as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
via Eph 1.10 NASB;ESV;SBLGNT – with a view to an administration – Bible Gateway.
The NASB seems much more accurate:
with a view to an administration [Greek: oikonomian] suitable to the fullness of the times, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth.
I don’t understand what the ESV did with this verse.
He had been recruited by the pioneering Zionist leader Kurt Blumenfeld, who paid a call on Einstein in Berlin in early 1919. “With extreme naïveté he asked questions,” Blumenfeld recalled. Among Einstein’s queries: With their intellectual gifts, why should Jews create a homeland that was primarily agricultural? Why did it have to be its own nation-state? Wasn’t nationalism the problem rather than the solution? Eventually, Einstein came around. “I am, as a human being, an opponent of nationalism,” he told Blumenfeld. “But as a Jew, I am from today a supporter of the Zionist effort.”
via How Einstein Divided America’s Jews – Magazine – The Atlantic.
Calvinism is true, but it is not the Gospel.
I have been married once to the woman to whom I am still married, so far, and one thing I have noticed about being married is that it makes you a lot more attentive to divorce, which used to seem like something that happened to other people, but doesn’t anymore, because of course every marriage is pregnant with divorce, and also now I know a lot of people who are divorced, or are about to be, or are somewhere in between those poles, for which shadowy status there should be words like mivorced or darried or sleeperated or schleperated, but there aren’t, so far.
People seem to get divorced for all sorts of reasons, and I find myself taking notes, probably defensively, but also out of sheer amazement at the chaotic wilderness of human nature. For example, I read recently about one man who got divorced so he could watch all sixty episodes of The Wire in chronological order. Another man got divorced after thirty years so he could, he said, fart in peace. Another man got divorced in part because he told his wife he had an affair, but he didn’t have an affair, he just couldn’t think of any other good excuse to get divorced, and he didn’t want to have an affair, or be with anyone else other than his wife, because he liked his wife, and rather enjoyed her company as a rule, he said, but he just didn’t want to be married to her every day anymore, he preferred to be married to her every second or third day, but she did not find that a workable arrangement, and so they parted company, confused.
Read the rest: Writing | Irreconcilable Dissonance | Writing | Output | Oregon Humanities.
A Psalm of the Sons of Korah. A Song.
On the holy mount stands the city he founded;
the LORD loves the gates of Zion
more than all the dwelling places of Jacob.
Glorious things of you are spoken,
O city of God. SelahAmong those who know me I mention Rahab and Babylon;
behold, Philistia and Tyre, with Cush–
“This one was born there,” they say.
And of Zion it shall be said,
“This one and that one were born in her”;
for the Most High himself will establish her.
The LORD records as he registers the peoples,
“This one was born there.” SelahSingers and dancers alike say,
“All my springs are in you.”
Let me translate Psalm 87.2 for this coming Sunday.
God loves the place you meet for Church more than the Christmas Tree and presents in your living room.
When your son asks you in time to come, ‘What is the meaning of the testimonies and the statutes and the rules that the Lord our God has commanded you?’ then you shall say to your son, ‘We were Pharaoh’s slaves in Egypt. And the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand. And the Lord showed signs and wonders, great and grievous, against Egypt and against Pharaoh and all his household, before our eyes. And he brought us out from there, that he might bring us in and give us the land that he swore to give to our fathers. And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as we are this day. And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us.’
via Deuteronomy 6:20-25 – ESVBible.org.
So, when someone sins, were they therefore devoid of the “righteousness” that is promised “if we are careful to do all this commandment before the LORD our God as he has commanded us”?
Of course not. The testimonies, statutes, and rules contained promises of forgiveness on the basis of the understanding that God’s people are sinners who will always need forgiveness. The Law provides for all the forgiveness God’s people will need. It does not expect nor demand sinless moral perfection as a condition for possessing the righteousness promised in Deuteronomy 6.25. What it does demand is that Israelites not abandon the true god for a pagan pretend god.
And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the LORD your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. You shall follow my rules and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the LORD your God. You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD (Leviticus 18.5)
Don’t entrust yourself to the gods of Egypt nor to the gods of Canaan, but rather trust the Lord.
A Man is then a certain monstrous beast compact together of parts two or three of great diversity. Of a soul as of a certain goodly thing, and of a body as it were a brute or dumb beast. For certainly we so greatly excel not all other kinds of brute beasts in perfectness of body, but that we in all his natural gifts are found to them inferiors. In our minds verily we be so celestial and of godly capacity that we may surmount above the nature of angels, and be unite, knit and made one with God. If thy body had not been added to thee, thou hadst been a celestial or godly thing. If this mind had not been grafted in thee, plainly thou hadst been a brute beast.
I’m surprised how much I am not enjoying Erasmus’ Enchiridion. I am tempted to write off the Northern Renaissance as Platonic counter-revolution against Aristotle. But I really don’t know enough yet to be sure of anything… except that I’m finding the book a disappointment.
The archaic translation I quoted above is not the one I am reading (see here). It translated the second to last sentence as:
If your body had not been added to you, you would have been Godhead.
I am working from memory because I have mislaid the book, but I promise it used the word “Godhead” and there was no way to mitigate the use of the word in the sentence.
The book seems to consist thus far, in many spurs to pursue real holiness, some admirable statements about faith, a few embarrassing formulations that involve merit (not surprising in 1501), and a great deal of dualism that seems to lead to an idea of “God” as a Platonic oversoul. When Erasmus moves from dichotomous descriptions of human nature, his portrayal of trichotomism sounds like it was ripped off by Freud to give us id (body, passions), ego (soul), and superego (spirit).
Perhaps someone who knows Latin can tell me the best way to translate what looks like a smoking gun to me. I don’t understand how Erasmus did not get in immediate trouble for writing that statement. Yet the book was a best seller in all the languages of Europe.
So I guess, so far, if we view John Calvin as “coming out of” humanism, he looks even more impressive.
I heard something about Apollinaris recently that was new to me (at least I don’t remember hearing it before). A lecturer said that Apollinaris reasoned that two perfect natures could not be joined. Sure enough, the Catholic Encyclopedia agrees:
Ontologically, it appeared to him that the union of complete God with complete man could not be more than a juxtaposition or collocation. Two perfect beings with all their attributes, he argued, cannot be one. They are at most an incongruous compound, not unlike the monsters of mythology. Inasmuch as the Nicene faith forbade him to belittle the Logos, as Arius had done, he forthwith proceeded to maim the humanity of Christ, and divest it of its noblest attribute, and this, he claimed, for the sake of true Unity and veritable Incarnation.
Appolinaris’ logic would, I think, do more than problematize the incarnation.
In creation, God voluntarily decided to make something new. Did he have to do so? Did he need something new or did he need to change in some way?
As a theist, I answer no.
God created out of grace. God was already a community of love — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — without any need for community or fellowship to be provided by creation. But out of that overflowing love, God decided out of his good pleasure to share himself.
I can see how this seems impossible. If God is a perfect and complete nature, why should he be motivated to add creation to his environment? But I do think we have to insist that God was both complete and perfect in himself, and yet also was able to be willing to make something new in order to share the joy within the Trinity with creatures.
So, on God’s side, a perfect nature can join with another at the level of creation. I’m not sure it really is more problematic, once you have taken that step, to admit he might do the same in the incarnation. Incarnation is qualitatively “more” than creation, but I think the same logic still applies.
And what about humanity?
I’m not sure what freight was included in the word “perfect” in Apollinaris’ day. I think a baby is perfect. Maybe Apollinaris would disagree. Maybe he would say a baby is perfected by growing to adulthood. In that case, maybe no human nature is really perfect. Maybe all await completion at a future date and state.
What if humanity was always intended to be joined to God? The special instance would be Jesus himself as the incarnation, and then in him and through him we are all joined to God through this new head of the human race. Being joined to God in hypostatic union was not a violation of his complete nature, but a consummation of it.
Creation was always meant to be God’s dwelling place, and Jesus fulfilled creation’s mission.
The JUST causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence. America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them, except Prussia, are maritime, and therefore able to annoy and injure us. She has also extensive commerce with Portugal, Spain, and Britain, and, with respect to the two latter, has, in addition, the circumstance of neighborhood to attend to.
It is of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and to me it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government than it could be either by thirteen separate States or by three or four distinct confederacies.
Because when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government,–especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States. Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more SAFE with respect to us.
via Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST No. 3.
COMMENT:
Perhaps Jay would defend himself by saying the thirteen states would be worse than what we have experienced.
But I would reply that the thirteen states worrying about each other, would be less likely to play hegemon on other continents.
Of course, reading the predictions made in the Federalist Papers is a forceful reminder of the foolishness of trying to shepherd the wind, as Solomon writes in Ecclesiastes. While it matters not on the question of whether the thirteen states needed a new, stronger, government at the time, the fact is that no generation can guarantee anything for the next.
It is not uncommon for one Christian teacher or group to accuse another professing Christian teacher or group of holding ideas about worship and communion that are “really just pagan.” Or perhaps it someone will attack a theory of being “the Old Covenant shadows.”
Whatever the accuracy of such associations, I just want to point out that the association by itself does not prove anyone to be in error. We know this because the Apostle Paul used both pagan worship and OT worship to teach positively on the Lord’s Supper:
Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
So there you have it: We participate in the blood and body of Christ just like the OT worshipers who ate from the sacrifices were made participants in the altar sacrifices (perhaps both those and the regular cycle even when they weren’t present?). We participate in Christ just like pagan eaters participate in demons.
So your views of the Lord Supper, in some way, need to be pagan and Jewish enough to bring you into conformity with the teachings of the Apostle Paul.
