounce of gold costs so much is that gold is very hard to find. It is rare.
So if -- I mean when -- fractional reserve bankers cut the money supply, they drive up the cost of money. By reversing this process, they render money cheaper. This gives the central banks a clearly unfair advantage (monopolies are against the law), and their "better customer" banks also an edge others do not have.
Now the government is able to manipulate the money supply this way, but it is - please recall -- artificial. There is not only no money (gold or silver) back these credit extensions; there are not even any promises currently backing them (letters of credit, etc). If anyone else tried this, they would be arrested and charged with several crimes, in the case of the government (since they can impose sanctions) this would include extortion, fraud, and all manner of market manipulation tactics forbidden to companies and individuals.
It also has hidden costs (which are beyond the scope of this post), but suffice it to say that it can and has put the entire economy at risk. By overextending credit, one puts banks in the position (if defaults come hard and fast) of collapsing and defaulting on THEIR own promises in turn to those who entrust their assets to the banks.
For these, and many other reasons, if you live in the U.S., you find it extremely difficult to get ahead, and it seems like your paychecks are always "shrinking." That's because they are. In addition, you must pay myriad taxes which can add up - these are the ones you can see -- to almost one third of your entire earnings. If you add all the hiddens "fees" -- from inflation-generating taxes, practices and unethical maneuvering -- you might pay over half of what you make.
Finally, consider this. Inflation is not a one-time tax. It compounds over time. The dollars printed now have something like 25% at most the purchasing power of 1970 dollars. In other words, your 2005 dollars are worth a 1970 quarter at best.
This is the cost of doing other than what the Bible commands. No wonder the Lord Jesus constantly compared debt to sin, as in "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." And, also, the Bible teaches, "the tongue of the righteous is choice silver." This is because any nation which puts into effect the Word of God taught by the righteous will find their barns overflowing and vats brimming over with new wine.
In the days of Solomon, whose tongue was choicest silver, silver itself was so common, it became like stones. This is called "abundance in abundance." And the rewards of wisdom are better than rubies. Righteousness exalts a nation, but fractional reserve banking destroys any people. So does counterfeiting. You can't call it something else just because the government does it.
But, "blessed is that nation whose God is the Lord." Your wallet could be much fatter, and it isn't just your own doings (diligence, ingenuity, investing) that make the difference. It is the national -- covenanted -- community in which you live -- for better or for inflation.
So now you know.
1. The Fiat Creation of Money
2. Expensive Regulatory Costs
3. Fractional Reserve Bilking (er, Banking. That was a Freudian slap).
According to the first of these, the U.S. government can create money (print dollars) de novo without any form of collateral -- liquid collateral -- to enable one to possess or redeem his money in specie (as they used to say), meaning, in the form of gold or silver. If you or I do this, it is called "counterfeiting," and it is against the law.
The laws of supply and demand tell us that when one adds more dollars to the pre-existing money supply, without a parallel addition to the money supply reserve of inherent value for which the new dollars stand, each dollar in circulation devalues by a small amount. In effect, the new dollars siphon off economic value from the existing dollar pool, shrinking the purchasing power of pre-existing dollars.
This creates inflation. Inflation represents the total cost of the new dollars to you and me. There is no free lunch, and there are no free dollars to buy it with when you pay for it. Put a little more "historically," the de novo production of money amounts to "taxation without representation." You don't vote for the Fed Chairman, and the other bureaucracies wouldn't let you even if it were legal.
The biblical commentary on this practice is short and decisive: Thou shalt not steal.
Second, Regulation is a form of taxation. Most people do not recognize this, and no one is going to tell you this, especially not the Democrats. Each time a new law is passed which requires businesses, corporations, and/ or individuals to change some form of behavior, it has sweeping effects across the entire economy, since each economic unit involved -- millions potentially -- must spend money to comply with the new law. Some are more expensive than others, but all of them cost. The precise cost to people in the economy depends on where the money goes which is paid for compliance. Often, the money leaves the national economy.
This also can make items purchased commonly in the U.S. more expensive, since businesses must pass this cost onto their customers, or else simply lose money. By regulation then (some of which is necessary), we drive UP the cost of domestic goods and services, making it more likely that customers will buy elsewhere (reducing our gross national and domestic products).
Over-regulation then amounts to theft as well. This implies that we need an objective standard by which to judge just WHICH regulations are warranted and which are not - for the latter are excessive (theft). These create inflation by rendering domestic goods and services more expensive.
When one combines the shrinking dollar with the more expensive goods and services, we have a "double-whammy" inflation producing mechanism in the economy.
Third, what is called "Fractional Reserve Banking," contributes to our overall money supply problems. Wikipedia describes the dubious practice thus:
"Fractional-reserve banking refers to the common banking practice of issuing more credit than the bank holds as reserves. Banks in modern economies typically loan their customers many times the sum of the credit reserves than they hold."
How does the law allow a bank to lend far more than it has on hand in reserve assets? Wiki explains it this way:
"Reserves (silver, gold, and U.S. Bonds in past banking eras and U.S Bonds or Credit in the present banking era) are a special form of money which can be held by the commercial banks either in their vaults or on deposit at the central bank. They are generally described as a "high-powered" form of money and are needed to perform fractional reserve banking. When a bank is in possession of [such] bank reserves this means that it is able to lend more currency to others than it has on deposit."
"If we imagine a bank which has $100 in reserves, with a 20% reserve ratio the bank would be able to lend up to $400 without breaching the ratio."
If this sounds counter-intuitive to your ethical sensibilities -- leaving you saying HUH? -- you are not alone. You have sixty-six biblical books on your side. This practice can put large numbers of investors and bankers at great financial risk.
The net effect of FRB is to create additional capital for investing in the short run at a very high cost in the longer run. This is short-term thinking at odds with the postmillenial teachings of the Bible.
Here is the wikipedia explanation from the Austrian school of just what happens historically with FRB allocated investment resources [God bless the Austrian economists]:
"Fractional Reserve Banking allows an increase in the supply of currency available to make loans to purchase investment capital, without increasing the quantity of investment capital or real savings. The quantity of loans will be higher than the actual supply of saved resources available for investment. Investors will assume that the quantity of loans available represents real savings. This misinformation leads investors to misallocate capital, borrowing and investing too much in long-term projects for which there is insufficient demand and real savings. As investors spend borrowed currency, segments of the economy will boom. Later investors will find the prices of their outputs falling and their costs rising, leading to the failure of new projects and a bust."
Okay, let me try this one on you. First, your goverment creates funny money, shrinking your dollars, then overregulates business to drive up the cost of the stuff you buy. This third insult means that central banks can pretend to loan your bank -- and your business -- money it does not really have. This is a deliberate (self-conscious and systematic) overextension of credit. Now why would anyone do this?
This practice enables banks in effect to "create money" out of the blue -- credit dollars let us call them, by extending their lending power like one extends a telescope. This means that banks ARTIFICIALLY grow and shrink the money supply at will, within the constraints allowed them by Uncle Sam. This allows them to manipulate the cost of money.
What does it mean to say "the COST of money?" When one lends money, he charges interest. Interest is what you pay to rent the money. It shows how much you will have to pay to rent (borrowing is renting at interest rather than at a flat fee like a boat) the money. So money has a COST, if you wish to borrow it.
By increasing or shrinking the money supply, banks can make money more rare or more common. Now supply and demand tells us that more rare items are more expensive, and ones more common are cheaper. One of the reasons a single ounce of gold costs so much is that gold is very hard to find. It is rare.
So if -- I mean when -- fractional reserve bankers cut the money supply, they drive up the cost of money. By reversing this process, they render money cheaper. This gives the central banks a clearly unfair advantage (monopolies are against the law), and their "better customer" banks also an edge others do not have.
Now the government is able to manipulate the money supply this way, but it is - please recall -- artificial. There is not only no money (gold or silver) back these credit extensions; there are not even any promises currently backing them (letters of credit, etc). If anyone else tried this, they would be arrested and charged with several crimes, in the case of the government (since they can impose sanctions) this would include extortion, fraud, and all manner of market manipulation tactics forbidden to companies and individuals.
It also has hidden costs (which are beyond the scope of this post), but suffice it to say that it can and has put the entire economy at risk. By overextending credit, one puts banks in the position (if defaults come hard and fast) of collapsing and defaulting on THEIR own promises in turn to those who entrust their assets to the banks.
For these, and many other reasons, if you live in the U.S., you find it extremely difficult to get ahead, and it seems like your paychecks are always "shrinking." That's because they are. In addition, you must pay myriad taxes which can add up - these are the ones you can see -- to almost one third of your entire earnings. If you add all the hiddens "fees" -- from inflation-generating taxes, practices and unethical maneuvering -- you might pay over half of what you make.
Finally, consider this. Inflation is not a one-time tax. It compounds over time. The dollars printed now have something like 25% at most the purchasing power of 1970 dollars. In other words, your 2005 dollars are worth a 1970 quarter at best.
This is the cost of doing other than what the Bible commands. No wonder the Lord Jesus constantly compared debt to sin, as in "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." And, also, the Bible teaches, "the tongue of the righteous is choice silver." This is because any nation which puts into effect the Word of God taught by the righteous will find their barns overflowing and vats brimming over with new wine.
In the days of Solomon, whose tongue was choicest silver, silver itself was so common, it became like stones. This is called "abundance in abundance." And the rewards of wisdom are better than rubies. Righteousness exalts a nation, but fractional reserve banking destroys any people. So does counterfeiting. You can't call it something else just because the government does it.
But, "blessed is that nation whose God is the Lord." Your wallet could be much fatter, and it isn't just your own doings (diligence, ingenuity, investing) that make the difference. It is the national -- covenanted -- community in which you live -- for better or for inflation.
So now you know.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Are Your Students Intelligent? The I.Q. Question and The Case Of Sergius Paulus
Presumably, you desire homeschooling in order better to manage the educational environment of your students. We want wise children, and wiser adults, who are intelligent. But the question of measuring intelligence has always been a sticky one for the world of "Enlightenment" thinkers.
Since the times of the Renaissance and before, various cultural and scholastic standards used to determine one's level of intelligence, competence, or other kinds of "skills of the mind" have prevailed. True education engenders more than intelligence (wisdom requires intelligence), but never LESS.
So -- seeing that I am always on about the Bible having the answers we need (which it does, and this explains why I say this so often) -- we must ask here, which of all these standardized evaluations for intelligence ought we to look to for guidance?
Here is our related text for the day. Acts 13 offers some great insights here. We shall scrutinize verses 5-12:
And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister. And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus [Son of Jesus]: Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.
But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him. And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?
And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand. Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord.
Here, we learn a fascinating lesson about contrasting notions of "intelligence," represented on the one hand, by Sergius Paulus, and on the other hand by his assistant (most likely a counselor), Elymas the sorcerer.
Now it was the custom of rulers in the ancient world to seek men of subtilty or intelligence, often called "wise men," whom they chose as faithful counselors to help them most wisely carry out their tasks of ruling. Sergius Paulus obviously represents a Latin name. He is a Roman ruler, probably a Prefect or Consul -- similar to Pontius Pilate but with a smaller jurisdiction.
Sergius Paulus, recognizing certain insights (and perhaps power) that Elymas had, opted to hire him for the services associated with consulting (today we would call him a "consultant"). No one in this text disputes his extraordinary abilities. In fact, Paul confesses that Elymas is "full of all subtility," which is also a fair description of the serpent in the garden.
This is not wisdom, but a kind of penetrating intelligence, which Sergius Paulus had hired him for. Paulus is himself introduced as "a prudent man." The first thing we learn about him, other than the fact of where he rules, is that he is quite intelligent, and hires very intelligent staff to help him. Paulus is not called "subtle," but prudent, which other translations simply render "an intelligent man."
Why does Elymas oppose Paul and Barnabas? The simple answer, of course, is that he is a "child of the devil," the ordinary condition of unregenerate people, but a label specially reserved in the Bible for those who act in ways which the Lord hates (See Proverbs 6:16-19 - these six things the Lord hates, yea these seven are an abomination unto Him). This is the stereotypical "son of Belial" rendered in the KJV as "child of the Devil."
But even different sons of Belial have different motives for the mischief they make. We know which is the primary problem of Elymas -- the pride of knowledge. We know this from the fact that he either characteristically prophesies in the Name of the Lord about future events which do not come to pass, or else treats the prophecy of Scripture as referring ultimately to someone other than the Lord Jesus. The latter is probably since Acts 13:1 names the "prophets AND teachers" by a hendiadic construction -- i.e. the "teachers of prophecy" or "prophetic teachers" at the Church of Antioch. Paul and Barabbas (son-of-Abbas) were two such men. Elymas was the antithetical counterpart [rival] to these true sons of Jesus.
He is JEWISH, like the apostolic men, but is a false prophet, rather than a true one. Now all apostles were prophets, and Barnabbas, though not an apostle, was a prophet also. The Holy Spirit uniquely chose them to encounter Elymas. Like them, Elymas knows the Scriptures. This means, he also knows that the false prophet who leads one away from the Lord is worthy of death according to the law of the Lord. But Elymas does not operate as a Jewish Rabbi or teacher. He sees himself as having a broader cultural understanding than this. He is somewhat like that Magoi (wise men) of the earlier Gospel narratives, but is not regenerate as they were.
When Paul begins his sermon (just below in Acts 13, he begins with the deliverance of the people from Egypt, wherein the magicians of pharaoh opposed Moses, the man of God, who did works of power like the apostles. Each did so for 40 years. Elymas can be best seen as a type of "Egyptian magos," which culture was also reknowned for a certain type of "wisdom." For its says of Solomon that his wisdom surpassed even the wisdom of Egypt. These magicians are not named who opposed Moses and Aaron, but many have suggested that the two persons named by Jude actually identify them as "Jannes and Jambres." This is very plausible. You could add Elymas bar-Jesus to the list.
The subtility of Elymas is a kind of wide range of knowledge on topics many know little or nothing about -- all subtility -- gives this away. But he is not prudent. He opposes the holy Gospel of Christ for the sake of his own academic "reputation," which the Lord is about to ruin. He seeks a monopoly on knowledge, and on the allegiance of Sergius Paulus, viewing this allegiance as a way to "get ahead" (personal ambition).
This was commonplace in the ancient world, somewhat like the way people today might wish to be associated with a movie star personality. Very few knew a Roman ruler personally. If you did, you were "somebody" among your friends. Elymas was not about to have his source of prestige "cut on in" by outsiders.
The son of belial in the Proverbs has "haughty eyes." This is the biggest problem Elymas has, other than the fact that he IS a son of Belial and opposes the primary representatives of Jesus Christ on earth without knowing it. Here, his subtility has faltered altogether, and profits him nothing. In fact, it gets him a special -- personal -- attack from on high, that comes with a stinging rebuke -- which had to be terribly humiliating as well as frightening. God "opposed the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (James 4:10).
Paulus, on the other hand, shows the marks of grace. First, he welcomes the apostolic entourage -- shows the charity and hospitality the Bible expects of rulers. He SENT for Paul and Barnabas [Bar-Nabas was not his birth name, but means "son-of-encouragment" and was given him by the early Christians] to hear the source of controversy -- the word of the Lord -- among the Jewish people where they had visited. Doubtless, he already knew something of the row, and wish to hear for himself what these men had to say.
He was at the very least, doing his duty as a ruler to know what sorts of things were likely to transpire under his watch. He had the duty and right to know what these taught. He was prudent, and was performing his duty with care (diligent and competent).
Elymas had clearly encountered one or more of the saints in the past who preached the Gospel and was sternly opposed by Elymas, though we do not know which saints or ministers, or where he did this. But Paul knew him by reputation already -- enemy of righteousness, who PERVERTS the way of the Lord. This means that Elymas had been teaching on the topic and probably had a following -- a following AWAY from the Lord, which gave an interpretation of the Scripture which was Jewish, it was prophetic, and it saw the Scripture as NOT being fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth.
Ironically, Elymas has the full name "Elymas Son of Jesus" (Bar-Jesus is simply Jewish for this). Jesus, or in Hebrew, "Joshua," was a very common first name, and Elymas had a father with this name. This gives a striking contrast from "son of Jesus" (which describes Paul and Bar-Nabas) to "son of the Devil." This was deliberate on the part of the Holy Spirit as a sharp contrast between the reputation of Elymas [He was nothing like Joshua in the Bible], and what he really was -- enemy of righteousness [i.e. of the Christian message] and perverter of Scripture, which teaches "the right ways of the Lord."
Elymas is the opposer of Paul and Bar-Nabas (like Moses and Aaron). Paul and Barnabas were SENT BY GOD to a Roman ruler. We have seen this showdown before in Egypt (as it were), a contest of miraculous power. And the result is similar too. In the Exodus, the nations round about were filled with fear when they heard what God had done to Egypt, and the word of God prospered. The conclusion of Paul's visit is likewise said thus (Acts 13:49), "And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region."
Obviously, Elymas was a primary obstacle -- with his teachings and power, and he was of some reputation in the region. Therefore, the Holy Spirit specifically targeted him to remove the obstacle to the Gospel, and also Sergius Paulus, whose conversion made it much easier for the gospel to prosper in his jurisdiction (with his approval rather than opposition). Later, we learn that Paulus, and as many others as were ordained to eternal life believed and were saved.
What became of Elymas in the end we do not know, since his blinding was a temporary judgment only, and the powerful rebuke of the Lord may have in fact converted him. It did not kill him, as with Ananias and Sapphira. But it seems in fact to resemble in some ways Paul's own conversion experience, wherein he was blinded on the road to Emmaus. This may signal that Elymas too, by the grace of God ended up among the saints. We cannot say for sure, but the parallel is worth noting.
Now the Lord -- the Holy Spirit -- blinded him to show outwardly his true inward condition. If the blind lead the blind, will not BOTH fall into the pit. Here, "both" would have meant Elymas and Sergius Paulus. But the Lord had other plans. The phrase, saying, "for that is what his name means by interpretation" simply points out that "Elymas" means "Sorcerer," and is probably an Aramaic variant. (For in Greek, you say it, "pharmakos.").
Thus, the primary difference between the two is plain enough. While Sergius Paulus SENT for the preachers of righteousness, Elymas OPPOSED righteousness, opposed the Christians, and perverted the Scripture, while using it to make it prophesy something other than Christ. Elymas a "wise man" encounters the true wise men, and is blinded, whereas Sergius Paulus has his eyes opened. The effect of the Word and Spirit in their midst is diametrically opposite. The one is hardened and blinded, while the other is "amazed at the doctrine of the Lord."
This is the final reference in the immediate context to Sergius Paulus, and thus forms a link - like book ends - to his introduction as "a prudent man." In other words, He is prudent BECAUSE he recognized the Word of the Lord and its teachings for what they were -- the word of THE LORD of the Scriptures -- the God of the Bible. And he understood that Paul and Barnabbas were God's appointed representatives. For he specifically SENT FOR them to hear them preach.
While the very knowledgeable (but mischievous) Elymas is blinded and left unable to see, Paulus has his life forever changed -- enlightened. The word "astonished" carries the sense of "overtaken with awe," not merely "pleasantly surprised." The context confirms this. The contrast between Elymas and Paulus has Elymas FILLED with ALL mischief, which by contrast implies that Paulus was FILLED with ALL amazement at the doctrine of the Lord.
While Paulus sent for the teachers of, and loved this doctrine, Elymas perverted it.
Therefore, the man who is filled with amazement at the Word of the Lord, and its doctrines -- who truly sees it for what it is (and this requires awe as a proper response), and holds it as highly prized because it presents the very words of the Most High, whose wisdom is beyond all wise men, this is the man -- a man like Sergius Paulus -- of whom the Lord says, "He is a prudent man."
Because of what it is, the Word of the Lord has power -- to blind and harden, or else to enlighten and save. This is not like anything else one reads or hears. Paulus knew that. He saw it first hand. Now what he had at first perhaps only admired, he held in exceedingly high regard. And God regarded him a wise man, thus it stands written in God's eternal Word, "Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man."
Are you intelligent? The intelligent teacher will learn from this lesson of Scripture: It is far better to inculcate in your students a deep and abiding awe of the Word of the Lord and its doctrines than to help them merely acquire a wide range of facts. The biblical framework enables a student who understands it well to acquire knowledge ably and more quickly than those with no self-conscious worldview. This gives him or her a great educational advantage, and explains in part why Daniel's friends - after being given a thorough training in Babylon's college, were found of the king ten times better in their answers than his own wise men.
They too were intelligent (prudent) men. The Babylonian "wise men" were jealous of them -- especially of Daniel - just as was Elymas of the apostolic men.
The Babylonians and Elymas doubtless had all subtilty. Elymas knew the education of the Romans, the Jews and probably the Babylonians and other cultures. But Paulus was the one commended by the Lord. So were Daniel and his friends.
For each was astonished at the doctrine of the Lord, and held the law of God in the highest regard. God's response befits the description "Lex Talionis," calling Daniel "O man, highly esteemed of God" three times, and of Sergius Paulus, "an intelligent man."
The SAT or ACT scores of your students will come along well enough if you train them intelligently. Their study guides are quite useful and can add subtility to the wisdom of your students -- minus the evolutionary nonsense in the, er, "science" sections.
You can buy a decent education in many respects. But wisdom is from the Lord. And the fear of the Lord -- scriptural astonishment -- is the beginning of wisdom.
Since the times of the Renaissance and before, various cultural and scholastic standards used to determine one's level of intelligence, competence, or other kinds of "skills of the mind" have prevailed. True education engenders more than intelligence (wisdom requires intelligence), but never LESS.
So -- seeing that I am always on about the Bible having the answers we need (which it does, and this explains why I say this so often) -- we must ask here, which of all these standardized evaluations for intelligence ought we to look to for guidance?
Here is our related text for the day. Acts 13 offers some great insights here. We shall scrutinize verses 5-12:
And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister. And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus [Son of Jesus]: Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.
But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him. And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?
And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand. Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord.
Here, we learn a fascinating lesson about contrasting notions of "intelligence," represented on the one hand, by Sergius Paulus, and on the other hand by his assistant (most likely a counselor), Elymas the sorcerer.
Now it was the custom of rulers in the ancient world to seek men of subtilty or intelligence, often called "wise men," whom they chose as faithful counselors to help them most wisely carry out their tasks of ruling. Sergius Paulus obviously represents a Latin name. He is a Roman ruler, probably a Prefect or Consul -- similar to Pontius Pilate but with a smaller jurisdiction.
Sergius Paulus, recognizing certain insights (and perhaps power) that Elymas had, opted to hire him for the services associated with consulting (today we would call him a "consultant"). No one in this text disputes his extraordinary abilities. In fact, Paul confesses that Elymas is "full of all subtility," which is also a fair description of the serpent in the garden.
This is not wisdom, but a kind of penetrating intelligence, which Sergius Paulus had hired him for. Paulus is himself introduced as "a prudent man." The first thing we learn about him, other than the fact of where he rules, is that he is quite intelligent, and hires very intelligent staff to help him. Paulus is not called "subtle," but prudent, which other translations simply render "an intelligent man."
Why does Elymas oppose Paul and Barnabas? The simple answer, of course, is that he is a "child of the devil," the ordinary condition of unregenerate people, but a label specially reserved in the Bible for those who act in ways which the Lord hates (See Proverbs 6:16-19 - these six things the Lord hates, yea these seven are an abomination unto Him). This is the stereotypical "son of Belial" rendered in the KJV as "child of the Devil."
But even different sons of Belial have different motives for the mischief they make. We know which is the primary problem of Elymas -- the pride of knowledge. We know this from the fact that he either characteristically prophesies in the Name of the Lord about future events which do not come to pass, or else treats the prophecy of Scripture as referring ultimately to someone other than the Lord Jesus. The latter is probably since Acts 13:1 names the "prophets AND teachers" by a hendiadic construction -- i.e. the "teachers of prophecy" or "prophetic teachers" at the Church of Antioch. Paul and Barabbas (son-of-Abbas) were two such men. Elymas was the antithetical counterpart [rival] to these true sons of Jesus.
He is JEWISH, like the apostolic men, but is a false prophet, rather than a true one. Now all apostles were prophets, and Barnabbas, though not an apostle, was a prophet also. The Holy Spirit uniquely chose them to encounter Elymas. Like them, Elymas knows the Scriptures. This means, he also knows that the false prophet who leads one away from the Lord is worthy of death according to the law of the Lord. But Elymas does not operate as a Jewish Rabbi or teacher. He sees himself as having a broader cultural understanding than this. He is somewhat like that Magoi (wise men) of the earlier Gospel narratives, but is not regenerate as they were.
When Paul begins his sermon (just below in Acts 13, he begins with the deliverance of the people from Egypt, wherein the magicians of pharaoh opposed Moses, the man of God, who did works of power like the apostles. Each did so for 40 years. Elymas can be best seen as a type of "Egyptian magos," which culture was also reknowned for a certain type of "wisdom." For its says of Solomon that his wisdom surpassed even the wisdom of Egypt. These magicians are not named who opposed Moses and Aaron, but many have suggested that the two persons named by Jude actually identify them as "Jannes and Jambres." This is very plausible. You could add Elymas bar-Jesus to the list.
The subtility of Elymas is a kind of wide range of knowledge on topics many know little or nothing about -- all subtility -- gives this away. But he is not prudent. He opposes the holy Gospel of Christ for the sake of his own academic "reputation," which the Lord is about to ruin. He seeks a monopoly on knowledge, and on the allegiance of Sergius Paulus, viewing this allegiance as a way to "get ahead" (personal ambition).
This was commonplace in the ancient world, somewhat like the way people today might wish to be associated with a movie star personality. Very few knew a Roman ruler personally. If you did, you were "somebody" among your friends. Elymas was not about to have his source of prestige "cut on in" by outsiders.
The son of belial in the Proverbs has "haughty eyes." This is the biggest problem Elymas has, other than the fact that he IS a son of Belial and opposes the primary representatives of Jesus Christ on earth without knowing it. Here, his subtility has faltered altogether, and profits him nothing. In fact, it gets him a special -- personal -- attack from on high, that comes with a stinging rebuke -- which had to be terribly humiliating as well as frightening. God "opposed the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (James 4:10).
Paulus, on the other hand, shows the marks of grace. First, he welcomes the apostolic entourage -- shows the charity and hospitality the Bible expects of rulers. He SENT for Paul and Barnabas [Bar-Nabas was not his birth name, but means "son-of-encouragment" and was given him by the early Christians] to hear the source of controversy -- the word of the Lord -- among the Jewish people where they had visited. Doubtless, he already knew something of the row, and wish to hear for himself what these men had to say.
He was at the very least, doing his duty as a ruler to know what sorts of things were likely to transpire under his watch. He had the duty and right to know what these taught. He was prudent, and was performing his duty with care (diligent and competent).
Elymas had clearly encountered one or more of the saints in the past who preached the Gospel and was sternly opposed by Elymas, though we do not know which saints or ministers, or where he did this. But Paul knew him by reputation already -- enemy of righteousness, who PERVERTS the way of the Lord. This means that Elymas had been teaching on the topic and probably had a following -- a following AWAY from the Lord, which gave an interpretation of the Scripture which was Jewish, it was prophetic, and it saw the Scripture as NOT being fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth.
Ironically, Elymas has the full name "Elymas Son of Jesus" (Bar-Jesus is simply Jewish for this). Jesus, or in Hebrew, "Joshua," was a very common first name, and Elymas had a father with this name. This gives a striking contrast from "son of Jesus" (which describes Paul and Bar-Nabas) to "son of the Devil." This was deliberate on the part of the Holy Spirit as a sharp contrast between the reputation of Elymas [He was nothing like Joshua in the Bible], and what he really was -- enemy of righteousness [i.e. of the Christian message] and perverter of Scripture, which teaches "the right ways of the Lord."
Elymas is the opposer of Paul and Bar-Nabas (like Moses and Aaron). Paul and Barnabas were SENT BY GOD to a Roman ruler. We have seen this showdown before in Egypt (as it were), a contest of miraculous power. And the result is similar too. In the Exodus, the nations round about were filled with fear when they heard what God had done to Egypt, and the word of God prospered. The conclusion of Paul's visit is likewise said thus (Acts 13:49), "And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region."
Obviously, Elymas was a primary obstacle -- with his teachings and power, and he was of some reputation in the region. Therefore, the Holy Spirit specifically targeted him to remove the obstacle to the Gospel, and also Sergius Paulus, whose conversion made it much easier for the gospel to prosper in his jurisdiction (with his approval rather than opposition). Later, we learn that Paulus, and as many others as were ordained to eternal life believed and were saved.
What became of Elymas in the end we do not know, since his blinding was a temporary judgment only, and the powerful rebuke of the Lord may have in fact converted him. It did not kill him, as with Ananias and Sapphira. But it seems in fact to resemble in some ways Paul's own conversion experience, wherein he was blinded on the road to Emmaus. This may signal that Elymas too, by the grace of God ended up among the saints. We cannot say for sure, but the parallel is worth noting.
Now the Lord -- the Holy Spirit -- blinded him to show outwardly his true inward condition. If the blind lead the blind, will not BOTH fall into the pit. Here, "both" would have meant Elymas and Sergius Paulus. But the Lord had other plans. The phrase, saying, "for that is what his name means by interpretation" simply points out that "Elymas" means "Sorcerer," and is probably an Aramaic variant. (For in Greek, you say it, "pharmakos.").
Thus, the primary difference between the two is plain enough. While Sergius Paulus SENT for the preachers of righteousness, Elymas OPPOSED righteousness, opposed the Christians, and perverted the Scripture, while using it to make it prophesy something other than Christ. Elymas a "wise man" encounters the true wise men, and is blinded, whereas Sergius Paulus has his eyes opened. The effect of the Word and Spirit in their midst is diametrically opposite. The one is hardened and blinded, while the other is "amazed at the doctrine of the Lord."
This is the final reference in the immediate context to Sergius Paulus, and thus forms a link - like book ends - to his introduction as "a prudent man." In other words, He is prudent BECAUSE he recognized the Word of the Lord and its teachings for what they were -- the word of THE LORD of the Scriptures -- the God of the Bible. And he understood that Paul and Barnabbas were God's appointed representatives. For he specifically SENT FOR them to hear them preach.
While the very knowledgeable (but mischievous) Elymas is blinded and left unable to see, Paulus has his life forever changed -- enlightened. The word "astonished" carries the sense of "overtaken with awe," not merely "pleasantly surprised." The context confirms this. The contrast between Elymas and Paulus has Elymas FILLED with ALL mischief, which by contrast implies that Paulus was FILLED with ALL amazement at the doctrine of the Lord.
While Paulus sent for the teachers of, and loved this doctrine, Elymas perverted it.
Therefore, the man who is filled with amazement at the Word of the Lord, and its doctrines -- who truly sees it for what it is (and this requires awe as a proper response), and holds it as highly prized because it presents the very words of the Most High, whose wisdom is beyond all wise men, this is the man -- a man like Sergius Paulus -- of whom the Lord says, "He is a prudent man."
Because of what it is, the Word of the Lord has power -- to blind and harden, or else to enlighten and save. This is not like anything else one reads or hears. Paulus knew that. He saw it first hand. Now what he had at first perhaps only admired, he held in exceedingly high regard. And God regarded him a wise man, thus it stands written in God's eternal Word, "Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man."
Are you intelligent? The intelligent teacher will learn from this lesson of Scripture: It is far better to inculcate in your students a deep and abiding awe of the Word of the Lord and its doctrines than to help them merely acquire a wide range of facts. The biblical framework enables a student who understands it well to acquire knowledge ably and more quickly than those with no self-conscious worldview. This gives him or her a great educational advantage, and explains in part why Daniel's friends - after being given a thorough training in Babylon's college, were found of the king ten times better in their answers than his own wise men.
They too were intelligent (prudent) men. The Babylonian "wise men" were jealous of them -- especially of Daniel - just as was Elymas of the apostolic men.
The Babylonians and Elymas doubtless had all subtilty. Elymas knew the education of the Romans, the Jews and probably the Babylonians and other cultures. But Paulus was the one commended by the Lord. So were Daniel and his friends.
For each was astonished at the doctrine of the Lord, and held the law of God in the highest regard. God's response befits the description "Lex Talionis," calling Daniel "O man, highly esteemed of God" three times, and of Sergius Paulus, "an intelligent man."
The SAT or ACT scores of your students will come along well enough if you train them intelligently. Their study guides are quite useful and can add subtility to the wisdom of your students -- minus the evolutionary nonsense in the, er, "science" sections.
You can buy a decent education in many respects. But wisdom is from the Lord. And the fear of the Lord -- scriptural astonishment -- is the beginning of wisdom.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
A Brief Logical Puzzle Or Two -- Just For Fun
Commonly enough one will hear people today aver that "all religions are basically the same," or dub them "equally valid." One can stir this mix a hundred and two ways. Others prefer, "They basically worship the same God, but by other names."
Rule number one, we have learned, when others wax academic on you regarding such topics is self-reference. Do most religions teach that all religions are equally valid? In a word or 3 -- NO WAY JOSE. This immediately throws the blocks to their suggestion, however they may wish to couch it.
If some religions agree with this proposition (and some do -- e.g. Atheism, Buddhism, some forms of polytheism), and other do not (and some do not, e.g. Christianity, Islam, Judaism), then not all religions can be correct on this point. Some are right and others mistaken. Question: Are religions which teach what is false 'equally valid" with one which teaches only the truth?
Does this even make sense in any other context? On a legal stand in court, are lies and truth "equally valid" or will one get you tossed in the "big house" for perjury and contempt of court while the other will not? Do scientists think all theories are equally valid -- trues ones, false ones -- whatever -- all the same? I think not.
Alrighty then. It is not the case that "all religions are basically the same, equally valid, or of the same stripe." How do I know this? I know this because the contradictory claims eliminate their own candidacy for plausible ideas.
So do not take their swipes lying down when clobberin' time invites your input. Get busy. Logic does not believe that all positions were created equal. Every proposition excludes others by the denials it implies. This is unavoidable because of the principle of non-contradiction (if A is true, not-A cannot also be true, at the same time, and when meant in the same respect). To Affirm "A" means you deny "not A." So does the guy pushing tolerance. He will not tolerate intolerance (that would be intolerable). So HOW is he different than the one he opposes? He wishes to be intolerant of different propositions than you. That is the only difference -- except for one. He HIDES his intolerance, pretending to tolerate all views, when in fact he hates all non-pluralist views (He is a hypocrite, pretending total tolerance, and managing only partial. I only promote partial tolerance - of some views and not others -- not total. I am not hypocritical in this regard. What you hear is what you get. Not so with the dogmatic pluralistas.
They will gun you down in the name of tolerance, if you dissent from their pluralism, calling you all manner of self-refuting epithet (without even noticing the great irony involved). You must help them here.
Also remember this simple tip: every logical postulate implies the denial of some other ones. This may not seem to profound in some cases, but it can surprise you in others.
For instance, consider the challenge to be "tolerant" of other people and their ideas.
This is nonsense masquerading as maturity. No person tolerates every idea. Just to get along in this world, we have to decide that "driving on the left side of the road is a worse idea than driving on the right (in the U.S.)." And most police agree because the contrary is messy and involves too much paperwork for starters.
No society tolerates ALL its members. We discriminate with extreme prejudice against thieves, DUI-mongers, arsonists, serial killers (not too many put this on their resumes), thugs, vandals, the libelous, and the like. In other words, we all -- every society -- criminalizes some behaviors and not others. We criminalize those forms of speech and action which we believe to be morally wrong or reprehensible. So the basis of law is ethics. Never forget this.
Moral values determine laws. This makes all legal codes inherently religious, refuting any silly notion of the absolute separation of Church and state. This is not just a bad idea; it is impossible.
So it is NEVER a question of tolerance v. no tolerance, or discrimination v. no discrimination. This is a very popular and goofy idea. Discrimination and intolerance are inescapable. It is only a question of WHICH behaviors and persons we OUGHT to outlaw (discriminate against with extreme prejudice) and which not.
This comes down to "your legal code (value system) versus mine." Value systems form a central part of one's worldview. This means that, personally, I'm liking the odds just about now. I am not smarter, faster or taller (necessarily) than any one reader. But the Law of the Lord is perfect, sufficient, altogether comprehensive and extraordinarily detailed. There is nothing like it anywhere.
This means that the Christian (transcendent) legal code has the upper hand in the debate in se. All we need to do is watch the sleight of hand the pagan philosophe needs to fool his audience, then call him on it, noting the points of arbitrary consideration (missing premisses and fallacies), and the cross-referencing difficulties his claims and their presuppositions necessarily entangle themselves in. Then we simply contrast the attendant strength of the biblical legal code.
And its game over. So why then should Christians ever "tolerate" what the Bible expresses forbids them to tolerate? It isn't like the contender with the biblical worldview has any ultimate answers or reasons for this. He is just making personal recommendations. But God has His own recommendations, and doesn't care about yours, mine or the other guys. We aren't omniscient, remember?
Thus, not all religions are looking equally anything. Non-Christian faiths are, however (ultimately) equally goofy. You can toss invalid forms of Christianity in the heap too -- Arianism, Arminianism (which has a very nice set of built in tangles), Romanism, Mormonism and the like. They all suffer from 3 basic problems each of which stems from the same fact -- they promote falsehood. These are meta-transcendental failures, transcendental failures, and dialectical tensions.
It sounds fancier than it really is. The point is the desire to tolerate all views amounts to a recommendation that we toss logic itself out the window of a moving car. The same is true for advocating "tolerance" in general without specifying WHICH behaviors or beliefs we ought to tolerate -- and more importantly -- WHY?
Let us try but one more. "There are no ultimate answers." Other forms include, "You don't know that for sure," or "I don't think anyone knows those sorts of things."
This one seems formidable, especially when pressed with some rhetorical force, as is often the case in academic settings. But it is a paper tiger. Think, first of all, about how many people have claimed to know with certainty that ultimate answers are knowable. For instance, the Bible says that God appeared to the prophets and apostles, and TOLD THEM the answers. He even made them write it down.
Now, if ultimate answers are THAT mysterious, how does the claimant know SO MUCH about just who does or does not know whether or not God appeared to them. He would have to be CERTAIN (to know that his claim is true) that God DID NOT IN FACT appear to the prophets -- else they would know what they claim.
In other words, the one who firmly asserts that ultimate answers are unknowable would have to be omniscient himself to know not only who did or did not know these things, but when it is or is not possible and why. He claims GRANDIOSELY when he claims to know so much about what others do or do not know. He wasn't even there when Moses allegedly received the ten words from God.
His is the fallacy of self-exception -- enjoining upon others a rule he dismisses from being applied to himself (arbitrarily). So when they confidently declare, "There's no way you could know that," don't back down. Counter-charge -- "Given YOUR VIEWS, there is no way you could know whether or not I could know that. You simply do not have the goods, if "no one has the goods." Second, only an omniscient Being of the kind you deny could know the truth of YOUR absolute (did I mention "sweeping") denial. Thus, what you deny to the biblical God, you reserve for yourself by implication. Now the cat is out of the bag. Agnosticism only replaces one God with another. The replacement? ME ME ME. Surprise! Everyone believes in a god. Some think it's the one pontificating against the biblical God, and others think it IS the God of the Bible.
But we knew that already didn't we -- since Romans 1 -- says that men enjoy "giving glory to the creature rather than the Creator [Who is blessed over all forever]."
But some people don't know when the suppressing game hasended, the music has stopped, and they remain chairless. You can help them figure it out with a few well-pointed questions and answers (above). But you might wish to say it a bit more polite than I have here, since you may have to run away when you gain the upper hand. I have noticed that refuting others does not easily lend itself to winning friends and influencing people (though if you reprove a wise man well, he will love you for it).
Choose your battles perspicuously. Sometimes, you just have to bite your tongue, foregoing to rebuke a mocker.
But know that all denials of any biblical truth -- because its affirmation is logically necessary -- will eliminate themselves. You can also cross-reference the denials of Scripture one to another to find that epistemological sins "so easily entangle," just as the author of Hebrews says. Sin creates tangles -- contradictions of the most basic kinds.
So keep your eye on the ball at all times, and clean house like Pacman when duty calls. You can do it. The strange part is that your opponent urgently wants to help you. Just listen and catalog the propositions. Compare them while he is going on about all the evil in the world. When he is done, and you are done calculating the tangles, begin listing them. Then he is REALLY done.
If they do not say enough to create all sorts of fun tangles, prod them with a few questions. What kind of world is this - what furniture does it have? How do we know the things we know? -- get him talking, and start scribbling in your mind. I assure you, he has not compared his statements one to another, or he would not be saying the things he is saying.
Just get your pacman on, and go to work. And be nice. Like Frank Burns said (of MASH fame) -- "It's nice to be nice to the nice" (Trivial, yes. But at least he was consistent).
Rule number one, we have learned, when others wax academic on you regarding such topics is self-reference. Do most religions teach that all religions are equally valid? In a word or 3 -- NO WAY JOSE. This immediately throws the blocks to their suggestion, however they may wish to couch it.
If some religions agree with this proposition (and some do -- e.g. Atheism, Buddhism, some forms of polytheism), and other do not (and some do not, e.g. Christianity, Islam, Judaism), then not all religions can be correct on this point. Some are right and others mistaken. Question: Are religions which teach what is false 'equally valid" with one which teaches only the truth?
Does this even make sense in any other context? On a legal stand in court, are lies and truth "equally valid" or will one get you tossed in the "big house" for perjury and contempt of court while the other will not? Do scientists think all theories are equally valid -- trues ones, false ones -- whatever -- all the same? I think not.
Alrighty then. It is not the case that "all religions are basically the same, equally valid, or of the same stripe." How do I know this? I know this because the contradictory claims eliminate their own candidacy for plausible ideas.
So do not take their swipes lying down when clobberin' time invites your input. Get busy. Logic does not believe that all positions were created equal. Every proposition excludes others by the denials it implies. This is unavoidable because of the principle of non-contradiction (if A is true, not-A cannot also be true, at the same time, and when meant in the same respect). To Affirm "A" means you deny "not A." So does the guy pushing tolerance. He will not tolerate intolerance (that would be intolerable). So HOW is he different than the one he opposes? He wishes to be intolerant of different propositions than you. That is the only difference -- except for one. He HIDES his intolerance, pretending to tolerate all views, when in fact he hates all non-pluralist views (He is a hypocrite, pretending total tolerance, and managing only partial. I only promote partial tolerance - of some views and not others -- not total. I am not hypocritical in this regard. What you hear is what you get. Not so with the dogmatic pluralistas.
They will gun you down in the name of tolerance, if you dissent from their pluralism, calling you all manner of self-refuting epithet (without even noticing the great irony involved). You must help them here.
Also remember this simple tip: every logical postulate implies the denial of some other ones. This may not seem to profound in some cases, but it can surprise you in others.
For instance, consider the challenge to be "tolerant" of other people and their ideas.
This is nonsense masquerading as maturity. No person tolerates every idea. Just to get along in this world, we have to decide that "driving on the left side of the road is a worse idea than driving on the right (in the U.S.)." And most police agree because the contrary is messy and involves too much paperwork for starters.
No society tolerates ALL its members. We discriminate with extreme prejudice against thieves, DUI-mongers, arsonists, serial killers (not too many put this on their resumes), thugs, vandals, the libelous, and the like. In other words, we all -- every society -- criminalizes some behaviors and not others. We criminalize those forms of speech and action which we believe to be morally wrong or reprehensible. So the basis of law is ethics. Never forget this.
Moral values determine laws. This makes all legal codes inherently religious, refuting any silly notion of the absolute separation of Church and state. This is not just a bad idea; it is impossible.
So it is NEVER a question of tolerance v. no tolerance, or discrimination v. no discrimination. This is a very popular and goofy idea. Discrimination and intolerance are inescapable. It is only a question of WHICH behaviors and persons we OUGHT to outlaw (discriminate against with extreme prejudice) and which not.
This comes down to "your legal code (value system) versus mine." Value systems form a central part of one's worldview. This means that, personally, I'm liking the odds just about now. I am not smarter, faster or taller (necessarily) than any one reader. But the Law of the Lord is perfect, sufficient, altogether comprehensive and extraordinarily detailed. There is nothing like it anywhere.
This means that the Christian (transcendent) legal code has the upper hand in the debate in se. All we need to do is watch the sleight of hand the pagan philosophe needs to fool his audience, then call him on it, noting the points of arbitrary consideration (missing premisses and fallacies), and the cross-referencing difficulties his claims and their presuppositions necessarily entangle themselves in. Then we simply contrast the attendant strength of the biblical legal code.
And its game over. So why then should Christians ever "tolerate" what the Bible expresses forbids them to tolerate? It isn't like the contender with the biblical worldview has any ultimate answers or reasons for this. He is just making personal recommendations. But God has His own recommendations, and doesn't care about yours, mine or the other guys. We aren't omniscient, remember?
Thus, not all religions are looking equally anything. Non-Christian faiths are, however (ultimately) equally goofy. You can toss invalid forms of Christianity in the heap too -- Arianism, Arminianism (which has a very nice set of built in tangles), Romanism, Mormonism and the like. They all suffer from 3 basic problems each of which stems from the same fact -- they promote falsehood. These are meta-transcendental failures, transcendental failures, and dialectical tensions.
It sounds fancier than it really is. The point is the desire to tolerate all views amounts to a recommendation that we toss logic itself out the window of a moving car. The same is true for advocating "tolerance" in general without specifying WHICH behaviors or beliefs we ought to tolerate -- and more importantly -- WHY?
Let us try but one more. "There are no ultimate answers." Other forms include, "You don't know that for sure," or "I don't think anyone knows those sorts of things."
This one seems formidable, especially when pressed with some rhetorical force, as is often the case in academic settings. But it is a paper tiger. Think, first of all, about how many people have claimed to know with certainty that ultimate answers are knowable. For instance, the Bible says that God appeared to the prophets and apostles, and TOLD THEM the answers. He even made them write it down.
Now, if ultimate answers are THAT mysterious, how does the claimant know SO MUCH about just who does or does not know whether or not God appeared to them. He would have to be CERTAIN (to know that his claim is true) that God DID NOT IN FACT appear to the prophets -- else they would know what they claim.
In other words, the one who firmly asserts that ultimate answers are unknowable would have to be omniscient himself to know not only who did or did not know these things, but when it is or is not possible and why. He claims GRANDIOSELY when he claims to know so much about what others do or do not know. He wasn't even there when Moses allegedly received the ten words from God.
His is the fallacy of self-exception -- enjoining upon others a rule he dismisses from being applied to himself (arbitrarily). So when they confidently declare, "There's no way you could know that," don't back down. Counter-charge -- "Given YOUR VIEWS, there is no way you could know whether or not I could know that. You simply do not have the goods, if "no one has the goods." Second, only an omniscient Being of the kind you deny could know the truth of YOUR absolute (did I mention "sweeping") denial. Thus, what you deny to the biblical God, you reserve for yourself by implication. Now the cat is out of the bag. Agnosticism only replaces one God with another. The replacement? ME ME ME. Surprise! Everyone believes in a god. Some think it's the one pontificating against the biblical God, and others think it IS the God of the Bible.
But we knew that already didn't we -- since Romans 1 -- says that men enjoy "giving glory to the creature rather than the Creator [Who is blessed over all forever]."
But some people don't know when the suppressing game hasended, the music has stopped, and they remain chairless. You can help them figure it out with a few well-pointed questions and answers (above). But you might wish to say it a bit more polite than I have here, since you may have to run away when you gain the upper hand. I have noticed that refuting others does not easily lend itself to winning friends and influencing people (though if you reprove a wise man well, he will love you for it).
Choose your battles perspicuously. Sometimes, you just have to bite your tongue, foregoing to rebuke a mocker.
But know that all denials of any biblical truth -- because its affirmation is logically necessary -- will eliminate themselves. You can also cross-reference the denials of Scripture one to another to find that epistemological sins "so easily entangle," just as the author of Hebrews says. Sin creates tangles -- contradictions of the most basic kinds.
So keep your eye on the ball at all times, and clean house like Pacman when duty calls. You can do it. The strange part is that your opponent urgently wants to help you. Just listen and catalog the propositions. Compare them while he is going on about all the evil in the world. When he is done, and you are done calculating the tangles, begin listing them. Then he is REALLY done.
If they do not say enough to create all sorts of fun tangles, prod them with a few questions. What kind of world is this - what furniture does it have? How do we know the things we know? -- get him talking, and start scribbling in your mind. I assure you, he has not compared his statements one to another, or he would not be saying the things he is saying.
Just get your pacman on, and go to work. And be nice. Like Frank Burns said (of MASH fame) -- "It's nice to be nice to the nice" (Trivial, yes. But at least he was consistent).
An Update On Advances In Biblical Logic: The Roles of Set Theory and Propositional Logic in the Development of Systematic Theology
Okay, but you have to start somewhere. There is a fine saying I have heard among dentists: "You don't have to brush EVERY tooth, just the ones you want to keep." Biblical theology proceeds in a similar fashion. You have to use it, and sharpen your tools now and again to retain what you have gained therein so far.
I continue my studies into the relationship between various logical relations and the light of nature, as compared to the teachings (taken as a whole) of the Word of God written, often simply the "Holy Bible."
I have come to the following conclusions thus far (though I cannot promise some reformulation will proceed from additional progress -- such is the nature of reformation) -- I hope they help:
First, all the propositions constituting the light of nature (as a single unit or web of beliefs) must be in the nature of the case LOGICALLY NECESSARY truths.
Second, each proposition constituting (with the others) this web are by logical necessity related TO EACH OTHER in just the same way -- by logical necessity also. That is, any two logically necessary propositions -- no matter how disparate they may seem -- can be linked together by other such propositions to imply the first. You simply have to imagine what the propositional gaps between them might look like and work from one to the other, using propositions from your developed general and special revelatory sets.
Third, like the Word of God written, the light of nature also necessarily contains ONLY mutually affirming propositions (it has the consent of all the parts, with each part cheering the others on. Go team).
Fourth, here is an implicate that follows from 1-3. Each proposition of the light of nature entails all others of that kind.
Fifth, the Bible confirms the use of "sets," the grouping of propositions which specify like content into individual "bundles," for comparison with all others -- both from general AND special revelation.
This happens many places in the Word, including the very outset, where God groups each kind of animal with its proper sphere (birds with the heavens, fish with the oceans, and land creatures with the earth, etc., as well by special liturgical terms and groupings -- the seven lampstands, and the phrases "Set in order," and "each according to its own kind."
This means that set theory has the "green light," from the Word, so long as the categories used come from the Word itself, or as logical implicates from the light of nature, for the nonverbal Word in nature cannot reprove but must sweetly comport with all that special revelation God has given to his people.
Sixth, Special revelation contains all of natural revelations propositions "in miniature," or representatively -- for representation is an inherent feature of all covenants, and both the Word in nature and in Scripture are innately covenantal. Thus, in all matters of religious and logical controversies, none other final judge may have the last say-so other than the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures, in whose sentence we must finally rest.
Thus, the way to really power-up a systematic theology (given the above doctrines) goes like this:
1. Identify the most central biblical concepts -- those at the heart (not the outskirts) of the Biblical worldview, and glean everything you might from all the canon (from Genesis forward), grouping all such propositions in the appropriate set. For instance, this procedure would require the "covenants set," "prophets set," "priests set," and "kings set." Next one would necessarily need the "Melchizedek proposition set," etc.
2. One would need to do similarly with the propositions determined from general revelation, by implication one from another, individually and in combination with other like propositions.
3. In sets from both 1 and 2 immediately preceeding, one would need to number each proposition in the set as they come to notice. This would render each proposition determinable from either GenRev or SpRev, with a number -- say "SpRev 45." This way one could cross-reference each proposition with others in an identifiable fashion, which would enable a kind of "shorthand" made of symbols -- just as with symbolic logics. This will speed things up considerable.
4. SpRev could be reduced simply to SR (in capital letters only). Then one might add the subset -- say from the 15th proposition in the Melchizedek proposition set (mel15) with each subset in lower case letters only. This would be SRmel15. To cross-reference this with the next proposition in the set, you could simply put the two in brackets:
(SRmel15) (SRmel16) = New proposition (list any implicate that follows).
This way each propositional combination, and its determined consequents could proceed in order fashion, and provide the basis for a biblical symbolic logic, the first of its kind, so far as I know. Then one could use the operations common in other logics (for modus ponens, modus tollens and the like). For these are demonstrably from the light of nature.
Other operations and combinations (biblically-authorized forms of argument) could easily be determined from the argument structures used by the prophets, apostles and the Lord Jesus Himself. This is the role of exegesis in the development of logic, which is used in turn for the development of a systematic theology -- which we can prove -- is actually the case by the impossibility of the contrary in each and every case, or which (if not) we must discard as falsfied either by self-elimination (as with necessarily false claims), or by contradiction of any one implicate of the Holy Scripture.
There is in principle, should one proceed upon these insights, no limit to the extent to which such a team could elaborate with precision and demonstrable accuracy the biblical worldview -- dare I say it -- to "boldly go where no one has gone before," but which many have implied without realizing it.
This is the self-conscious paradigm extrapolation from the Word written and nonverbal. This is the goal of systematic theology -- to explain, expound and clarify, to verify, confirm or falsify and accuse.
With some attentuation and modification (to be sure), this is the future of biblical study. This is inescapable with the rigor of biblical logic itself. For, "the way of life winds upward for the wise," and the Lord said, "I will build my Church."
The contrary is impossible.
And now for a completely unscientific, and non-Cartesian postscript.
Sooner or later one will have to figure into this equation (when distinguishing general and special revelation) necessary truths from contingent ones. By "contingent" truths we mean to specify truths describing the choices and actions of secondary agents like people and animals. These could have been otherwise, given their reality as a direct consequences of choices people did not have to make (in other words, choices in which they sometimes choose otherwise when presented with similar circumstances).
Necessary truths, on the other hand, cannot logically be otherwise than what they are because their denials lead inescapably to absurdity. This is not the case with contingent truths, such as "my dog is golden in color." Denying this proposition may be false, but it does not imply absurdities.
Now the propositions making up general and special revelation can (strangely) be said to be BOTH contingent and logically necessary, but in different senses. Hold off on the twilight zone music. Please allow a brief explanation.
All the propositions of the Bible are logically necessary as a product of the canon, since the canon as a whole (and all its parts) form the One meta-transcendental. But prior to its inclusion in the canon, the statement, "Johnathan tasted the honey, and his eyes brightened," was merely a CONTINGENT in terms of what we could justify.
But because God's eternal counsel proceeds from all eternity (in His unfathomable Wisdom), the truth of that proposition was a CONSEQUENT absolute necessity, given the divine choice to foreordain whatsoever has or will come to pass. So here we have a historical necessity -- the consequent absolute necessity of the truth of A (where A represents a proposition which later is to appear in the canon), then there is the historical contingency of A (we cannot justify the claim that "A is historically necessary" unless and until God prophesies it), and then there is the logical contingency of A (since we cannot say that A is logically necessary until we SEE its inclusion in the canon) and consequent upon such an inclusion we can say justifiably that "A is logically necessary."
Logically necessary claims do exist outside of the Bible, but the Bible either implies them, or else warrants them in a way other than implication by secondary authorities which it authorizes - as in the general reliability of your senses ("The seeing eye and the hearing ear, the Lord has made them both." Combine this passage with the teaching that God made all things "very good" for mutually affirmation and correspondence, then we may infer that your senses (in ordinary circumstances) generally do not belie the facts. Their sensations "match" the real world.
Thus do I refute Kant's (epistemic) chasm between the noumenal and phenomenal realms he postulates.
The Non-Euclideans go wild for these distinctions. If they do not now seem of particular help or interest, open a bottle of Heineken and sip away. They will soon become downright fascinating. How do you think logic students REALLY get through this stuff -- with truth tables? Oh please. I am told that reading Tarski on defining logical consequences requires a veritable liquor license.
(But never drink and derive). And remember Modus Ponens. It's the law.
But more on that later.
I continue my studies into the relationship between various logical relations and the light of nature, as compared to the teachings (taken as a whole) of the Word of God written, often simply the "Holy Bible."
I have come to the following conclusions thus far (though I cannot promise some reformulation will proceed from additional progress -- such is the nature of reformation) -- I hope they help:
First, all the propositions constituting the light of nature (as a single unit or web of beliefs) must be in the nature of the case LOGICALLY NECESSARY truths.
Second, each proposition constituting (with the others) this web are by logical necessity related TO EACH OTHER in just the same way -- by logical necessity also. That is, any two logically necessary propositions -- no matter how disparate they may seem -- can be linked together by other such propositions to imply the first. You simply have to imagine what the propositional gaps between them might look like and work from one to the other, using propositions from your developed general and special revelatory sets.
Third, like the Word of God written, the light of nature also necessarily contains ONLY mutually affirming propositions (it has the consent of all the parts, with each part cheering the others on. Go team).
Fourth, here is an implicate that follows from 1-3. Each proposition of the light of nature entails all others of that kind.
Fifth, the Bible confirms the use of "sets," the grouping of propositions which specify like content into individual "bundles," for comparison with all others -- both from general AND special revelation.
This happens many places in the Word, including the very outset, where God groups each kind of animal with its proper sphere (birds with the heavens, fish with the oceans, and land creatures with the earth, etc., as well by special liturgical terms and groupings -- the seven lampstands, and the phrases "Set in order," and "each according to its own kind."
This means that set theory has the "green light," from the Word, so long as the categories used come from the Word itself, or as logical implicates from the light of nature, for the nonverbal Word in nature cannot reprove but must sweetly comport with all that special revelation God has given to his people.
Sixth, Special revelation contains all of natural revelations propositions "in miniature," or representatively -- for representation is an inherent feature of all covenants, and both the Word in nature and in Scripture are innately covenantal. Thus, in all matters of religious and logical controversies, none other final judge may have the last say-so other than the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures, in whose sentence we must finally rest.
Thus, the way to really power-up a systematic theology (given the above doctrines) goes like this:
1. Identify the most central biblical concepts -- those at the heart (not the outskirts) of the Biblical worldview, and glean everything you might from all the canon (from Genesis forward), grouping all such propositions in the appropriate set. For instance, this procedure would require the "covenants set," "prophets set," "priests set," and "kings set." Next one would necessarily need the "Melchizedek proposition set," etc.
2. One would need to do similarly with the propositions determined from general revelation, by implication one from another, individually and in combination with other like propositions.
3. In sets from both 1 and 2 immediately preceeding, one would need to number each proposition in the set as they come to notice. This would render each proposition determinable from either GenRev or SpRev, with a number -- say "SpRev 45." This way one could cross-reference each proposition with others in an identifiable fashion, which would enable a kind of "shorthand" made of symbols -- just as with symbolic logics. This will speed things up considerable.
4. SpRev could be reduced simply to SR (in capital letters only). Then one might add the subset -- say from the 15th proposition in the Melchizedek proposition set (mel15) with each subset in lower case letters only. This would be SRmel15. To cross-reference this with the next proposition in the set, you could simply put the two in brackets:
(SRmel15) (SRmel16) = New proposition (list any implicate that follows).
This way each propositional combination, and its determined consequents could proceed in order fashion, and provide the basis for a biblical symbolic logic, the first of its kind, so far as I know. Then one could use the operations common in other logics (for modus ponens, modus tollens and the like). For these are demonstrably from the light of nature.
Other operations and combinations (biblically-authorized forms of argument) could easily be determined from the argument structures used by the prophets, apostles and the Lord Jesus Himself. This is the role of exegesis in the development of logic, which is used in turn for the development of a systematic theology -- which we can prove -- is actually the case by the impossibility of the contrary in each and every case, or which (if not) we must discard as falsfied either by self-elimination (as with necessarily false claims), or by contradiction of any one implicate of the Holy Scripture.
There is in principle, should one proceed upon these insights, no limit to the extent to which such a team could elaborate with precision and demonstrable accuracy the biblical worldview -- dare I say it -- to "boldly go where no one has gone before," but which many have implied without realizing it.
This is the self-conscious paradigm extrapolation from the Word written and nonverbal. This is the goal of systematic theology -- to explain, expound and clarify, to verify, confirm or falsify and accuse.
With some attentuation and modification (to be sure), this is the future of biblical study. This is inescapable with the rigor of biblical logic itself. For, "the way of life winds upward for the wise," and the Lord said, "I will build my Church."
The contrary is impossible.
And now for a completely unscientific, and non-Cartesian postscript.
Sooner or later one will have to figure into this equation (when distinguishing general and special revelation) necessary truths from contingent ones. By "contingent" truths we mean to specify truths describing the choices and actions of secondary agents like people and animals. These could have been otherwise, given their reality as a direct consequences of choices people did not have to make (in other words, choices in which they sometimes choose otherwise when presented with similar circumstances).
Necessary truths, on the other hand, cannot logically be otherwise than what they are because their denials lead inescapably to absurdity. This is not the case with contingent truths, such as "my dog is golden in color." Denying this proposition may be false, but it does not imply absurdities.
Now the propositions making up general and special revelation can (strangely) be said to be BOTH contingent and logically necessary, but in different senses. Hold off on the twilight zone music. Please allow a brief explanation.
All the propositions of the Bible are logically necessary as a product of the canon, since the canon as a whole (and all its parts) form the One meta-transcendental. But prior to its inclusion in the canon, the statement, "Johnathan tasted the honey, and his eyes brightened," was merely a CONTINGENT in terms of what we could justify.
But because God's eternal counsel proceeds from all eternity (in His unfathomable Wisdom), the truth of that proposition was a CONSEQUENT absolute necessity, given the divine choice to foreordain whatsoever has or will come to pass. So here we have a historical necessity -- the consequent absolute necessity of the truth of A (where A represents a proposition which later is to appear in the canon), then there is the historical contingency of A (we cannot justify the claim that "A is historically necessary" unless and until God prophesies it), and then there is the logical contingency of A (since we cannot say that A is logically necessary until we SEE its inclusion in the canon) and consequent upon such an inclusion we can say justifiably that "A is logically necessary."
Logically necessary claims do exist outside of the Bible, but the Bible either implies them, or else warrants them in a way other than implication by secondary authorities which it authorizes - as in the general reliability of your senses ("The seeing eye and the hearing ear, the Lord has made them both." Combine this passage with the teaching that God made all things "very good" for mutually affirmation and correspondence, then we may infer that your senses (in ordinary circumstances) generally do not belie the facts. Their sensations "match" the real world.
Thus do I refute Kant's (epistemic) chasm between the noumenal and phenomenal realms he postulates.
The Non-Euclideans go wild for these distinctions. If they do not now seem of particular help or interest, open a bottle of Heineken and sip away. They will soon become downright fascinating. How do you think logic students REALLY get through this stuff -- with truth tables? Oh please. I am told that reading Tarski on defining logical consequences requires a veritable liquor license.
(But never drink and derive). And remember Modus Ponens. It's the law.
But more on that later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)