Comments (0)

By philhigley, April 28, 2010 12:25 am

The following section of text is from one of Jonathan Edwards’ sermons (one of my favorites). I have taken the liberty to abridge the sermon below for readability. Over the years I’ve read many of his sermons and, contrary to popular (mis)conception, Edwards has been falsely labeled as a ‘fire and brimstone’ preacher. The bulk of his sermons, however, were of a much different flavor; one of aesthetics and a harmony which only exists in heaven to the glory and beauty of God alone as revealed in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As you will see, Edwards maintains a robust reformed perspective within his sermon while at the same time being wholly enveloped in the love, harmony, and beauty of God, which is manifested in and through the person of Jesus Christ.

They Sing A New Song

Revelation 14:3

And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

In order to men’s being able to sing this new song, ’tis requisite that they should be able to know the song. They must know what is to be sung. They must have the knowledge of those things that are the subject matter of the song. The song is spiritual, and the things that are the subject matter of it are spiritual and divine: the glorious perfections and excellencies of God, especially in that new and most excellent manifestation of them that is made in the works of the new creation by Jesus Christ; the glory of God as it shines in the face of Christ; the glory of God’s power and wisdom and holiness, justice and faithfulness, as manifested by him; and especially the infinite and glorious riches of divine grace and love in a Redeemer, appearing in the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Christ, and in the appointed way of salvation by Christ, by faith in him; and also as appearing in the application of redemption, the glory of God and Christ as appearing in the conversion of the soul and in carrying on the work of grace unto glory.

And so the new song that is sung by the redeemed from the earth is more excellent than anything that preceded. It is the most excellent song that ever is sung by any of the children of men. One word or note of this new song, as sung by a sincere heart, is worth more in God’s account than all the praises of all the formal professors of religion from the beginning of the world to the end of it.

Knowing this song is only possible through Jesus Christ. It is the fruit of the redemption or purchase of Jesus Christ. Christ purchases for a certain number that knowledge of the glorious excellency of God and Christ, and of the infinite riches of his grace appearing in the way of salvation. That excellent heavenly light that shines into the soul, and gives it a view and understanding of those excellent things, is a blessing purchased at the price of Christ’s precious blood. And so that ability, that harmony of the soul and melody of the heart, consisting in holy love and joy and delight in God and Christ, is a precious benefit that is the fruit of the same purchase. This heavenly melody is dear; it costs Christ’s precious blood.

I will conclude with three things that may be of direction to those that are desirous of learning this new song:

1. ’Tis Christ that must teach this song. You can learn of it no other way.
2. The way for you to learn this new song, is first to mourn with a broken heart for sin.
3. In order to learn the new song, you must hear the melody of the voice of Christ in the gospel. He teaches it by causing the soul to hear the melody of his own voice in the gospel.

And so we end. ’Tis Christ that speaks to us in the gospel. Many hear his words, but they perceive no sweetness in them. They perceive no pleasantness in his voice, in the doctrines and invitations and promises of the gospel. But to the godly, Christ’s mouth is found to be most sweet. You must perceive the sweetness of the voice. And this must draw your heart, and put it into tune, and fill it with love and joy, which is the excellent harmony and heavenly melody of the soul.

Comments (0)

By philhigley, April 20, 2010 11:07 am

The following article is written by Hans Kung. For those of you who do not know him, Kung is a very accomplished Roman Catholic theologian. I recently read his letter (below) and was shocked by what he said and what he proposed. If anyone wants to comment or dialogue about his points, I would accept dialogue. There are many things of which I disagree with Kung in his article, but he makes many valid points as well. Clearly he is frustrated.

——————————————-

HANS KÜNG

Fri, Apr 16, 2010

Pope Benedict has made worse just about everything that is wrong with the Roman Catholic Church and is directly responsible for engineering the global cover-up of child rape perpetrated by priests, according to this open letter to all Catholic bishops

VENERABLE BISHOPS,

Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, and I were the youngest theologians at the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965. Now we are the oldest and the only ones still fully active. I have always understood my theological work as a service to the Roman Catholic Church. For this reason, on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the election of Pope Benedict XVI, I am making this appeal to you in an open letter. In doing so, I am motivated by my profound concern for our church, which now finds itself in the worst credibility crisis since the Reformation. Please excuse the form of an open letter; unfortunately, I have no other way of reaching you.

I deeply appreciated that the pope invited me, his outspoken critic, to meet for a friendly, four-hour-long conversation shortly after he took office. This awakened in me the hope that my former colleague at Tubingen University might find his way to promote an ongoing renewal of the church and an ecumenical rapprochement in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.

Unfortunately, my hopes and those of so many engaged Catholic men and women have not been fulfilled. And in my subsequent correspondence with the pope, I have pointed this out to him many times. Without a doubt, he conscientiously performs his everyday duties as pope, and he has given us three helpful encyclicals on faith, hope and charity. But when it comes to facing the major challenges of our times, his pontificate has increasingly passed up more opportunities than it has taken:

Missed is the opportunity for rapprochement with the Protestant churches: Instead, they have been denied the status of churches in the proper sense of the term and, for that reason, their ministries are not recognized and intercommunion is not possible.

Missed is the opportunity for the long-term reconciliation with the Jews: Instead the pope has reintroduced into the liturgy a preconciliar prayer for the enlightenment of the Jews, he has taken notoriously anti-Semitic and schismatic bishops back into communion with the church, and he is actively promoting the beatification of Pope Pius XII, who has been accused of not offering sufficient protections to Jews in Nazi Germany.

The fact is, Benedict sees in Judaism only the historic root of Christianity; he does not take it seriously as an ongoing religious community offering its own path to salvation. The recent comparison of the current criticism faced by the pope with anti-Semitic hate campaigns – made by Rev Raniero Cantalamessa during an official Good Friday service at the Vatican – has stirred up a storm of indignation among Jews around the world.

Missed is the opportunity for a dialogue with Muslims in an atmosphere of mutual trust: Instead, in his ill-advised but symptomatic 2006 Regensburg lecture, Benedict caricatured Islam as a religion of violence and inhumanity and thus evoked enduring Muslim mistrust.

Missed is the opportunity for reconciliation with the colonised indigenous peoples of Latin America: Instead, the pope asserted in all seriousness that they had been “longing” for the religion of their European conquerors.

Missed is the opportunity to help the people of Africa by allowing the use of birth control to fight overpopulation and condoms to fight the spread of HIV.

Missed is the opportunity to make peace with modern science by clearly affirming the theory of evolution and accepting stem-cell research.

Missed is the opportunity to make the spirit of the Second Vatican Council the compass for the whole Catholic Church, including the Vatican itself, and thus to promote the needed reforms in the church.

This last point, respected bishops, is the most serious of all. Time and again, this pope has added qualifications to the conciliar texts and interpreted them against the spirit of the council fathers. Time and again, he has taken an express stand against the Ecumenical Council, which according to canon law represents the highest authority in the Catholic Church:

He has taken the bishops of the traditionalist Pius X Society back into the church without any preconditions – bishops who were illegally consecrated outside the Catholic Church and who reject central points of the Second Vatican Council (including liturgical reform, freedom of religion and the rapprochement with Judaism).

He promotes the medieval Tridentine Mass by all possible means and occasionally celebrates the Eucharist in Latin with his back to the congregation.

He refuses to put into effect the rapprochement with the Anglican Church, which was laid out in official ecumenical documents by the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, and has attempted instead to lure married Anglican clergy into the Roman Catholic Church by freeing them from the very rule of celibacy that has forced tens of thousands of Roman Catholic priests out of office.

He has actively reinforced the anti-conciliar forces in the church by appointing reactionary officials to key offices in the Curia (including the secretariat of state, and positions in the liturgical commission) while appointing reactionary bishops around the world.

Pope Benedict XVI seems to be increasingly cut off from the vast majority of church members who pay less and less heed to Rome and, at best, identify themselves only with their local parish and bishop.

I know that many of you are pained by this situation. In his anti-conciliar policy, the pope receives the full support of the Roman Curia. The Curia does its best to stifle criticism in the episcopate and in the church as a whole and to discredit critics with all the means at its disposal. With a return to pomp and spectacle catching the attention of the media, the reactionary forces in Rome have attempted to present us with a strong church fronted by an absolutistic “Vicar of Christ” who combines the church’s legislative, executive and judicial powers in his hands alone. But Benedict’s policy of restoration has failed. All of his spectacular appearances, demonstrative journeys and public statements have failed to influence the opinions of most Catholics on controversial issues. This is especially true regarding matters of sexual morality. Even the papal youth meetings, attended above all by conservative-charismatic groups, have failed to hold back the steady drain of those leaving the church or to attract more vocations to the priesthood.

You in particular, as bishops, have reason for deep sorrow: Tens of thousands of priests have resigned their office since the Second Vatican Council, for the most part because of the celibacy rule. Vocations to the priesthood, but also to religious orders, sisterhoods and lay brotherhoods are down – not just quantitatively but qualitatively. Resignation and frustration are spreading rapidly among both the clergy and the active laity. Many feel that they have been left in the lurch with their personal needs, and many are in deep distress over the state of the church. In many of your dioceses, it is the same story: increasingly empty churches, empty seminaries and empty rectories. In many countries, due to the lack of priests, more and more parishes are being merged, often against the will of their members, into ever larger “pastoral units,” in which the few surviving pastors are completely overtaxed. This is church reform in pretense rather than fact!

And now, on top of these many crises comes a scandal crying out to heaven – the revelation of the clerical abuse of thousands of children and adolescents, first in the United States, then in Ireland and now in Germany and other countries. And to make matters worse, the handling of these cases has given rise to an unprecedented leadership crisis and a collapse of trust in church leadership.

There is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up cases of sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005). During the reign of Pope John Paul II, that congregation had already taken charge of all such cases under oath of strictest silence. Ratzinger himself, on May 18th, 2001, sent a solemn document to all the bishops dealing with severe crimes ( “epistula de delictis gravioribus” ), in which cases of abuse were sealed under the “secretum pontificium” , the violation of which could entail grave ecclesiastical penalties. With good reason, therefore, many people have expected a personal mea culpa on the part of the former prefect and current pope. Instead, the pope passed up the opportunity afforded by Holy Week: On Easter Sunday, he had his innocence proclaimed “urbi et orbi” by the dean of the College of Cardinals.

The consequences of all these scandals for the reputation of the Catholic Church are disastrous. Important church leaders have already admitted this. Numerous innocent and committed pastors and educators are suffering under the stigma of suspicion now blanketing the church. You, reverend bishops, must face up to the question: What will happen to our church and to your diocese in the future? It is not my intention to sketch out a new program of church reform. That I have done often enough both before and after the council. Instead, I want only to lay before you six proposals that I am convinced are supported by millions of Catholics who have no voice in the current situation.

1. Do not keep silent: By keeping silent in the face of so many serious grievances, you taint yourselves with guilt. When you feel that certain laws, directives and measures are counterproductive, you should say this in public. Send Rome not professions of your devotion, but rather calls for reform!

2. Set about reform: Too many in the church and in the episcopate complain about Rome, but do nothing themselves. When people no longer attend church in a diocese, when the ministry bears little fruit, when the public is kept in ignorance about the needs of the world, when ecumenical co-operation is reduced to a minimum, then the blame cannot simply be shoved off on Rome. Whether bishop, priest, layman or laywoman – everyone can do something for the renewal of the church within his own sphere of influence, be it large or small. Many of the great achievements that have occurred in the individual parishes and in the church at large owe their origin to the initiative of an individual or a small group. As bishops, you should support such initiatives and, especially given the present situation, you should respond to the just complaints of the faithful.

3. Act in a collegial way: After heated debate and against the persistent opposition of the Curia, the Second Vatican Council decreed the collegiality of the pope and the bishops. It did so in the sense of the Acts of the Apostles, in which Peter did not act alone without the college of the apostles. In the post-conciliar era, however, the pope and the Curia have ignored this decree. Just two years after the council, Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical defending the controversial celibacy law without the slightest consultation of the bishops. Since then, papal politics and the papal magisterium have continued to act in the old, uncollegial fashion. Even in liturgical matters, the pope rules as an autocrat over and against the bishops. He is happy to surround himself with them as long as they are nothing more than stage extras with neither voices nor voting rights. This is why, venerable bishops, you should not act for yourselves alone, but rather in the community of the other bishops, of the priests and of the men and women who make up the church.

4. Unconditional obedience is owed to God alone: Although at your episcopal consecration you had to take an oath of unconditional obedience to the pope, you know that unconditional obedience can never be paid to any human authority; it is due to God alone. For this reason, you should not feel impeded by your oath to speak the truth about the current crisis facing the church, your diocese and your country. Your model should be the apostle Paul, who dared to oppose Peter “to his face since he was manifestly in the wrong”! ( Galatians 2:11 ). Pressuring the Roman authorities in the spirit of Christian fraternity can be permissible and even necessary when they fail to live up to the spirit of the Gospel and its mission. The use of the vernacular in the liturgy, the changes in the regulations governing mixed marriages, the affirmation of tolerance, democracy and human rights, the opening up of an ecumenical approach, and the many other reforms of Vatican II were only achieved because of tenacious pressure from below.

5. Work for regional solutions: The Vatican has frequently turned a deaf ear to the well-founded demands of the episcopate, the priests and the laity. This is all the more reason for seeking wise regional solutions. As you are well aware, the rule of celibacy, which was inherited from the Middle Ages, represents a particularly delicate problem. In the context of today’s clerical abuse scandal, the practice has been increasingly called into question. Against the expressed will of Rome, a change would appear hardly possible; yet this is no reason for passive resignation. When a priest, after mature consideration, wishes to marry, there is no reason why he must automatically resign his office when his bishop and his parish choose to stand behind him. Individual episcopal conferences could take the lead with regional solutions. It would be better, however, to seek a solution for the whole church, therefore:

6. Call for a council: Just as the achievement of liturgical reform, religious freedom, ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue required an ecumenical council, so now a council is needed to solve the dramatically escalating problems calling for reform. In the century before the Reformation, the Council of Constance decreed that councils should be held every five years. Yet the Roman Curia successfully managed to circumvent this ruling. There is no question that the Curia, fearing a limitation of its power, would do everything in its power to prevent a council coming together in the present situation. Thus it is up to you to push through the calling of a council or at least a representative assembly of bishops.

With the church in deep crisis, this is my appeal to you, venerable bishops: Put to use the episcopal authority that was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council. In this urgent situation, the eyes of the world turn to you. Innumerable people have lost their trust in the Catholic Church. Only by openly and honestly reckoning with these problems and resolutely carrying out needed reforms can their trust be regained. With all due respect, I beg you to do your part – together with your fellow bishops as far as possible, but also alone if necessary – in apostolic “fearlessness” ( Acts 4:29, 31 ). Give your faithful signs of hope and encouragement and give our church a perspective for the future.

With warm greetings in the community of the Christian faith,

Yours, Hans Küng – (New York Times Syndicate) © Hans Küng

© 2010 The Irish Times

Comments (1)

By philhigley, April 19, 2010 7:46 pm

5.1-20 (ESV)

They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. ²And when Jesus had stepped out of the boat, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit. ³He lived among the tombs. And no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain, ⁴for he had often been bound with shackles and chains, but he wrenched the chains apart, and he broke the shackles in pieces. No one had the strength to subdue him. ⁵Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out and bruising himself with stones.

⁶And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and fell down before him. ⁷And crying out with a loud voice, he said, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.”

⁸For he was saying to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” ⁹And Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “My name is Legion, for we are many.” ¹⁰And he begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country.

¹¹Now a great herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside, ¹²and they begged him, saying, “Send us to the pigs; let us enter them.” ¹³So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out, and entered the pigs, and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea and were drowned in the sea.

¹⁴The herdsmen fled and told it in the city and in the country. And people came to see what it was that had happened. ¹⁵And they came to Jesus and saw the demon-possessed man, the one who had had the legion, sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, and they were afraid. ¹⁶And those who had seen it described to them what had happened to the demon-possessed man and to the pigs. ¹⁷And they began to beg Jesus to depart from their region.

¹⁸As he was getting into the boat, the man who had been possessed with demons begged him that he might be with him. ¹⁹And he did not permit him but said to him, “Go home to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.” ²⁰And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him, and everyone marveled.

Intro:

Within the text of Mark 5 we have one of the most graphic and interesting exorcism stories in the NT. This story has more elaboration than any other tale prior to the passion narrative, which may suggest that it had particular importance for Mark’s largely Gentile/Roman audience. It has been called the second inaugural exorcism by various scholars due in part to the close similarities of language to the exorcism tale in Mark 1. Yet one of these exorcisms takes place on sacred soil in a sacred place (i.e., the synagogue), the other in an unclean land in an unclean place. This suggests that Mark saw this story as particularly revealing of the identity of Jesus. It is not clear if we are to see this story as the immediate sequel to the storm incident, but in any case Jesus and the disciples go across the Sea of Galilee to a region called the Decapolis (literally ‘ten cities’). Most of the population in this area was non-Jewish. Evidence of this is obvious from the heard of pigs. No practicing Jew would have had such a heard, nor for that matter would they have been found residing in a graveyard. Just as Jesus has had confrontations with his own people, he is about to have an encounter with a gentile population.

Exegesis:

In the preceding passage (4.35-41) Jesus had demonstrated his power over the forces of nature by calming the winds and the waves; in this passage he demonstrates his power over the forces of evil by casting out demons from a possessed man. The two stories seem to connect to one another by virtue of Jesus’ power and authority as it is being communicated by Mark. Both stories reveal, in essence, that Jesus is truly divine.

Verse 2 seems to indicate that as soon as Jesus stepped out of the boat, he was immediately confronted by the possessed man, but v. 6 provides a little clarification of this. The man actually saw Jesus from a distance and came running to him. We are told that the possessed man lived in the tombs. Often in Palestine people were buried in natural caves or in tombs cut out of the limestone. These provided excellent shelter for anyone desiring to live in them. It was a natural place for a possessed man to dwell because of the popular belief in ancient culture that tombs were the favorite haunts of demons. This demon possessed man had likely been driven from ordinary society into the tombs. Mark explains in the story that many efforts had been made to control the man, but they were all without success. One scholar says that vv. 3-5 “give a vivid picture of a manic stage of a manic depressive psychosis.” This is true, but Mark is communicating something much more profound. This man has been relegated to a psychotic, animalistic, self-destructive, and enraged state. The man was unequivocally out of control and therefore out of society. What is society supposed to do with such a person?

We are told that the possessed man, in direct response to seeing Jesus, “fell down before him.” The reason the man fell down before Jesus is not because of worship, but out of homage because the demon recognizes that he is confronted with one greatly superior to him. James 2.19 says “…even the demons believe and shudder!”

Upon falling before Jesus, the demon cries out: “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.” This cry was a way of saying in a hostile way, “What do we have in common?” or “mind your own business.” The demon recognizes that he is in the presence of one who threatens his very existence. Like earlier in Mark, the demon addresses Jesus by using his personal name. The demon also uses the title “Son of the Most High God,” a title that implies that the demons recognizes Jesus’ deity. The demon, however, uses the title, not to express his belief in the Lordship of Jesus, but in the hope of controlling him (again see Mark 1.24). The demon fears that he will be damned to eternal punishment right there on the spot.

But it is quite interesting to note here that the demon pleads not to be tormented by Jesus’ presence or eternal judgment. This is the demon(s) rather than the man speaking, but they ironically are the ones torturing the poor man. Equally ironic is the fact that they are adjuring Jesus by the name of the one who is Jesus’ Father, as if that could give them power over Jesus! The demons appear to fear that Jesus will torture or destroy them, and to be sure, that is his long-range goal—to destroy the works of the devil. It is also obvious to mention again that the demons would see it as torment simply be in the presence of Jesus.

At v. 9 the demons are asked to name themselves, but it is hard to know what to make of the reply. Clearly Luke believed in the concept of a person being possessed by multiple demons (Lk 8.2). And at first glance, the demons response: “My name is Legion, for we are many” is a curious response. In an exorcism ritual, naming is a crucial part of trying to gain control of the demon, and it is possible to see this response as an attempt to avoid giving Jesus the power of the personal name over these spirits. A legion in Roman military terms was 6,000 soldiers, but it is doubtful a specific number is meant (though notice that the about 2,000 pigs are said to be destroyed). The military metaphor could imply that many demons were involved in the possession like a military force, taking captive the man’s spirit and being.

Verse 10 is very interesting because both the singular and plural occur in the text: “He begged…not to send them…” This is likely Mark’s way of indicating that the demons are speaking through the lips of the demoniac. What they request is that they not be sent “out of the country.” In Luke 8.31 the request by the demons is that they not be sent into the Abyss (Rev 20.1-3), the place of confinement before judgment. What this demonstrates is that the demons are afraid for their very existence in the face and presence of Jesus.

The presence of a large herd of swine (v. 11) in the Decapolis is not surprising. This region, on the eastern shore of Galilee, was largely Gentile. Mark’s account shows that what caused the stampede of the pigs was the entrance of the demons into them. This is crucial for the contemporary readers of Mark’s Gospel: The demons were/are bent on destroying. Not having been able to destroy the man, they destroyed the pigs. Demons are emissaries of Satan, the Destroyer. But why did Jesus, having exorcised the demons, allow them to enter the pigs, an act that ultimately resulted in the destruction of the entire herd? A tentative answer is that Jesus wanted to give tangible evidence to the man and to the people that the demons had actually left him and that their purpose had been to destroy him even as they destroyed the pigs.

A particularly relevant point in our culture’s reading of this text is that some people have gotten upset with this story because it involves the destruction of animals, but here is a matter of priorities. The Bible is emphatic that a human life is seen as more important than a heard of pigs, even though the Gentiles who came afterward to see Jesus seem more concerned with the lost pigs than the restored man. Humanity is made in the image of God, not animals. The early church fathers Jerome and Chrysostom dealt with this issue and stressed that it was for the greater good of eliciting faith and attesting God’s power that the pigs were slain. Jerome stresses that no one would have believed so many demons came out of the man unless a similarly large number of swine had been afflicted thereafter (Life of Saint Hilarion 32). The pig herders were the ones who spread the tale in the towns and villages of what Jesus did (v. 14).

Also notice that the man for whom nobody had been able to do anything, not even chain him down so he would not hurt himself, is now said to be clothed, sitting, and sane—things no one who had known him expected to see him do or be again. Once more Jesus’ miracle working causes a great fear to come on the people—fear of the awesome supernatural power Jesus must have in order to do what he did to the demons and the pigs, a power even greater than a legion! There is a rather sad point and counter point between the Gentiles who want Jesus to go and the restored man who wanted to go with Jesus. Instead Jesus tells him to return to his village and resume a normal life, except that in addition he is to be a witness. Jesus’ answer shows how impossible it is to have a stereotyped definition of discipleship. One person is taken away from home and family (1.16-20), another is sent back to them contrary of his own wishes. There can be little doubt that the man did indeed wish to be a disciple, not only because of what follows in v. 20 but also because the description of his longing to be “with Jesus” is a deliberate echo in the Greek of the earlier description of what would be true of Jesus’ inner circle.

Lastly, in v. 20 we hear of the obedient response of this man. He went and preached in the Ten Cities about what Jesus had done for him, and all were amazed. Again notice that amazement and fear do not equal full or true faith in Jesus. Jesus would have been perceived in this region, and perhaps by parts of Mark’s own audience, as another Hellenistic wonder-worker that wowed the people like a Simon Magus or an Apollonius of Tyana. But the ability to impress a crowd and the ability to call out and make disciples are not one and the same.

—————

Notes from:

The Oxford Bible Commentary, Edited by Barton and Muddiman, 2001.

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol 8, Edited by Gaebelein, 1984.

The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, Witherington III, 2001.

Comments (0)

By philhigley, April 12, 2010 11:12 pm

The following devotion is by the great North Hampton Sage, Jonathan Edwards. Well, actually it’s his perspective redone through my own paraphrase. I hope you enjoy it and think about what it says, what it might mean for you, and why it matters.

“Each of us shall give account of himself to God.”

Romans 14:12

When God created you in his own image, he did so for an endless duration of which you, in your current existential state, cannot even fathom. He gave you time here and now in order to prepare for eternity, and your state of being in eternity on the improvement of time.

Consider, therefore, what you have done with your past time. You are not now beginning your time. A great deal of time is past and gone; all the wit, power, and treasure of the universe cannot recover it. How have you used it? Many of you may well conclude that more than half of your time is gone. Although you might live to the ordinary age of man, your hourglass is more than half empty, as it were, and possibly there are but few sands remaining.

How have you let the precious golden sands of your hourglass run? How have you used this time to know your Creator and Savior?

Every day that you have enjoyed has been precious; yes, your moments have been precious. But have you not wasted your precious moments, days—yes, years? If you should count how many days you have lived, what a total would be there? And how precious has every one of those days been! Consider, therefore, what you have done with them.

When you look back, and search, do you not find this past time of your lives in a great measure empty, having not been filled up with any good improvement? And if God, who has given you your time, should now call you to an account, as the scripture proclaims, what account could you give him?

Comments (0)

By philhigley, April 8, 2010 1:27 am

4:21-34 (ESV)

And [Jesus] said to them, “Is a lamp brought in to be put under a basket, or under a bed, and not on a stand? ²²For nothing is hidden except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret except to come to light. ²³If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.” ²⁴And he said to them, “Pay attention to what you hear: with the measure you use, it will be measured to you, and still more will be added to you. ²⁵For to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”

²⁶And he said, “The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground. ²⁷ He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how. ²⁸The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. ²⁹But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.”

³⁰And he said, “With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it? ³¹It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth, ³²yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and puts out large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.” ³³With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it. ³⁴He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

Verses 21-25 (A Lamp Under a Basket)

The first verses signify that Jesus is himself the lamp in a figurative sense, just as the sower was in the previous parable. This is the Markan way of saying that Jesus is the light of the world. The purpose of the coming of the light is not to be put under a basket or a bed, but rather to be set up so it is visible to all. The lamp is not lit for the purpose of being hidden or concealed. The implication here seems to be that there is an appropriate time for some secrets to come to light—in particular the time for the revelation of the truth about the Son of Man. Here we can learn something about the “messianic secret” spoken of earlier in the series. Things are indeed hidden and concealed, but for a purpose—in order that they might be revealed at the proper juncture or time. This is also true of Jesus during his ministry. There are disclosure moments, such as at Caesarea Philippi. Mark is pointing out for us that the light of Jesus did not come ultimately to be hidden (which is essentially Gnosticism), but it may be concealed for a time until the appropriate hour or venue or audience appears. In Jesus’ case the ultimate disclosure does not come until the crucifixion and resurrection.

Vv. 24-25 strike a rather different note, with warnings as well as encouragement. Human response is also required in full measure. Perhaps what is in mind is the preaching of the gospel by Mark’s audience. Those who respond positively will be rewarded abundantly; those who do not will forfeit even what they have. The section as a whole thus combines assurance and exhortation with warning for the hearer. As with the previous parable of the sower and its interpretation combined with vv. 10-13, there are both encouraging and warning elements in the Christian gospel. But if the warning side has been stressed so far, the encouragement is not forgotten, as the next two parables will reveal.

Verses 26-29 (The Parable of the Seed Growing)

This particular parable is interesting because it is only found here in Mark and not the other synoptic gospels. Its emphasis is different from the parable of the sower. There the importance of proper soil for the growth of the seed and the success of the harvest is stressed. Here the mysterious power of the seed itself to produce a crop is emphasized. The parable relates to the kingdom of God and, more particularly, how that kingdom grows. All the farmer can do is plant the seed on suitable ground. He cannot make the seed grow. He does not even understand how it grows. But it does grow, and all by itself the soil produces grain. The point of the parable is as follows: “As seedtime is followed in due time by harvest, so will the present hiddeness and ambiguousness of the kingdom of God be succeeded by its glorious manifestation.” The last part of the parable calls to mind Joel 3:13. The harvest spoken of (v. 29) is the eschatological judgment which is spoken of throughout all of the gospels.

Verses 30-32 (The Parable of the Seed Growing)

This is the third and last of the parables about the sown seed. The mustard seed is said to be the smallest seed on earth by Jesus. The mustard seed, however, is being used proverbially for its smallness because technically the smallest seed known is the black orchid. But Jesus is obviously not giving a lesson in botany; hence he’s using the mustard seed because it is the smallest seed his audience was familiar with. When grown, it becomes a huge treelike shrub. In fact, some of these trees can grow to ten feet high, so the analogy obviously makes the point and is thus effective. The main point of the parable is that the kingdom of God is like what happens to the mustard seed. It has insignificant and weak beginnings, but a day will come when it will be great and powerful. It is doubtful whether the detail in the parable about the birds taking shelter in the branches of the tree has any significance, though some interpreters see in it a mention of the inclusion of the Gentiles in the kingdom. In any case, one scholar sums up the meaning of the parable very well: “The example of the mustard seed should prevent us from judging the significance of results by the size of the beginnings.”

Verses 33-34 (Jesus’ use of Parables)

Mark ends this section with its collection of parables with a statement about Jesus’ use of them. Parables constituted one of Jesus’ primary methods of speaking the word (i.e., the word of the Kingdom—God’s reign revealed in Jesus himself) to “them”—the crowd (v. 33). He did this in order to help them understand by means of a veiled confrontation with the truth. It was his gracious means to stimulate their thinking and awaken their spiritual perception. The crowd was not ready for a direct revelation of the truth. In contrast, when Jesus was alone with his disciples (v. 34), he could speak more directly with them; but even they needed his explanation to understand. As we move along through Mark, we will see that the disciples still fail to understand at a deep level who Jesus is and what he is about. The next story will illustrate this.

——————————-

Notes from:

The Oxford Bible Commentary, Edited by Barton and Muddiman, 2001.

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol 8, Edited by Gaebelein, 1984.

The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, Witherington III, 2001.

——————————-

Reflection

An immediate question I have as I read through is how the lamp, and the two seed parables are interrelated. Is there a central message being conveyed with three different aspects to that message?

I think that Jesus as the “lamp”, i.e., the light of the world, needs to be tied to the concept of the Kingdom of God in the following two parables, obviously, but in that order. There’s something going on here with conversion and discipleship, as well as preaching the gospel and continuing the work of Jesus by the light of Jesus’ own teachings.

But first, it appears that Mark’s point about Jesus being the lamp implies that the secrecy of Jesus’ task and mission will soon be revealed in both the narrative and to the audience reading the story. Any form of secrecy will in the end result in openness. This is demonstrated by Jesus’ minuscule and seemingly insignificant birth in a barn to his crucifixion and resurrection. The way God chooses to work is from small beginnings to abundant glory. And it seems that Jesus’ teaching was never intended to be just for an inner circle of followers. It is the responsibility of the disciples/us to communicate the gospel of the kingdom to the world at large.

Now I think the theme of this openness of Jesus’ light is also demonstrated in conversion and discipleship on the part of the believer because the next two parables have to do with small beginnings in the form of Seed analogies. The last two parables are obviously interconnected—at least by Mark. “Both parables are said to be parables illustrating the reality of the ‘Kingdom of God.’ Both imply that the kingdom is present in minute, hidden form as a ‘seed’, but that it will be shown in its full glory in the future.”

So how does this relate to conversion and discipleship? How does the lamp analogy relate to the context of small seed analogies? I think there’s a relationship here because it’s tacitly stated that Jesus is indeed the lamp and light that should be shining and illuminating everything around us. Does he illuminate everything around us? Do we try to put the light of Jesus “away”, or under a couch, or in the back of our minds until church time? Will his light expose us or will it help us to see? Will it do both? Think of Plato’s cave analogy about light! That would be an interesting illustration.

But regarding the relationship between the parables, I think there’s a sense in the seed analogies that Jesus’ light will make the seeds grow whether we are active or not in the process (“Pay attention to what you hear: with the measure you use, it will be measured to you, and still more will be added to you.” v. 24). In fact, the kingdom is something which is present already in hidden form (as a seed) now. What I’m thinking about regarding conversion and discipleship is that Jesus will do and accomplish his will, but he intends to use us in the process. It’s not use in the sense of duty or obligation, but relationship and love to communicate truth to others.

In sum: It seems that Jesus and the light of his shining is the emphasis of the passage, and that is somehow tied to small beginnings to exploding in the sense of the kingdom of God being realized here and now.

Although there is a description for how kingdom growth works, as one which starts small and explodes, as one which God himself controls. What is the prescription? Why does Jesus say this to the disciples? For what purpose in their own life or thinking?

Purpose? Prescription?

To be honest, these parables are a bit perplexing. I think that one of the reasons Jesus is saying this is tied to the fact that we look at the first parable and say, “ya, you obviously don’t put a lamp under a pillow, but on a lamp stand!???” However, the “ya” point is not what we often do in our lives, figuratively speaking.

For example, many Christians don’t, but indeed need to prop Jesus up on a lamp stand throughout the day. They need to prop Jesus up at their jobs, in their relationships, with their children, parents, spouses, friends, strangers, the barista at Starbucks, etc. What happens though when they try and bury the light of Jesus or they don’t plant the seed in the ground at all? Well, they can’t see if there’s no light and if they don’t plant the seed then they starve! They also might make it difficult for other people to see if they don’t prop the light up and plant the seed. What we’ve got is the problem of personal blindness and starvation as well as corporate/relational blindness and starvation (the blind lead the blind into a ditch—and typically there aren’t harvests in ditches!).

Regarding burying the light and failing to plant seeds, I do this all the time. I clearly know that I should pray and have gratitude for the light that Jesus provides, but I often try and snuff it out, whether out of selfishness, pride, fear, or just downright sin and rebellion. Secondly, if I’m not willing to plant the seed by talking about Jesus—and perhaps even more importantly living as though I actually KNOW and LOVE Jesus—then how can God water and make the seed grow? This is where the light of Jesus is tied to conversion, discipleship, and the great commission.

Any thoughts?

I’ve probably written too much…

Comments (1)

By philhigley, April 2, 2010 10:05 am

The following information on Good Friday is from churchyear.net, which is a very helpful website for understanding the purpose and history of Christian liturgy and tradition, as well as the importance of major events in the Christian year that revolve around the message, work, and person of Jesus Christ.

As for Good Friday, it is a reflection on one of the more profound events in history, namely, Jesus’ bloody and atrocious and scandalous death on a Roman cross.

But Christians don’t just see Jesus’ death on the cross as a historical event, they also see it as a theological one. For it’s one thing to say that Jesus died on the cross, but it’s quite another to say that he died on a cross for your sins.

Think about that this Good Friday. Think about why we call a day that Jesus was scourged, spit on, punched, whipped, beaten, mocked, and then crucified, a “good” thing. Is it a good thing in your eyes? Do you care?

Good Friday Definition and Summary

Good Friday is the Friday of Holy Week, and commemorates the crucifixion and death of Jesus. Good Friday is a fast day in the Catholic Church, and falls within the Paschal Triduum. In 2010, Good Friday falls on April 2 (dates in other years).

Basic Facts About Good Friday

Liturgical Color(s): Red (formerly black)
Type of Holiday: Fast Day
Time of Year: Friday of Holy Week within the Paschal Triduum, and within the traditional 40 day Lenten Fast
Duration: One Day
Celebrates/Symbolizes: Jesus’ Passion, Crucifixion, and Death
Alternate Names: Good Friday of the Lord’s Passion, Great Friday
Scriptural References: Matthew 26-27; Mark 14-15; Luke 23; John 17-19

Introduction

Good Friday is the Friday within Holy Week, and is traditionally a time of fasting and penance, commemorating the anniversary of Christ’s crucifixion and death. For Christians, Good Friday commemorates not just a historical event, but the sacrificial death of Christ, which with the resurrection, comprises the heart of the Christian faith. The Catholic Catechism states this succinctly:

Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men (CCC 1992).

This is based on the words of St. Paul: “[Believers] are justified freely by God’s grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood… (Romans 3:24-25, NAB). The customs and prayers associated with Good Friday typically focus on the theme of Christ’s sacrificial death for our sins.

The evening (at sunset) of Good Friday begins the second day of the Paschal Triduum. The major Good Friday worship services begin in the afternoon at 3:00 (the time Jesus likely died). Various traditions and customs are associated with the Western celebration of Good Friday. The singing (or preaching) of the Passion of St. John’s gospel consists of reading or singing parts of John’s gospel (currently John 18:1-19:42 in the Catholic Church). The Veneration of the Cross is also common in the Western Church. This is when Christians approach a wooden cross and venerate it, often by kneeling before it, or kissing part of it. In addition to these traditions, Holy Communion with the reserved host is practiced. In the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, no Masses are said on Good Friday or Holy Saturday, therefore the reserved host from the Holy (Maundy) Thursday Mass is used. This is called the “Mass of the Pre-Sanctified.” Many Churches also offer the Stations of the Cross, also called the “Way of the Cross,” on Good Friday. This is a devotion in which fourteen events surrounding the death of Jesus are commemorated. Most Catholic Churches have fourteen images of Jesus’ final days displayed throughout the parish, for use in public Stations of the Cross services. Another service started by the Jesuit Alphonso Messia in 1732, now less common, the Tre Ore or “Three Hours,” is often held from noon until 3:00 PM, and consists of seven sermons on the seven last words of Christ. This service has been popular in many Protestant churches. Good Friday, along with Ash Wednesday, is an official fast day of the Catholic Church.

The Eastern Churches have different customs for the day they call “the Great Friday.” The Orthodox Church begins the day with Matins (Morning Prayer), where the “Twelve Gospels” is chanted, which consists of 12 passages drawn from the Passion narratives. In the morning, the “Little Hours” follow one after the other, consisting of Gospel, Epistle, and Prophet readings. Vespers (Evening Prayer) ends with a solemn veneration of the epitaphion, an embroidered veil containing scenes of Christ’s burial. Compline (Night Prayer) includes a lamentation placed on the Virgin Mary’s lips. On Good Friday night, a symbolic burial of Christ is performed. Traditionally, Chaldean and Syrian Christians cease using their customary Shlama greeting (“peace be with you”) on Good Friday and Holy Saturday, because Judas greeted Christ this way. They use the phrase “The light of God be with your departed ones” instead. In Russia, the tradition is to bring out a silver coffin, bearing a cross, and surrounded with candles and flowers. The faithful creep on their knees and kiss and venerate the image of Christ’s body painted on the “winding sheet” (shroud). For more information see The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and The Catholic Source Book.

History

The celebration of Good Friday is ancient, and some of the practices associated with Good Friday are attested to by Egeria in the 4th century. The day gradually became a time of penance and fasting as the anniversary of the death of Christ. The name “Good Friday” possibly comes from “God’s Friday,” although the exact reason for the current name is unclear. The custom of venerating the cross on Good Friday probably originated in Jerusalem in the 7th or 8th century, and continues to this day in many Western Churches. Pre-sanctified Masses are referenced in the documents of the Quinisext Council, which was held in AD 692, which means the practice pre-dates the seventh century. The Council mentions pre-sanctified liturgies as occurring primarily during Lent. Various churches observe Good Friday in addition to Catholics and Eastern Christians. Anglicans, Methodists, and Lutherans all observe Good Friday to varying degrees.



Comments (1)

By philhigley, March 26, 2010 12:58 pm

Atheist “Philosopher” Sam Harris says, “Christianity doesn’t speak to real life issues.”

Like what?

The Sermon on the Mount perhaps? Jesus’ example to take care of the sick & suffering, to love our neighbors, to be peaceful in our lives & relationships, to treat others as we would want them to treat us, to be compassionate, loving, etc, etc.? Like William Wilberforce’s stand against slavery or Martin Luther King Jr’s stand against segregation—both done in the name and example of Jesus?

Pathetic diatribes from a pseudo-intellectual…

Comments (8)

By philhigley, March 15, 2010 10:46 am

Miscellany 522.

NO PROMISES TO UNCONVERTED MEN’S SEEKING SALVATION

It was not meet that God should make any promises of success to unregenerated seekers of salvation. For it is not meet that any should have absolute promises of success, unless they do what they can, or if they are slack and partial and ben’t through in seeking. Nor is it meet that absolute promises should be made to such as are thorough in seeking, unless they are persevering in it. It is not meet that God should promise men success, if they would be engaged in seeking during any limited time, as for a day or month or year. Therefore, it was not meet that God should make any absolute promises of success to any unconverted seekers; for no unconverted man will be thorough in striving for eternal life, and be fixed and persevering in it.

The Arminians say that God has promised that if men will make a good improvement of common grace, he will give special. Then I would ask, how long must a man make good improvement of common grace, in order to be entitled to that promise? Will it be a performance of the condition of the promise, if a man doth it for a day or a week? If it be said, that a man must go on in making a good improvement of it, waiting for the fulfilling of the promise in God’s time; I answer, that I believe that God has promised special grace to those that are faithful in the improvement of common grace, and continue so to be: but there are none but those that have special grace, that do thus. There is no promise of grace but what is implied in that, “To him that hath shall be given” (Lk 8.18). God make promises of grace only to grace.

Edwards establishes in the first paragraph that God is not obligated to promise anything to humankind. At the chagrin of the average Arminian or theologically inept person regarding the main facets of Reformed Theology, this fact might be offensive. However, it is requisite that a promise of grace or mercy on the part of God is just that, grace or mercy—but by God alone. You see, grace and mercy are never obligatory in any way shape or form because grace and mercy would (1) be nonsensical categories of thought, and (2) they would be self contradictory ideas that would leave nothing more than absurdity. What does this mean then? It means, as Edwards has pointed out, that God is not under any obligation to promise anything to the one who is not regenerated by the Holy Spirit. This fact, however, is always seen in light of God’s love for the world in his Son Jesus. But even then the Atonement by Jesus was not obligatory on the part of God, but God’s own free decision. God is the only one who is truly free. Speculators about this fact would do well to hold their tongues until the eschaton.

In the second section, Edwards points out the pelagian tendencies of Arminianism to make a necessary connection (falsely I believe) from common grace to special grace, or said another way, common grace to salvation grace. Arminians tend to argue that the common grace that God gives all people, whether regenerated or unregenerated to exist second by second and moment by moment physically and spiritually, can inevitably lead to a position of attaining special grace. An easier way to understand this is that Edwards is stating that Arminians believe that humans can effect their own salvation by common grace. Keep in mind that I said effect and not affect. This is the essence of the Arminian heresy presently in the church, but it’s not just Arminian, it’s human nature. We tend to think we’re always better than we are, but the truth is that we’re worse than we can realize. We also must bear in mind that God loves us more than we can imagine in our own sinfulness and depravity. This is a mystery.

In any case, Edwards’ point, I believe, is that by common grace we can affect our own salvation in the sense that God has provided common grace to do so. However, special grace which is salvific in nature does not occur by our own causation, but only the Spirit’s regeneration of our being by the special grace which is given by God. Edwards is pointing out in the second section that anything else would be absurd because one would have to wait an eternity for common grace to lead to special grace. Again, said another way, special salvific grace is always given and never achieved.

Why this matters:

This whole situation matters because Christianity is the story about how God reaches down and lifts us out of our own depravity by his mercy alone. As he lifts us out of a slough of despond we may grab onto him as a child would a parent, but the child cannot lift himself out alone. For some children, they grab on harder to God’s grace. For others, they let him do all the work.

On the other side of the coin is the exact opposite of Christianity, i.e., Religion. Religion typically has a story about how you and you alone are the arbiter of your own salvation. You need to be good, you need to be nice, you need to be loving, etc. etc. All of these concepts of religion are indeed good, but they do not save. Instead, the typical person who attempts to abide by them often sees them as a means of works righteousness. In religion, humanity saves humanity by some strange and corrupt form of rugged individualism. In Reformed Theology, and, I would argue, Christianity in general, the only saving possible is by and through the person of Jesus Christ.

We are saved by Grace alone through Faith alone, and consequently unto good works alone.

Basically, Arminians just have the whole dynamic of soteriology backwards.

Comments (2)

By philhigley, March 9, 2010 11:09 am

Miscellany 514. Christian Religion

Without divine revelation, ’tis impossible the world should ever have come to any tolerable knowledge of future rewards and punishments. I believe the world, without revelation, never would have come to any determination that there was any future rewards and punishments, but would have remained midnight darkness about it. But if they could have found out that there was to be any such thing, they would have been forever ignorant, whether they were eternal or temporal, and of what kind they were; the nature, kind, and degree, and circumstances of the happiness of heaven; what it was they were to enjoy, and with what qualifications. These things would forever have been as much unknown, as how that part of the universe is formed that is beyond the starry heavens. Indeed, what the Scripture reveals of the future happiness of the righteous, is exceeding rational, and excellently fit and congruous: that those that are holy shall hereafter be made perfectly holy, that they shall enjoy a happiness that is holy and spiritual, that they shall see God, and be in his presence, and everlastingly enjoy his love. But the world never would have found this.

Interesting points by Edwards. Keep in mind, however, that he’s got some loaded words here and that some of his words have taken on different meaning relative to our current context. Some of the interesting words/phrases which I would like more definition on are the following:

Rewards and punishments…

happiness of heaven…

perfectly holy…

Comments (0)

By philhigley, March 8, 2010 10:55 am

I admit I’ve been neglecting my studies as of late, which is wholly evidenced by my lack of blog posts over the last month or so. Though I’m doing about three hours a week of NT exegesis and analysis and commentary compression work, I’ve also been neglecting my blog writing as well as readings in systematic theology and philosophical theology. This has come to a stop today.

Why? Yesterday I heard a sermon that emphasized our culture’s obsession with leadership, and how everyone wants to be a leader. One of the interesting statistics mentioned in the sermon was that on a recent survey, about 7 out of 10 people considered themselves leaders. Adequately qualified, the pastor’s point was that typically people within our culture always want to see themselves as leaders because being a ‘follower’ kind of sucks. It’s pounded into our mindsets to be our own leaders, autonomous, independent, powerful, etc. However, there’s quite a danger to this kind of thinking because it lacks the insight of what it means to be a good follower and a good servant. It lacks humility. The pastor’s evidence of this was the original 12 Apostles and their lack of qualifications for being “leaders”.  In short, all of the apostles did not have any formal leadership qualities, but Jesus chose them for a particular purpose. They all had to become disciples first before they could be leaders. (And let me tell you a secret: we’re all followers of something or someone.) I’m a follower of Jesus, though not always a good one. I try and follow the example set forth by Jesus by loving my neighbors the best way I know how, and also loving myself the best way I know how. This topic is another blog post but my point is that I’m a follower of Jesus. He’s the master; I’m a disciple. In any case, what it means to be a good follower for me is to challenge myself with theology and philosophy; to challenge my views on culture, the church, and how I ought to live my life. While sitting and listening to the sermon, I was convicted about my current laziness in regard to studying and reading and interacting with theology. In sum, then: I need to get up earlier in the morning and crack the books and read and be challenged. This also obviously includes being missional in my verbal witness as well, but I’m always working on that.

With my confession stated above, it is my intent to blog at least three times a week for the rest of this month. I will be focusing in my blogs on Jonathan Edwards’ “Miscellanies” 501-832, in the Yale Edition, edited by Ava Chamerlain. The blogs will be nothing spectacular, I assure you, but they will consist of some of the more interesting miscellanies that Edwards’ wrote—from my perspective of course. I’ve read quite a bit of Edwards and quite a bit about him, so I feel somewhat confident to state a particular miscellany, and then make a short comment on it. For today I’m focusing on one of his miscellanies that is quite apropos to what I have communicated above regarding being an obedient follower of God. The most profound example of following God the Father is in the example and witness by Jesus himself. Edwards says in miscellany 501:

Christ’s Righteousness. ‘Tis most agreeable to the tenor of the Scripture that believers shall partake with Christ in that exaltation and glory which the Father gives him in reward for his obedience, his doing the work which he did in the world by the Father’s appointment. The whole mystical Christ shall be rewarded for this, which is the same thing as having Christ’s righteousness imputed to them.

I assume that the “whole mystical Christ” refers to those who truly have put their faith and trust in Christ, that is, ‘believers’.

On another note, one of the more interesting examples of Christ’s obedience is the Gethsemane episode. Here’s the whole section of text, but I was specifically thinking about vv. 38-39 & 42.

Gethsemane (NIV)

³⁶ Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” ³⁷ He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. ³⁸ Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.”

³⁹ Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

⁴⁰ Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. ⁴¹ “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.”

⁴² He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”

⁴³ When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. ⁴⁴ So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.

⁴⁵ Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. ⁴⁶ Rise, let us go! Here comes my betrayer!”