Blog Posts - Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry

Clinging to God in hardship

4/2/2019

Tuesdays are for the Old Testament
4/2/19

Augustine. Exposition on the Book of Psalms. Schaff, Philip (editor). New York: Christian Literature Publishing Col, 1886. Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers: Series 1: Volume VIII. Re-published 2014, Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle electronic edition, ISBN-13: 978-1-78379-372-3.
“Psalm 17”

Augustine assigns Psalm 17 to refer directly to Jesus and slightly less directly to the Church (Augustine Psalms, loc. 320188). Verses 1-2 speak to the righteousness of the one praying, asking that the Lord would look on the Psalmist with favor. Verse three declares that the Lord has found no evil in the Psalmist, and verse four declares that the Psalmist keeps away from the ways of “the destroyer.” Even in times of hardship, the one praying has kept God’s ways (Augustine Psalms, loc. 320194). Augustine finds the guidance for such a walk to be in “the Sacraments and Apostolical writings” (Augustine Psalms, loc. 320200). This is where Christ and His Church stand firmly.

The Psalmist cries out to God who hears (verse 6). He expects that God would show great mercies, which cannot be ignored (verse 7). This is especially important, for the Lord uses his mercy to save those who trust him from the people who deny God. Verses 8-9 speak to the way God can cover and shelter His people (Augustine Psalms, loc. 320207). It is especially important to the Psalmist because the opposers have surrounded him, even casting him out of the city. This Augustine sees as a clear reference to Christ and His cross (Augustine Psalms, loc. 320213). Jesus’ enemies considered his death to be a terrible thing for him but good for them. In fact, it was the opposite. They surrounded the Lord as lions (v. 12) even though it did them no good.

In response to those who would reject God, the Psalmist asks, in verse 13, that the Lord would arise, show his power, rescue his people, and cast down the wicked. They considered God’s power to be absent, but it was only pausing out of mercy (Augustine Psalms, loc. 320220). The men of this world, in verse 14, have their reward in this life. They filled themselves with good things from God, all the while denying His power and grace. They can settle for their earthly comforts. They will have no more (Augustine Psalms, loc. 320226). On the other hand, the Psalmist expects to arrive in God’s righteous presence, and to be able to be filled with satisfaction in God’s presence (Augustine Psalms, loc. 320232).

Isaiah 43:16-21 - Lectionary for Lent 5C

4/1/2019

4/1/19
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the three-year lectionary.

“I am doing a new thing” Isaiah 43:19 says. We don’t need to be around American Christianity long to hear that statement or to see the sentiments usually attached to it. Sadly, these interpretations often depart quite radically from what Isaiah was saying to the people of his time.

Notice, if you will, how verses 16-18 retell an event from the Exodus, when the way through the sea was suddenly blocked for the chariots and army of Egypt. The attempt to pursue God’s presence was stopped in a deadly manner. That was the old thing, the former way.

What is this new way God is proclaiming? Here he makes a way for all the wild things that could harm Israel to receive not only access to God but also access to water, that which gives earthly life. Where there is water, there will also be food. The Lord will provide for those formerly excluded and outcast. So far, so good. This is possibly consistent with what our contemporary versions of Christianity would say. Where’s the difference?

In Isaiah, the new thing provides access to the God who never changes. God is the one who calls all the shots. He is the one who defines the way of access. He gets to change the hearts of the wild beasts and of His people. We don’t see God and pursue Him in our own power and according to our desires. Rather, we see the way of salvation that God has made and prescribed, trusting in His grace which He presents as He wishes. The new thing is God’s plan, not ours. We see His character, His revelation, and His means of grace, and so we follow them, trusting in Him alone. God reaigns and calls us to his side, formerly impossible but not a completed event in Christ. He gathers His people and has them show His praise (v. 21).

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

Post Valentinus - Anything Goes Except Real Christianity

4/1/2019

Mondays are for Church History
4/1/19

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church (The Complete Eight Volumes in One). Amazon Kindle Edition, 2014.
Volume 2, Ante-Nicene Christianity A.D. 100-325, “Chapter 11. The Heresies of the Ante-Nicene Age” Sections 112-136, Loc. 17655-18757.

§ 126. The School of Valentinus. Heracleon, Ptolemy, Marcos, Bardesanes, Harmonius.

Schaff traces the development of Valentinian Gnosticism, though with some difficulty because of the ever-changing ideas of the Gnostics (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18368). In the East, the followers of Valentinus saw Jesus’ body as a pneumatic and heavenly substance, while in Italy they saw it as a psychial thing, which required the coming of the Holy Spirit. Heracleon, flourishing between 170 and 180, wrote a commentary on John, which is known to us through fragments upon which Origen commented, normally by contradicting Heracleon. Both Heracleon and Origen were highly allegorical in their interpretations (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18376). Schaff further mentions Ptolemy, who wrote the Epistle to Flora, attempting to make a convert to Valentinianism (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18383). His root argument is that because God is good He could not make a world that is so evil. Marcos, another follower of Valentinus, focused on numerology and elaborate rituals. Bardesanes, a Syrian, was prominent in the late second and early third centuries. Schaff considers him only marginally a Gnostic but certainly a heretic (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18391). Bardesanes’ son, Harmonius, was largely known for establishing Syrian hymnology, even writing a collection of 150 hymns (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18399). Schaff gives little information about what identifies these figures as Gnostic or not.

The Lord's Prayer: History, Structure, and Petitions

3/29/2019

Friday is Didache day.
3/29/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

One of the distinctive features of the Didache community was the use of the prayer we know as “The Lord’s Prayer.” People would gather as they were able, three times a day, and pray together (Milavec 2003, 308). Milavec’s assumption that children would not be baptized releases them from the obligation to pray. However, he recognizes that they would have been allowed to participate in the prayers.

Daily prayers were likely taken over from the practices of the Pharisees, who arose with a decentralizing role especially in the second century B.C. Though temple worship continued, the synagogue and customs of prayers in homes with family had developed over time (Milavec 2003, 309). When the synagogue leaders made requirements of a prayer and recitation liturgy, this was a radical change in Judaism. The custom of morning, noon, and evening prayers became established prior to about 200 A.D. (Milavec 2003, 310). The content of the prayers seems fairly static. This would suggest a similar pattern as Christianity developoed.

Milavec observes the Lord’s prayer exists in three basic versions: that of Matthew 6, that of Luke 11, and that of the Didache (Milavec 2003, 311). The version found in Luke in much briefer than those of Matthew and of Didache, which two are nearly identical (Milavec 2003, 312). Milavec notes that this similarity does not require dependence. The prayer may well have been firmly established in oral tradition. This says to Milavec that no community using Matthew would have written the Didache (Milavec 2003, 313).

Many have considered that the Lord’s Prayer is derived or adapted from a Jewish example. However, during the 20th century scholars have been increasingly convinced that the Jewish prayers, which are not attested by specific manuscripts until the 9th century, were not entirely uniform and monolithic (Milavec 2003, 314). Therefore they can no longer assume specific content with any degree of certainty.

The Lord’s Prayer as found in the Didache is carefully structured. The six petitions are gathered into two groups of three. The first and third have passive verbs, softening the idea of prayer actually commanding God (Milavec 2003, 315). Milavec notes the passive imperative is common in Jewish prayers. The fourth through sixth petitions all use active imperatives. They also are longer, with subordinate clauses (Milavec 2003, 316).

Milavec considers that the idea of God’s name being made holy by the presence of his kingdom is not a very common New Testament motif. However, it is present in the New Testament and relatively common i n the Old Testament (Milavec 2003, 317). The coming of God’s kingdom and rule seems central to both the New Testament and the Didache (Milavec 2003, 318). Although it is not clearly defined in the New Testament or the Didache, it is still a critical idea (Milavec 2003, 319).

The idea of God’s name being holy and his kingdom coming is tied up with his will being done. Milavec finds these three petitions inseparable (Milavec 2003, 320). As in all the previous petitions, the expectation is that God would be the primary actor. The prayer is addressed to God, not to the disciples.

Discussions of the Lord’s Prayer often begin with comments about the word “father.” Milavec considers Joachim Jeremias and his view that the Aramaic “abba” and the Greek “pater” would be an expression of special intimacy (Milavec 2003, 321). Reference to God as the father who loves his children is common in Jewish piety. It is further not so that Jesus “always addressed God as father” (Milavec 2003, 322). The sentimentalism which finds the prayer as an address to a doting father figure is unwarranted. The prayers in the Didache addressed to the Father always refer to God as the powerful and benevolent Master (Milavec 2003, 323).

The plea in the Lord’s prayer that God’s kingdom would come is a difficult statement. Milavec notes that many interpreters consider it fulfilled already in the age of the Church. However, it may also refer to the hope of a future second coming of Christ (Milavec 2003, 324). This view of a future kingdom may be troublesome to people on at least two levels. First, a cataclysmic coming of Christ challenges the presuppositions of slow progress advocated by an evolutionary viewpoint. Second, it has been expected “soon” for approximately two thousand years (Milavec 2003, 325). Milavec’s solution to the second problem is to cite scholars who consider the statements of urgent expectation to be creations of the early Christians but not Jesus (Milavec 2003, 326). Aside from that, he dismisses objections as “fundamentalist” and “prescientific.” Milavec concludes, however, that there may well have been at least some level of eschatological expectation in the Didache’s prayer that God’s kingdom would come (Milavec 2003, 328).

The second half of the Lord’s Prayer, Milavec observes, is phrased in aorist imperatives. He considers, then, that the idea of God’s provision of bread, forgiveness, and protection from temptation should be seen as single actions rather than ongoing, daily processes (Milavec 2003, 328). Milavec discusses the difficulty of the word “epiousios,” normally translated “daily.” It is not used elsewhere in Christian writing and he does not find it in secular Greek from this time (Milavec 2003, 329). Milavec considers that the provision of bread is to be seen as of one idea with the eucharistic prayers, and that the bread will be that which gives life in some futuristic kingdom (Milavec 2003, 330).

In the Lord’s Prayer the idea of “debt” is evident. Milavec notes that the Hebrew term for “debt” would commonly refer to a sin, a term used in Luke 7:41 translated into Greek (Milavec 2003, 331). In the prayer recorded in Didache the term “debt” is simgular. The aorist “forgive” is followed by our forgiving in the present tense, possibly referring to an ongoing or daily habit (Milavec 2003, 331). Thus, in the last judgment we ask that God’s one time forgiveness would be based on our habit of forgiving others. Milavec, with many others, sees this as a potential challenge to the idea of salvation solely by grace, not based on our works, in this case, forgiveness (Milavec 2003, 332).

The final petition of the Lord’s prayer asks God not to lead his people into temptations. The Greek word used frequently refers to a trial brought by Satan. Milavec’s concern here is that the language could suggest that God would direct people into a time of Satanic attack (Milavec 2003, 332). However, since the term is often used of a test from which a positive outcome is expected, and since the idiom of asking God not to lead to a negative normally is used to ask God for a positive, the petition would seem simply to ask God for protection from difficult trials (Milavec 2003, 333).

Luke 15:1-3, 11b-32 - Lectionary for Lent 4C

3/28/2019

3/28/19
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the three-year lectionary.

Our Gospel for this week, from Luke 15, is focused on the fairly well known “parable of the prodigal.” Here, the younger son of a living father persuades his father to give him his inheritance. He departs and manages to run through all his money, ending up in very humble circumstances.

While many will shoose to focus on the younger son’s offensive behavior toward his family or on the plan for restoration, or maybe the restoration itself or the older brother’s reaction, I’d like to take al ook at the trouble the young man found himself in. We may remember that pigs are considered ceremonially unclean by Jews. They will not raise them or eat them. How, then, does this young man end up helping someone who keeps pigs, and wishing for a share in the pigs’ food? He is far from home, taking despreate measures in order to stay alive, and engaged in activity which provoked him to guilt and shame on a daily basis.That’s about as far from home as you can be. It’s a profoundly sad place.

How did the young man get there? He had purposely thrown off the shackles of restraint provided by his family and his culture. In asking for his inheritance, he was declaring his father dead. He left home, the place of security, and tried to make his own way, according to his pleasures. By departing from the structure and restraint of his culture, he was faced with the monumental task of re-inventing it all, in a way that would work. This is a recipe for failure.

Many in our current Western world are, sad to say, not like the prodigal. Yes. Not like him. Our culture ran away from those reasonable foundations in the past. Different people will place different dates on the departure, but no matter how you stack it, we are very unlikely to be the first generation in this exodus. Our parents, grandparents, or even earlier generations made the shift. We were born in the foreign country, starving, and feeding pigs, which is loathsome but we were never told why. It’s a sorry state of affairs.

Jesus’ message is the same for us as for the young man. God stands ready to welcome those who have wandered, even those who have never known him. He calls us, by His Word and by the community of Christians, to be restored, to be clothed, to be fed, and to see that He is very much alive. He himself is our everlasting inheritance. This is the good news for us who are far away and starving. We are welcome home.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

An Interlude - Breathing Space

3/28/2019

Thursdays are for the New Testament
3/28/19

Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Location: Ellis BS 2825.53.O73 2002
III. God in Majesty and Judgment (4:1-16:21) pp. 218-602.
B. Great Conflict between God and the Forces of Evil (12:1-16:21) pp. 451-602

Osborne observes that the earlier portions of Revelation focused on God’s sovereignty. In this portion, the focus is on the forces of evil who oppose God (Osborne 2002, 451).

1. “Interlude: Great Conflict Described (12:1-14:20)” pp. 452-557.

Revelation 12:1-14:20 is sometimes considered an interlude, as it is placed between the trumpets and the bowls, thus interrupting God’s work of judgment. However, it does not, like other interludes, interrupt an ennumerated series of events. Osborne notes the focus “on the activity of the false trinity (the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet/second beast, 16:13)” (Osborne 2002, 452). The fate of Satan is already sealed in this passage, but his tactics and demise are spelled out. All Satan does is a parody of something God has done. Osborne observes that various commentators have made attempts to find a pattern of seven in this area, but have not been unified in their findings (Osborne 2002, 453).

2 Corinthians 5:16-21 - Lectionary for Lent 4C

3/27/2019

3/27/19
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the three-year lectionary.

Our Epistle reading for this week focuses on how we would consider God and how we would consider one another. At the beginning of the passage, Paul says that at one point we would think of Christ “according to the flesh.” But in light of the resurrection of Christ, that thinking has passed away. The crux of the issue is that God has made reconciliation and given his people “the word of reconciliation” (v. 19, ESV). This sheds light on what Paul might mean when he speaks of consideration “according to the flesh” (v. 16, ESV).

When we think and act in accordance with the flesh, we are the doers and shakers. We are the ones responsible for everything. We find peace with God, we trust, we obey, we work out God’s kingdom. We find that Christ’s work on our behalf is only valid if we contribute to it. We see a risen Christ who needs us to keep his law or he is stripped of his power and authority. This is how life according to the flesh is.

The good news is that verse seventeen does away with the idea altogether. We don’t need to make the rules. We don’t get to make the rules. We are best advised to keep our hands in our pockets and stay away from any temptation to enter into the fray. Why is this? Because God has done the work of reconciling the world, including us, to himself. It is done. Our efforts to add to his work are not only pointless but even harmful. He has accomplished his will.

What is our proper resonse? To make that work of God known to others, calling them to receive God’s reconciling work. After all, in verse 21, Jesus is said to have become sin for us, making us God’s righteousness. The work is done. We may as well receive it with thanksgiving.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

Power to the People

3/27/2019

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
3/27/19

Veith, Gene Edward. Modern Fascism: The Threat to the Judeo-Christian Worldview. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1993.
Chapter 9, “‘The People’s Culture’ Fascism and the Mass Mind” pp. 145-160

Veith considers the mass mind in the current culture, strongly influenced by mass media. We note that this book was written before the internet explosion took place. Access to highly visual media was increasing, a factor in a move to more emotive responses as opposed to the slower and more logically organized responses we normally find to print media (Veith 1993, 146). Veith finds that the fascist worldview is based on speech and images, which are more immediate. This stands in contrast to the written word, which the fascists saw as more transcendent (Veith 1993, 146). Banning and burning of books was popular among fascists as well as among the educated elite through the 20th century (Veith 1993, 147). Deconstruction of ideas can have the same result, as it effectively moves a piece of literature out of the public view.

In contrast to the banning and burning of books, Veith observes that the Nazis produced over 1300 films and embraced the visual arts, when used for their purposes (Veith 1993, 147). However, in contrast to the Nazis, our current culture is far more image-centered. Veith observes the very talk of a politician’s “image” is a radical departure from the content-based discussions which took place through the 19th century (Veith 1993, 148). The fascists of the 1930s managed to use images and experiences, rather than factual arguments, to unify and motivate the public. Mass media has the capacity to create and sustain a mass culture, with people thinking and acting the same way as each other (Veith 1993, 149). Veith acknowledges that some thinkers see this in positive terms, others as a social ill.
Regardless of the view of mass media culture as good or bad, artists and thinkers have uniformly understood that high art needs to give way to popular art (Veith 1993, 150). The masses need art and culture they can approach. The Nazis divided art into “artificial” (the high art) and “genuine” (popular art). It was the popular and folk art that could be embraced by all. Veith sees a similar popularization of art and literature in the late 20th century United States (Veith 1993, 150). The way to this has been led by the artistic and academic institutions where traditional and other “high art” is deconstructed. Veith adduces examples of “aesthetic quality” being made a means of oppressing females and minorities, of elevation of literature that was “marginalized,” and the use of popular imagery such as Warhol’s soup cans (Veith 1993, 151).

A culture of violence is common in mass movements. This was certainly the goal of Nazi propaganda. Veith observes the violence of movies in popular culture, where it was formerly mainly present in the avant-garde (Veith 1993, 152). In many films the plot matters little, but the value is found in the violence. The composition also, rather than focusing on the hero, tends to use the villain’s perspective and bring actions once left off camera into sharp focus (Veith 1993, 153). Veith also notes the communal experience of the rock concert and the forceful musical style and lyrics found in some popular rock. He ties the skinhead culture to the kind of violent music typically used, as well as to the neo-Nazi sympathies of many artists (Veith 1993, 154). One wonders what Veith would think of current ganster rap culture.

Veith considers the Nazi opinions that American society would shortly crumble (Veith 1993, 155). The Nazis assumed America would decline because of their indifference to the environment and their obsession with comfort and pleasure. However, Veith observes that our individualism can resist collectivism and that an integrated “melting pot” society is resistant to racial unrest (Veith 1993, 156). Unfortunately, as politics become more dependent on propaganda and images, these protections can fall apart. Utilitarian and existential philosophies fight against the transcendence which has protected us. Religion which is focused on transcendent principles is a bastion against fascism, but when it shifts its focus to experience and emotionalism it can become an entryway for fascism (Veith 1993, 157). One open door Veith sees to a disruption of the West is a cobination of feminism and fascism (Veith 1993, 158). Racial and sexual equality actively fights against fascism, but Veith sees many neofascist groups on the rise, sowing dissension. He can envision a society in which the elements of fascism would exist apart from the violence. There have been relatively peaceful nationalist socialistic societies which have survived as long as they are not large (Veith 1993, 159). However, socialism almost always falls into the more violent patterns. Veith sees this as an imminent danger to Western Civilization. Ultimately the safeguard is built of transcendent values.

Psalm 32 - Lectionary for Lent 4C

3/26/2019

3/26/19
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the three-year lectionary.

Psalm 32 speaks to the blessedness of the one who is forgiven. It’s important that we remember this is not speaking of someone who was not guilty. Verses 3-5 speak clearly of the process of what a Christian would call “conviction of sin.” Here we realize something is wrong. We try to deny it, to evade the truth, maybe to minimize our sin or learn to live with it keeping it secret. In the end, those efforts fail. We find ourselves preoccupied and troubled, day and night. In the end it consumes all our energy. We have no choice but to call out to God.

What happens then? We still have the sin but we confess it to the Lord. He does not make it nonexistent. He forgives it. The sin? Yes, it has still happened. There may be deep and lasting consequences. But in his mercy, God forgives us. He will not count it against us (v. 1). He also shows us we can’t lie to God. There’s no place for deceit (v. 2).

What is our reasonable action in light of this ? The Christian, over time, becomes both more aware of his sunfulness and of the forgiving nature of God. Rather than denying and hiding our sin, we confess it before the Lord. REally, why would we want to bottle up an offense before God when we know it will debilitate us? No, we don’t hide it. We confess before the Lord and see his forgiveness. There we find a confidence and a stability. We know the God of all mercy, who can guard our hearts and minds.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

The Christ Brings God's People to Him

3/26/2019

Tuesdays are for the Old Testament
3/26/19

Augustine. Exposition on the Book of Psalms. Schaff, Philip (editor). New York: Christian Literature Publishing Col, 1886. Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers: Series 1: Volume VIII. Re-published 2014, Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle electronic edition, ISBN-13: 978-1-78379-372-3.
“Psalm 16”

Augustine takes Psalm 16 to be a direct speech of Christ, through King David, spaking according to His human nature. At the time of His crucifixion, Jesus desired the Father to preserve him, even though he, Jesus, had nothing to offer. Augustine finds verse two, where many modern translations say “My goodness is nothing” to be “my goods are nothing” - a perfectly acceptable translation, but one which changes the overall thrust of the sentence (Augustine Psalms, loc. 320148). Because of that interpretation, verse three makes much more logical sense, as God the Son brings nothing to the Father but his saints, those who trust him.

The sorrows of those seeking another god, in verse four, are increased, yet Augustine sees it as a way of increasing their longing for Christ’s healing. The nature of their assemblies and sacrifices will be changed as they turn to the true God (Augustine Psalms, loc. 320155). The result is that God the Father is the inheritance for all who believe. This inheritance, boundary lines and all (v. 6), is a gracious gift of God, not of my ability but of God (Augustine Psalms, loc. 320163). This results in praise to God (v. 7). Augustine now sees verse eight as a reference to the relationship of the Father and the Son. The image of the throne at God’s right hand is hard to understand in any other way, as is the image of rescue from death in verse 10 (Augustine Psalms, loc. 320171). The pleasure of God’s presence is available to those who believe Christ, as to Christ the Lord himself.

Valentinus - Soulish vs. Spiritual Emanations

3/25/2019

Mondays are for Church History
3/25/19

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church (The Complete Eight Volumes in One). Amazon Kindle Edition, 2014.
Volume 2, Ante-Nicene Christianity A.D. 100-325, “Chapter 11. The Heresies of the Ante-Nicene Age” Sections 112-136, Loc. 17655-18757.

§ 125. Valentinus.

Valentinus was one of the best known Gnostics. Schaff notes that Irenaeus made Valentinus the foundation of the Gnosticism which he refuted (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18277). Valentinus was probably educated in Alexandria before spending time in Rome from before 140 until at least the mid 150s. Because Rome was gaining in importance as a center of Christianity at that time, many teachers who wished to become influential went to Rome.

Schaff sums up Valentinus as follows. “His system is an ingenious theogonic and cosmogonic epos. It describes in three acts the creation, the fall, and the redemption; first in heaven, then on earth. Great events repeat themselves in different stages of being (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18285). Valentinus made his theories work by redefining important words and concepts used by historic Christianity. Starting from an original great and silent unknown which contemplated himself, eventually a succession of emanations resulted in the created order (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18295). All the created order was a matter of sexual duality in emanations from the original unknown. They finally bring forth the second and third persons of the Trinity (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18307). Eventually, Wisdom, desiring to relieve her lonliness, springs into self-dtermination, which creates an abortive offspring. After extensive wandering, Wisdom is restored by Christ and the Holy Spirit, who are the last two of the divine offspring (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18322). Of the three saviors (Christ, Jesus, and Messiah), Jesus is the one who marries Wisdom so as to redeem her (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18337). Schaff provides an extensive quotation in German from Dr. Baur, who finds Valentinian Gnosticism in Hegelian thought. Hegelian precepts of principle roots of thoughts are very similar to the Gnostic aeons (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18346). Baur also finds similarities in the way Valentinus and Hegel distinguish between “psychic” and “pneumatic” influences (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18353).

Isaiah 12:1-6 - Lectionary for Lent 4C

3/25/2019

3/25/19
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the three-year lectionary.

Isaiah 12:1-6 is centered around thanksgiving to God. The people of God will give thanks to the Lord. They will tell about what God has done. This brings great joy.

For some reason, we often seem focused on acts of God which appear negative. Our insurance policies may even classify “acts of God” such as earthquakes or forest fires as covered or uncovered incidents in their coverage. Many in our culture seem convinced that God’s work is, by definition, negative.

In sharp contrast to that, Isaiah 12:1 describes God’s work as turning from anger so as to bring comfort. Verse two describes God’s power as something which drives away fear. Verse five says that God’s name is exalted by his deeds, and it assumes that God’s work is good and gracious.

Do God’s people face trials and tribulations? Yes, they certainly do. Is there a healthy fear of God? Yes indeed. We do not want to fall into God’s righteous wrath against our unrighteousness. But what is the focus of the Bible? It is that, in Christ, God’s anger at sin has been satisfied and that he can look at those who trust in Jesus as if they are perfectly righteous in his sight. God has turned from his anger. He has brought comfort. This is the good news, which should provoke our praises, our songs of joy. The Holy One of Israel is great in our midst.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

Fasting in Early Christianity

3/22/2019

Friday is Didache day.
3/22/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Chapter 4 “Rhythms of Fasting and Praying Until the Kingdom Comes” pp. 285-350.

Religious communities normally share together in a life of prayer. Milavec sees the Didache communities as unified in large part due to a rhythm of both fasting and prayer. The Didache (8:1) prescribes fasting on the fourth and sixth day, rather than the second and fifth day, as done by “the hypocrites” (Milavec 2003, 289). This wording presupposes that the community would use a Jewish calendar, with its seven day week. Converts would adopt a Jewish calendar for their worship but also retain the Roman calendar for much of civic life.

In 45 B.C., the Romans had adopted a Julian calendar, which began in January rather than March. It had months as we do now, as well as a leap day every fourth year. However, it had no structure of a week. That was adopted, partly due to Jewish influence, late in the first century (Milavec 2003, 291). The names of days in a week appear by the early third century. In the fourth century, Romans began the custom of closing the civil courts on “the day of the Sun,” which Christians could read with a double meaning as the day of resurrection (Milavec 2003, 292). By the sixth century Sunday became a fairly universal day of rest.

The fasting on the fourth and sixth days of the week is significant. Jewish fasts were typically on the second and fifth days of the week (Milavec 2003, 293). Milavec notes that the Apostolic Constitutions explain the fourth day as the day Judas agreed to betray Jesus and the sixth day as the day of Jesus’ death (Milavec 2003, 294). However, Milavec asserts that it is impossible that the Didache communities could have inherited or invented such customs. He gives no reason for his assertion. Regardless, we do not have a definitive reason for the selection of those fast days.

Milavec continues his discussion of fasting by considering the extent of the regular fast. There are many different ways in which one can humble himself by fasting. Although Milavec considers the Didache communities to be Gentile, they still have some roots in Judaism. So he considers the specific feature of Jewish fasts (Milavec 2003, 296). Normally fasting was an abstinence from food and drink. Sometimes it involved additional signs as well. The Didache, giving no specifics, would seem to expect discretion in the community as to the rigor and duration of the fast (Milavec 2003, 298).

Within Jewish thought, fasting and praying are inextricably linked (Milavec 2003, 299). Milavec considers that fasting is not a matter of self-mastery but of intensifying prayers so God will bring what is needed to the community. His example is praying for rain when it has been unusually dry (Milavec 2003, 300).

Milavec does note that the significance of the fast in antiquity was more closely tied to whether everyone participated than to the actual rigor of the fast (Milavec 2003, 300). He cites several instances which demonstrate widespread participation as the important factor but do not specify what was to be given up in the fast. The primary importance here was that everyone fasted. Secondary importance was assigned to fasting at different times from “the hypocrites.” No other specifications seemed necessary.

Who are these “hypocrites”? Milavec asks if they are the same as the Pharisees in Matthew (Milavec 2003, 301. Because Matthew calls the Pharisees “hypocrites” and because the Pharisee in Luke 18:12 mentions fasting twice a week, many equate the two. However, Milavec follows Rordorf who asserts a very different identity for the hypocrites (Milavec 2003, 302). Matthew’s account of the Pharisees calls them hypocrites because they make a show of fasting. The disciples of Jesus were to fast in secret. In the Didache the practice of the hypocrites is not specifically mentioned. The disciples are to fast twice a week, but publicly rather than in secret. The Gospels also do not say that the Pharisees were distinguished because of their fasting. The practice seems unrelated in Milavec’s mind. Matthew’s Gospel also has Jesus tell his disciples to make their appearance normal on fast days, rather than to choose different fast days (Matthew 6:16-17) (Milavec 2003, 303).

The term “hypocrite” itself is worthy of consideration. In the secular world it was a term used of an actor, neither with positive or negative connotations. Within Judaism and Christianity it took on a primary meaning of someone not involved in a theatrical production, but rather playing a role in life which was not true. As a result, we have retained the word with negative connotations (Milavec 2003, 304).

Milavec still desires to explain who the “hypocrites” in the Didache could be. Since he has concluded they cannot be Pharisees, he considers other possibilities (Milavec 2003, 304). They may be Jews but not specifically Pharisees. However, the Didache doesn’t seem hostile to Jews (Milavec 2003, 305). They may have been Jewish people who encouraged Gentile converts to make commitments to the temple. If this were the case, we could easily understand the fact that the Didache doesn’t seem to consider the temple important. Milavec sees this, as well as the statements in the synoptic Gospels downplaying the temple, as something coming from the time of the destruction of the temple. Only then could Christianity be safely distanced from Judaism (Milavec 2003, 306). Once the temple was destroyed it was safe to make positive statements about the temple.

Milavec asks whether the Didache is an anti-Jewish text at heart. Although some see an attack on Judaism in the discussions of baptism and fasting, Milavec sees the text as framed by Jewish leaders who wanted to guide gentile converts (Milavec 2003, 307).

Luke 13:1-9 - Lectionary for Lent 3C

3/21/2019

3/21/19
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the three-year lectionary.

Our reading from Luke 13:1-9 confronts us with an unpleasant reality. While we might want to get what we deserve, and hold out some hope that we would get something good, Jesus reflects upon some who were apparently killed while making sacrifice to God. He points out to his questioners that they themselves are no more righteous than those victims of what seems an unjust death. People die, whether of illness, accident, or violence. We cannot hope for better. This earthly life will come to an end, whether we like it or not.

That’s a sobering thought. All our righteousness, all our civic good, all our attempts at caring for ourselves will pass away, if we are looking only at this mortal life. The mortality rate for humans throughout history remains 100%. The Bible mentions a couple of people who were taken up to heaven without dying and one who was raised from the dead. Out of all human history, we are left with a 100% mortality rate.

Jesus gives us some hope in verses 6-9. He calls his people to hear him, to repent and believe. And then he gives a lesson about a man who has a fig tree. It isn’t productive. It should probably be cut down and thrown in the fire. But the vinedresser persuades the owner to leave it for another year in hopes of producing fruit. The tree will receive care and nourishment. Maybe it will produce.

In the end, we don’t find out whether the tree produces fruit or not. We don’t find out whether the people listeniing to Jesus repent or not. We don’t know any of that. But we do know that God’s call to us is crystal clear. He calls us to believe in him. He calls us to change our attitudes so that we are not in line for execution. He invites his people to receive not what they deserve, but the good they need.

The people who were killed are not greater sinners than we are. However, God graciously offers his forgiveness to all who believe. We’re all sinners, in need of forgiveness. In Christ we can receive that forgiveness, not by our righteous works, but by Jesus’ forgiving grace.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

A Third Woe and a Declaration of God's Glory

3/21/2019

Thursdays are for the New Testament
3/21/19

Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Location: Ellis BS 2825.53.O73 2002
III. God in Majesty and Judgment (4:1-16:21) pp. 218-602.
A. God’s Sovereignty in Judgment (4:1-11:19) pp. 219-450.
3. Seven Trumpets (8:2-11:19) pp. 339-450.
f. “Seventh Trumpet (11:14-19)” pp. 438-450.

The seventh trumpet, of Revelation 11:14-19, introduces the “third woe.” Osborne notes it is a difficult passage because the actual woe does not seem to be present. Instead, there is a celebration of the coming of the Lord (Osborne 2002, 438). People have variously suggested the woe is in chapters 12-13, in 12-20, or is simply absent from the text. If it is present in 1114-19, it “is proclaimed rather than described” (Osborne 2002, 438).

Osborne observes that the announcement of the third woe could take a reader by surprise, since the second woe was some time ago, in 9:13-21 (Osborne 2002, 439). The interlude may have been a purposeful part of the second woe. The trumpet, when blown, would lead readers to expect an immediate catastrophe, as happened in the past. However, as in the action of the seventh seal, there is something which seems peaceable. Osborne notes the seventh seal introduces silence but the seventh trumpet introduces a choir (Osborne 2002, 440). The heavenly chorus sings loudly about the victorious kingdom of God, which is a certain reality. The Lord has ushered in a heavenly kingdom which replaces all the earthly kingdoms (Osborne 2002, 441). Osborne sees a strong emphasis on the unity of the Father and the Son in the eternal kingdom. Temporality has been ended by the eternal Lord.

In Revelation 11:16-18, the twenty-four elders sing a hymn which celebrates God as He “has ended this world and begun his eternal reign” (Osborne 2002, 442). In powerful terms the title of God as the one “who is, who was, and who is to come” is used but without the future, indicating that God’s kingdom is present now forever (Osborne 2002, 443). God is reigning in his final show of power. While some, taking a preterist approach, think this is a description of Christ’s kingdom after the sacking of Jerusalem in 70, Osborne observes that God’s reign in Christianity was established earlier, by Pentecost, so the destruction of Jerusalem is not a natural fit (Osborne 2002, 444). The hymn further refers to Psalm two, with mockers despising God’s wrath, and a statement of God judging the mockers. The time referred to will also be one for judging the dead and rewarding the faithful (Osborne 2002, 445). Osborne notes that different people receive some sort of rewards, but the nature of the rewards, their differences, and distinctions among the groups are not at all clear (Osborne 2002, 446). Regardless, at the end of the song, God’s temple in heaven has been opened. God’s mercy is present for the end of this age (Osborne 2002, 448).

1 Corinthians 10:1-13 - Lectionary for Lent 3C

3/20/2019

3/20/19
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the three-year lectionary.

In 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, the apostle warns the Corinthians. They, as God’s people, are, according to Paul, partakers of the identity of Israel. They all passed through the Red Sea with Moses, though the event was around 1400 years earlier. God gives his people a group identity, and it is one in which his people are under his protective hand. They are those rescued by the Lord.

What happened to the people of Israel? They took matters into their own hands (v. 7). The result of taking their own initiative was an immoral departure from the faith, eventually leading to destruction. They followed their temptation and their desires, departing from the collective people of God.

The Corinthians were never with Moses. How does this apply? Just like the people of Israel, they could remain under the protection of God through faith in Christ. When they choose to pursue their own desires, to solve the problem of eternal life according to their own plan, they will certainly fail. As with the Corinthians, so with us. Christians are called to trust that Jesus has done all that is necessary for our life and salvation. As Moses brought the people of Israel through the sea, Jesus has promised to bring those who trust in Him through death to emerge safely on the other side. We are warned not to trust in our own way, for without it we will not emerge unharmed. As we trust in Christ, we are safe. As we trust ourselves, we are doomed.

This should not be difficult for us to analyze and decide upon. As Christ has called us his people, let us walk as his people.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

Overthrow of Power

3/20/2019

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
3/20/19

Veith, Gene Edward. Modern Fascism: The Threat to the Judeo-Christian Worldview. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1993.
Chapter 8, “‘The Will to Power’ Fascism and Postmodernism” pp. 126-144.

Veith, even in the early 19902, recognized the shift from modernism to postmodern thought, which he sees as a breakdown of all that is transcendent. He observes that “some of the crucial theorists of the new postmodern thought were personally involved with the fascism of the 1930s” (Veith 1993, 126). Veith is clear that postmodernists are not necessarily fascists. However, the thinking can lead toward fascism, so deserves cautious analysis. Because postmodernism is critical of capitalism and other traditions which seem based on power, it can “easily legitimize oppression by undermining all moral and legal structures that might mitigate and control the ‘will to power’” (Veith 1993, 127). The value placed on pluralism can provoke treatment of people only as they fit into categories, rather than as individuals. Meaning, and therefore fact, is something which is created by a society, rather than being recognized by an individual. This process goes as far as the fact of one’s self, which is determined by social and cultural forces (Veith 1993, 128). The social analysis performed in postmodernism normally uses categories recognized in Marxism, Freudianism, and build strongly on Nietzsche, with reality hidden and needing to be drawn out (Veith 1993, 128-129). If meaning is a construct to be brought out through interrogation, the individual may well do best allowing cultural or governmental patterns dictate what is good or bad (Veith 1993, 129). This is very similar to fascism.

Postmodernism also has a strong emphasis on relativism. Since meaning can differ from one person to another, attempts to impose objective truth are rejected as oppressive (Veith 1993, 130). This relativism effectively views Western civilization, with its emphasis on stability and an attitude of superiority, as oppressive. Rather, cultures which have been oppressed should be seen as superior. While this would seem at odds with fascism, Veith notes the categorization is identical, though the conclusions differ (Veith 1993, 131). It leads to social stereotyping and will logically cause different groups to be privileged. Veith goes on to identify the root of the problem. “What is missing in postmodern multiculturalism is an acknowledgement of any kind of realm that transcends culture, some overarching sense of universal humanity which people of all cultures have in common” (Veith 1993, 132). In postmodern thought, there is nothing to replace the stabilizing influence of science, democratic values, or religion. Postmodernism tends to divide cultures apart rather than to develop unity (Veith 1993, 133). Fascism did precisely the same thing, in its emphasis on the distinctive features of various cultural and ethnic groups (Veith 1993, 134).

At the heart of postmodernism, Veith says, is the deconstruction found first in Heidegger. “Put simply, deconstruction begins, with the existentialist dictum that there is no transcendent meaning, that meaning is a human construction” (Veith 1993, 135). Language, which is in some ways arbitrary, is also subject to deconstruction. Thus, a postmodern reading of a document can make it mean nearly anything or nothing, as Veith illustrates with several examples (Veith 1993, 136). In the end, any transcendence is rejected, allowing the interpreter to act in a dictatorial manner, something the fascist deconstructionists were free to do (Veith 1993, 137). Veith makes much of the writing of Paul De Man, who was an important fascist journalist and who continued developing the same ideas as a professor and literary critic in the United States (Veith 1993, 138). In De Man’s work, language and action are alike exercises of power. They are morally detached, allowing the writer or actor to create their own meaning (Veith 1993, 140).

Veith does observe that some have argued that there are deconstructionists who are religious, so must accept transcendence. However, he shows with several examples that not all are consistent about their religious points of view, preferring a deconstructionist philosophy when it is at variance with Scripture (Veith 1993, 141-142). In the end, it is perfectly natural that a deconstructionist philosophy will lead to the tyranny of one group over another. This is precisely what we saw in the fascism of the 1930s (Veith 1993, 143).

Psalm 85 - Lectionary for Lent 3C

3/19/2019

3/19/19
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the three-year lectionary.

We’re pretty accustomed to thinking about life in terms of defaults. We assume a particular condition which is normally true. This can be applied to most of the situations of our world, even to people and their personalities. And, just as all the people we deal with, God has a personality, a very complex one.

In our Psalm this week, we ask ourselves whether God’s default is favor of justice, since the two seem to be in conflict with one another. In his justice, God cannot abide our sin and iniquity. He is right to be angry at us. God’s justice is central to his nature. However, so is his mercy and favor, by which he forgives and restores his people. What has happened to God’s people? In this Psalm they have been forgiven in the past. Yet they find themselves separated from God. That’s what happens when God is just and we are sinful. Again and again we face his fanger.

If we pause to consider it, God’s forgiveness is not in conflict with his justice. He can’t legitimately bypass our sin. That violates his justice. What option is left for him? He could destroy us to satisfy his justice. Then again, he could show mercy, not by overlooking offenses, but by taking care of them. Forgiveness doesn’t just ignore or minimize sin. It acknowledges it as what it is - an affront to the perfect holiness of God. Then forgiveness takes care of the consequences. God’s holy justice and his perfect restorative love meet in God the Son, Jesus, who gave his life as a ransome for all of our sin. In Christ, both justice and favor are satisfied. This is the hope of the Christian, and the joy of our Psalm.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

Finding Rest in God's Presence

3/19/2019

Tuesdays are for the Old Testament
3/19/19

Augustine. Exposition on the Book of Psalms. Schaff, Philip (editor). New York: Christian Literature Publishing Col, 1886. Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers: Series 1: Volume VIII. Re-published 2014, Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle electronic edition, ISBN-13: 978-1-78379-372-3.
“Psalm 15”

Augustine observes that the language used by David in Psalm 15:1 points to a temporary setting, a tent, such as soldiers might use on campaign. From this, he says that “we war with the devil for a time, and then we need a tabernacle wherein we may refresh ourselves” (Augustine Psalms, loc. 320115). True rest is found in the presence of the Lord. But who does actually inherit that rest?

In verses 2-5, David lays out a detailed account of the type of person who could live in God’s presence. This is someone without sinful stains, without deceit, truthful from the heart and not merely the lips (Augustine Psalms, loc. 320123). The person who dwells in God’s presence cannot be effectively opposed by malice. He is truthful, even when it is not to his own advantage. His financial affairs are completely ethical. Augustine alleges that these are not actually difficult matters, but they are necessary for our stability (Augustine Psalms, loc. 320139).

Ezekiel 33:7-20 - Lectionary for Lent 3C

3/18/2019

3/18/19
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the three-year lectionary.

The season of Lent is normally understood as a time of repentance and humility. Our Old Testament reading for this week, from Ezekiel 33:7-20, makes two radical statements which I find particularly humbling. First, in verse 13, if the righteous person, someone who has God’s promise of life, trusts in himself, he will fall into injustice and perish. His good works may be good, but if he is no longer trusting God but trusting himself, all his good works will not save him. This is a vital correction for those who are overly confident. Our confidence comes from God, not from ourselves.

The second humbling statement comes in verse 17 and again in verse 20. Someone who has lived a life of sin and evil can repent of that sin and be forgiven by God. It is not related to his sin but to God’s forgiveness. Likewise, the one who has always done good and does not trust the Lord is not forgiven. We look at this pattern and say God is unjust. However, He is the one who created justice. He gets to define it. And God’s justice is tied to his mercy, poured out on those who believe Him.

In the end, we realize that it is only in God’s mercy that we have hope. He pours out his mercy on those who trust him. If he acted only based on our idea of justice we would have no hope. Rather, we look to him for his mercy and grace.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

Basilides - An Unspeakable Deity Who Cannot Exist by Definition

3/18/2019

Mondays are for Church History
3/18/19

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church (The Complete Eight Volumes in One). Amazon Kindle Edition, 2014.
Volume 2, Ante-Nicene Christianity A.D. 100-325, “Chapter 11. The Heresies of the Ante-Nicene Age” Sections 112-136, Loc. 17655-18757.

§ 124. Basilides.
After a brief and lightly annotated bibliography, Schaff introduces us to Basilides, who was in Alexandria around the third and fourth decades of the second century. Basilides claimed to bea disciple of Matthias, the apostle. His explanation of the Gnosis “was too metaphysical and intricate to be popular” (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18206). He also wrote a number of volumes of commentary on the Gospels. His views are commented on by Hyppolytus, who seems to have read Basilides himself, as well as by Irenaeas and Epiphanius (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18215). Basilides derives a philosophical system from Egyptian astronomy and from the numerology of the Pythagoreans. He is monotheistic, at least at first, which set him apart from other Gnostics (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18221). Basilides predicates the world on an ineffable God who, by definition, does not exist, speaking a world into being through a word which brings forth chaos, out of which the world develops. There is a form of sonship by which humans are eventually derived (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18222). Various circles of creation exist in this system of sonship, which, taken all together, is called the “pleroma.” All is ruled over by two archons, also called demiurges (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18230). Each begets a son more powerful than himself, who has a plan for redemption. In this redemptive sonship, which is administered through Christianity, there is a threefold Christ, son of each archon and of Mary (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18238). Through his passion, according to Basilides, the Christ was purified from those elements brought from the more primitive level of creation. As with Jesus, all others must be purified to reach their proper place (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18245). Basilides’ work was continued by his son, Isidore, who was, in Schaff’s estimation, his only important disciple (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18253). His followers replaced Jesus on the cross with Simon of Cyrene, saw Jesus as mocking those who tried to crucify him, and considered it appropriate to deny Christ when expedient due to persecution (Schaff 2014, Loc. 18261).

Baptism - Welcome to the Family

3/15/2019

Friday is Didache day.
3/15/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Milavec questions a possible inconsistency in the Didache’s use of the divine name. Baptism is to be in the triune name. However, reference is made to people baptized “in the name of the Lord” (9:5) (Milavec 2003, 270). Milavec wishes to resist “harmonizing Didache usage with that of the Christian Scriptures” (Milavec 2003, 271). However, use of “the name of the Lord” would typically refer to God the Father. Milavec does not believe the concept of the Trinity would be indicated by the baptismal formula, nor would he say the concept was developed until the fourth century (Milavec 2003, 371). He therefore assumes that the formula in 7:1 may have been added later, as he suggests happening in Matthew 28:19. Another possible solution is that in the two strands of thought, Gentile and Hebraic, the terminology could have been used differently and that both are present in Didache (Milavec 2003, 272).

Baptism was not only a Christian rite in the first century. Milavec describes the process by which a gentile convert to Judaism would present himself, receive instruction, and be baptized (Milavec 2003, 273). He concludes that the actual setting and the manner of instruction would be similar in the Didache communities. The instructor and baptizer would be the same sex as the convert to tailor instruction and guard modesty.

Milavec shows a fundamental presupposition when he discusses the theology of baptism. “Theology grows out of graced experience. As such, therefore, the theology of baptism originates in the experience of baptism” (Milavec 2003, 274). While the theology will then influence preceptions of the act of baptism, Milavec sees the act itself as the mover of opinion. Baptism can serve to create a social bond with others who are baptized. This may well replace the old bonds to the pagan society, broken by conversion. Therefore, Milavec sees the corporate identity factors as the essential element in baptism (Milavec 2003, 275). The convert’s social identity was transformed in the training and would be affirmed by baptism (Milavec 2003, 276). The baptism, in turn, led to what Milavec considers the new right to pray and receive the eucharist with other baptized people (Milavec 2003, 276). Baptism, according to Milavec, was later considered unrepeatable and somthing which conferred a transformation upon the believer (Milavec 2003, 277).

Milavec concludes that baptism was not clearly tied to the historical Jesus, but was practiced in Acts and later was associated with Jesus’ command (Milavec 2003, 277). He takes Matthew 28:19 as a concept from a later time period. Milavec also takes the idea of baptism in Acts to be a continuation of John’s baptism and the preaching of repentance. The idea of a specific Christian and trinitarian baptism could have been read into the Gospels at a later time, after a theology of baptism was developed (Milavec 2003, 278).

Conversion and commitment, rather than an act of baptism, as seen by Milavec, lead to forgiveness. He ties this doctrine to the parable of the Prodigal, among other places in Scripture. In all that Milavec cites, there is confession and commitment to life change prior to baptism (Milavec 2003, 280). This is similar to the pattern of the Didache, where extensive training takes place first, then baptism and admission to the Eucharist (Milavec 2003, 281).

Luke 13:31-35 - Lectionary for Lent 2C

3/14/2019

3/14/19
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the three-year lectionary.

Our Gospel reading for this week shows an uncharacteristic view of Jesus. Luke portrays him as, on one level, not caring about people. Normally we are struck by how much Jesus cares. But here, we see that his care for his own people provokes his disregard for those who have rejected him. He calls Herod “that fox,” indicating he is a conniving person who shold be disappointed (v. 32). Despite what the religious leaders think, he’s going to go ahead to heal people and cast out demons. He doesn’t care what the authorities say or do, he is on his own timetable to go and die in Jerusalem (v. 33). And, although it is a matter of sorrow that Jerusalem will not receive his care, in the end he leaves it desolate (v. 35). Those who would oppose Jesus have condemned themselves. He allows them this. They will have to deal with it as well as they can.

How do we deal with this concept? The fact is, Jesus genuinely calls all people to trust in Him. He is not changing that call. Yet the call tells the world to trust in Jesus or to work out its own salvation. Do we trust in Him as he has said, and add to heavenly joy? Do we trust in ourselves and go to our destruction? Jesus has done all that is needed for life and salvation. If we depart, woe to us. Let us rather be gathered in Christ, as the hen gathers her chicks, to a place of peace, rest, and safety.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

Two Witnesses Apparently But Not Truly Defeated

3/14/2019

Thursdays are for the New Testament
3/14/19

Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Location: Ellis BS 2825.53.O73 2002
III. God in Majesty and Judgment (4:1-16:21) pp. 218-602.
A. God’s Sovereignty in Judgment (4:1-11:19) pp. 219-450.
3. Seven Trumpets (8:2-11:19) pp. 339-450.
e. “Interlude: Prophecy and Witness (10:1-11:13)” pp. 390-437.
iii. “Ministry, Death, and Resurrection of the Two Witnesses (11:3-13)” pp. 417-437.

Revelation 11:3-13 speaks of ‘two witnesses.” Osborne finds this narrative tied directly to the passage immediately before it, as the court of the temple is turned over to the Gentiles, then this passage seems to speak of what happens then. The identity of the two witnesses has been hotly debated throughout church history, as Osborne summarizes briefly (Osborne 2002, 417). He then suggests that a decision between a literal and figurative reading here may be less important than the principle. Those who stand for Christ in the last days can expect opposition leading to apparent destruction, which is overcome in the resurrection (Osborne 2002, 418).

In verses 3-6 the two witnesses receive authority from God, again asserting his sovereign control (Osborne 2002, 419). Osborne notes that the two witnesses are required by the Mosaic law so as to document guilt and lead to a conviction (Osborne 2002, 420). They are clothed in sackcloth, a typical sign of mourning and repentance. Osborne further observes that there are potential references to a prophetic vision in Zechariah 4, where people are called to return to God in faith (Osborne 2002, 421). The witnesses proclaim God’s glory. During this period, God will not allow harm to come to them, though any who try to harm them are killed by patently supernatural means. Osborne draws parallels to 2 Kings 1, where the prophet called down fire on those who came to attack him, but hwho received those who approached in repentance (Osborne 2002, 422). The udgments upon the unrepentant come from God, reoughly as parallels to the judgments of the trumpets and bowls. Osborne continues to find parallels to various biblical acocunts of God’s judgment (Osborne 2002, 423).

In Revelation 11:7, God allows an apparent defeat of his witnesses. Osborne refers to Revelation 6:11, where there was a concern that the witness should be complete. Here, the witness is complete and God allows “the beast” to attack and kill the witnesses (Osborne 2002, 424). This beast is “the one who ascends out of the abyss” (Rev. 11:7), so is the demonic leader referred to in Revelation 9. Osborne adduces numerous other passages, especially in Daniel, describing a demonic ruler who wages war against God’s people (Osborne 2002, 425). He observes that in the perspective of Revelation the enemy is defeated already and that his assaults against God’s people serve only to move them to their place of victory (Osborne 2002, 426). In this passage, not only are the witnesses killed, but they are also left in the street, a way of showing disrespect. Osborne considers the location of this “great city” and concludes that it is a conglomeration of Rome and of Jerusalem, which has proven apostate (Osborne 2002, 427). The death and dishonoring of the witnesses draws attention of people from many nations, who see and rejoice, a sign of defiance against God (Osborne 2002, 428).

The celebration over the dead witnesses is cut short in Revelation 11:11, as after three and a half days, they are raised from the dead. Osborne observes the similarity to Jesus rising on the third day as well as the end of Elijah’s drought after three and a half years (Osborne 2002, 429). Those who see are terrified at the power of God, a typical reaction seen in the Scripture (Osborne 2002, 430). The witnesses are taken up into heaven by the call of a great voice. Osborne questions whether the event described is the rapture of the church. The symbolism of the voice from a cloud is typical of an appearance of God (Osborne 2002, 431). However, the general resurrection appears to be at the very end, while this event seems to be followed by other events. Osborne concludes that this may be an anticipation of the resurrection/rapture event, since it is not really at the end of history (Osborne 2002, 432). What is clear is that the enemies of the witnesses see this all happening and many are converted.

The raising of the witnesses is followed by a terrible earthquake in Revelation 11:13. This divides the city and kills some seven thousand, the same number preserved for God in 1 Kings 19:18 during a time of apostasy. Again, Osborne notes that the tremendous judgment is still not utterly complete (Osborne 2002, 433). The survivors “give glory to
God,” whether from genuine repentance or from the coercive power of the victor. Osborne is inclined to consider this genuine repentance (Osborne 2002, 434).

Philippians 3:17-4:1 - Lectionary for Lent 2C

3/13/2019

3/13/19
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the three-year lectionary.

In our Epistle reading this week the apostle Paul urges the Philippians to imitate him. This passage opens a fearful set of possible misinterpretations. Are we to try to emulate our church leaders? How do we know if they should be imitated? What of the people who are only pursuing power? In light of recent publicity which points out the sinful stiving for selfish and dictatorial influence over others, resulting in all manner of abuse, we need to proceed with caution. We don’t follow churchly authorities blindly.

While Paul tells the Philippians to follow his pattern, and the patterns of others who are similar, he makes it crystal clear how he is different from the power of this world. In verse 19, the result of the bad examples’ life is destruction. They have raised their own desires to the level of a god. Their minds are on earthly, not heavenly things. Those who are headed for destruction have pursued the things of this life only. They are trying to live in the moment, rather than considering eternity.

Sadly, there is a movement within contemporary Christianity which urges living “in the now.” It would say that true spirituality is momentary. It is also elusive. The fact is, rejecting the past and taking no thought to the future is normally seen as irresponsible and unhealthy. Much of what makes society work is an awareness of the possible consequences of our actions.

Paul is not speaking to such a radical departure. He is, however, cuationing against considering only the self and the temporal. He says there is a much better thing for the Christian. We have a heavenly citizenship, eternal and trustworthy. For this, we wait as Christ prepares to change us into His image, out of our image. This is his way of giving us a glory we wouldn’t even imagine ourselves. Yet it is where we are to stand. As we see our leaders walking in this way of glory, we imitate them. Their desire is heavenly, likewise their calling. They will lead us to hope on Christ.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.