The Sign of Jonah

Matthew 12:40 has Christ condemning his generation for seeking a sign, and then stating that the Son of Man will be in the depths of the earth for three days and three nights.  

Three days and three nights has long plagued me, but never too seriously, as I would generally allow the balm of apathy to soothe my doubts: "I'll figure it out after this next beer and bag of Kettle Chips."  We know that Christ was crucified the eve of the sabbath from the text itself, and we know that He rose on Sunday from church history as well as many, many external sources.  The problem should seem pretty obvious: Friday night burial to Sunday morning resurrection can be stretched into three days by desperate men bending over backwards in an attempt to "save the phenomena," as Plato said, but no amount of hand waving can add a third night into the mix.

The solution is also obvious, or at least obvious enough to make me feel really stupid.  But hey, my pastor at least is smart, which is apparently what I pay him for, except I actually don't.  It's what I would pay him for if I was making money instead of spending it on Kettle Chips, beer and cheese.  The crucifixion of Christ took place the eve of the Passover, the annual sabbath.  This was apparently on a Wednesday, and He rose Saturday night (following the pattern of eve then morn outlined in Genesis), leaving the tomb empty for the spectators on Sunday morning.

Excerpt from Westminster Rhetoric Lecture II

"IV. For Instance

In Matthew 16, Jesus answers those who say they want a sign.  He says no sign will be given except the sign of Jonah.  A little later in the chapter, Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ.  Jesus pronounces a tremendous blessing on him--on Simon, son of Jonah.  A little later, Peter pulls a Jonah and rebukes Jesus for His prediction that He will spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, thus fulfilling the sign of Jonah.

Fascinating, but we still want to stay closer to shore.  We simply want to know that something is the direct object here because it is in the accusative case and in the same sentence."

Included interspersed throughout this section were other points: Jerusalem was Ninevah, and did not repent, etcetera.  It was quite interesting, with our teacher's usual touch of hilarity.  A bit later on, the following topic merrily lilted itself into the lecture:

"V.  Read Carefully and Broadly

Last week, I said that you should ransack Scripture for its figures and metaphors.  What else, you might wonder.  Actually, this will take you the rest of your life, and the task is not as narrow as you might think.

Picture the main street of a desolate Western town, mid day, one hundred and fifty years ago.  The street is deserted, except for a few blowing tumbleweeds.  Some townspeople are looking out the windows of the shops.  Now, what is about to happen?  And how do you know this?  This is a particular motif, with which we are all familiar.

Now picture a man dressed in a biblical manner.  He is standing next to a well.  In the distance, a woman is approaching with a jar on her shoulder.  What is going to happen?  Now, what is the meaning of Christ's encounter with the Samaritan woman?  His father is seeking worshipers, that is to say, a bride for His Son."

Food...

Let us eat food, and not small children.

Have I Mentioned that I Love Rhetoric?

Behold my shameless boasting: it knows not how to blush.

I was one of four students in a class of forty-six to score an SCL on the rhetoric written final, which is the highest possible grade.  On my paper, I was given a CL, along with twelve others, and there were two SCL papers.  

Needless to say, I am delighted.  Grades come out on Friday, which I will post as soon as I receive them.

Blessings,

Jesse Broussard

Yup yup yup.

Fishy fish

An interesting note: in all of the Old Testament, I have found no narrative that mentions people eating fish.  If I am wrong, please correct me.  The implication of this and the John 21 passage (Christ cooking and eating fish on the shore, the disciples catching 153 great fish, etcetra) had the relative effect upon me of a sweet adorable four year old girl smiling as she hits me in the face with a Louisville Slugger.

Land represents the people of God (Jews) while the gentile nations are represented by the sea.  The people of those nations?  Fish--"I will make you fishers of men."  In the New Covenant, fish shall be saved and included into the body of Christ.

Zechariah's horses: angels or men?

"I saw by night, and behold, a man riding on a red horse, and it stood among the myrtle trees in the hollow; and behind him horses: red, sorrel, and white.

"Then I said, 'My lord, what are these?'  So the angel who talked with me said to me, 'I will show you what they are.' 

"And the man who stood among the myrtle trees answered and said, 'These are the ones whom the LORD has sent to walk to and fro throughout the earth.'

"So they answered the Angel of the LORD, who stood among the myrtle trees, and said, 'We have walked to and fro throughout the earth, and behold, all the earth is resting quietly.'

The rider of the red horse is almost undoubtedly Christ--the Angel of the LORD who stood among the myrtles.  This would then imply that the horses are one of two groups: either angels or the church.  Oddly, the amillenial commentators that I have read interpret the horses as angels (Meredith Kline, Glory in our Midst), while the postmills hold to the church (Jas. Jordan, Peter Leithart.  Interesting tangent: Jordan also uses this section to interpret Revelation six (the four horsemen) as being Christ "riding" the church in each of the four sections).  

There is very little in the vision to clarify which of the two groups the horses are, which actually is of no little importance, as symbolic Judaic literature remains fairly consistent, and borrows off of other symbolic Judaic literature--beasts are empires, seas are pagan nations, fish are unbelievers, and horses are--well, what are horses?  Whatever they are here is most likely what they are in Revelation, as John is borrowing from this imagery--coincidences do not happen in Scripture.  Why is the number six the number of man (and of the beast)?  Because men and beasts were made on the sixth day.  Goliath was six cubits and a span wearing scale armor and was killed by a head wound.  Sisera was killed by a woman's tent peg through the skull.  There  was a scarlet cord tied around the younger of two twins who ends up in the line of Christ, and what do we find in Rahab's window--the window of another ancestor of Christ?  No, we're not going for subtlety here--if there are two similar sections of Scripture, they are linked and should interpret each other.

The colors of the different groups are very interesting (at least if you're reading Kline--otherwise they're just kinda colors).  There is white, red, and "sorrel" or "bay."  Kline notes that these colors may be used to imply flame and light: "A desire to produce such a bright, fiery image would then explain why black horses, which are found in the seventh vision, are absent from this first one.  Also, the second color term"--the one rendered "bay" or "sorrel"--"seruqqim, evidently derives from a verbal root that is used for the shining of the sun."

If Kline's take upon this is correct, then the horses are a manifestation of the Glory of God, of His Presence.  This does not definitively demonstrate the horses to be angels or men.  However, what would we normally say is the manifestation of God's Presence and Glory on earth, and do we have any reason to shy from that in this instance?

Amusing Links

http://tominthebox.blogspot.com/index.html

How appropriate: http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/posters.htm

Rhetoric: Freestyle Poem

To what shall I compare thee, luv? a
“The lashes of your eye” were joy. b
Frail Baby’s Breath on sliding cliffs? c
An evanescent slide from fifths c
to sixths? Your flashing eyes and coy b
dark smile, your marbled veins in dove a
white skin upon the Arab, black d
as death and racing, stamping, lunging e
still bareback through the trees. And now? f
I’m haunted by your cheek, your hair. g
Your cat-scarred hands play with the air g
just out your window—I am fey. My vow f
lies broken, shattered. We are plunging— e
and you and I upon the rack, d
our life a beast, a dream, a haze of death, and down, h
the center could not, did not hold. Each night I sleep i
a dappled face, still lingering, in my mind, I keep, i
then humans wake, the phantom flies me, and I drown. h

Rhetoric: Shakespearean Sonnet

Jesse Broussard
Chalcedon Term Rhetoric
Word Count: 128



Engraving Hearts and Stone


“I know not why, why lovers, lovers die.” A
Thus, Lewis’ angel, spying mortals, longs B
To taste the cup (caressed by envious eye) A
Of pain, while we? We’re screaming mordant songs B
Of loves undone to never be regained, C
“That long disease, our life”—a damned blockade D
Of raging death, affections merely feigned— C
Yes, gladly with the angel we would trade. D
Yet, what means water to a sated earth? E
And what, to those who cannot die, is life? F
The best of buds are those that bloom in dearth. E
Thus joy and pain, conjoined within my wife— F
The girl content while ragged on the rack— G
Wrought more on earth than just her granite plaque. G


The letters to the right are the rhyme scheme.

Blessings.

Quick comment on John

The "One Whom Jesus Loved" is my favorite author of all of Scripture. Yes, Ezekiel is psychotic, yes, the Psalms are sheer raw emotion, and Dear God, Song of Solomon--but I must say, John is shattering.

The book of John is the only non-synoptic gospel, and it is set up in a very intriguing fashion: it is the Yom Kippur, the great re-entry into the Holy of Holies. This is why the miracles are grouped in similar groups: water miracles are all together (laver), "light" miracles are all together (lampstands), resurrection is the High Priest returning from the Holy of Holies (his offering having been accepted), etc. It would take more time than I can currently (it's midnight, I'm getting up at five) afford to give to it.

Just keep that in mind when reading it.

And remember when you hit the end--in Hebrew, Gedi=17, Eglaim=153, and 153 is the triangular of 17. Fish always represent the Gentiles, and the sea represents the Gentile nations. So, read Ezekiel's "shall flow from En Gedi to En Eglaim" and then John 21, and keep in mind that Christ eating the fish is Christ making them part of himself and stating that their union with Him is God's will (my food is to do the will of him who sent me...) and a thousand other things all in one.

Even when eating, He speaks volumes.

Blessings,
Jesse Broussard

Quick Comment on Matthew

Matthew is one of the more structurally interesting books of the Bible (though not quite as cool as Revelation, John, or Deuteronomy). It simply portrays Christ as the new Israel and the new King, point by point.


1). Genealogy: portrays Christ as the new David (see half of my previous posts)

2). Dreams save him (Joseph)

3). "Out of Egypt have I called my son..."

4). Slaughter of the innocents (Israel has here become the new Egypt, which means that plagues will come upon her, and the Covenant of God will go out from her)

5). Baptized upon return from Egypt (Red Sea)

6). Theophany (pillar of fire and smoke, mountain, etc.)

7). Forty days=forty years: 1 God's Word above food=transgressed God's Word out of desire for food; 2 You shall not tempt your God=Where your fathers tested me (Hebrews 3:9); 3 Refusal of idolatry on the mountain=idolatry while "on" (via Moses) the mountain.

8). Conquest of Canaan.


The list goes on and on. Just interesting to keep in mind when reading Matthew.

Doug Wilson on Elections

www.dougwils.com

Choosing Between a Real Enemy or a False Friend

Topic: Politics

Tomorrow is super-sized Tuesday, or whatever it is they call it. A discussion in a recent comments thread has asked why I would be unwilling to vote for Romney or McCain in the general election if they were running against Obama or Hillary, why I would "throw my vote away" by voting for an obscure third-party candidate, or writing someone's name in. Here is why:

Whenever the radical agenda or the slow encroachment of the state are advanced by the liberals, a large number of conservatives oppose them, sometimes effectively. When we elect the kind of "conservatives" who are just methodical, plodding liberals, this has the effect to consolidating and sealing the previous advances of the radical agenda. A good example of this is the issue of women in combat, something that Scripture calls an abomination (Dt. 22:5). This used to be controversial just ten years ago, and it was the Bush administration that settled the issue, putting it beyond our reach.

Conservatives will occasionally revolt against something when the establishment overreaches, as with the Harriet Miers nomination. But that incident was striking precisely because it was so rare.

The issue of abortion matters to me more than any other single issue. It is at the top, and I grant that if the Democrat gets in it will be a lead-pipe-cinch that we will not get another Scalia or Thomas on the court. If McCain or Romney is elected (Romney more than McCain), I grant that we might. But I am not a single-issue voter -- although I do believe in the hegemony of certain key issues, the pro-life thing being one of them.

The fact that I will not vote for McCain or Romney has to do with my judgment (which could certainly be in error) that the effect of their election will be to consolidate and institutionalize some of the central problems in our culture, and that this will happen to even a greater degree than if we get a liberal president. In short, I would rather have a real enemy than a false savior.

Rhetoric Paper

My Rhetoric paper will be somewhat touchy. I am writing to a hostile audience, and a very emotionally involved hostile audience.

My Propositio (thesis) is that God is in direct control of every bad thing that has ever happened to you. I am writing to those Christians who are orthodox but do not believe this.

Most of my arguments will be Scriptural, but the brunt of the paper will probably be in defining the issue. My hope is to define all opposition right into a corner, where they agree that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, but disagree that He is other than a squishy Santa in the sky (where'd we get North Pole?). Then comes Scripture, which you have to either deny, redefine, or submit to.

We shall see how it goes.

I'm off to read poetry, though I may have a few more posts this week.

Blessings,
Jesse Broussard

Lordship paper

For my Lorship paper, I am interacting with two consecutive comments by Calvin in his Institutes. First, he states that it is impossible to have knowledge of God without knowledge of self, and secondly, he reverses it--knowledge of self is impossible without knowledge of God.

My thesis is that knowledge itself is impossible without an a priori assumption of God. Ironically, I will be using Hume, as an honest atheist is the best Christian apologist.

My main points should be seen coming from ten miles away, but in that respect are kind of like trains: it doesn't matter how long you've seen them coming if you can't move.

The first will likely be a reductio ad absurdam, in which I will assume the contrary of what I am trying to prove. Id est, "If, however, evolution is true, then nothing exists outside of complex chemical reactions, simply time and chance happening upon matter. But we never judge chemical reactions to be right or wrong, they simply are. The paper is not wrong to catch fire, it simply does. That is the way that it behaves in our purely material universe. Our minds are not wrong to assume that there is or isn't a God, that is simply what they do. To consistently hold this materialistic position removes the possibility of any intelligent metaphysical discussion, let alone intelligent disagreement, as our opinions on the matter are irrelevant and have the truth content of a bowl of mushroom soup." Something like that.

The next will be where Hume comes in handy, particularly his arguments on induction. You cannot assume tomorrow based upon today. You do, but you can't. A Christian, even a theist can, but an atheist can't. He has to assume that tomorrow won't be like today, otherwise he would still be inanimate and irrational goo, much like his logical processes. But I won't mention that.

Beyond that I have my refutation of common objections followed by my conclusion.

It should be interesting.

Mere Christianity

I just read Lewis' Mere Christianity again, and now can't figure out why I'd waited so long to do so.

However, a quick caution: Lewis, while brilliant and very pleasant to read, is not entirely "within the ilk" of orthodox theology. It doesn't come out often, but there will be points at which you really should disagree. However, as Wilson said, even when Lewis is wrong, he is more enjoyable than most are when they're right.

A few quotes:

"...we know that if there does exist an absolute goodness it must hate most of what we do. This is the terrible fix we are in. If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our efforts are in the long run hopeless. But if it is, then we are making ourselves enemies to that goodness every day, and are not in the least likely to do any better tomorrow, and so our case is hopeless again. We cannot do without it, and we cannot do with it. God is the only comfort, He is also the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from. He is our only possible ally, and we have made ourselves His enemies. Some people talk as if meeting the gaze of absolute goodness would be fun. They need to think again. They are still only playing with religion. Goodness is either the great safety or the great danger--according to the way you react to it. And we have reacted the wrong way."

"There is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the from which all your reasoning power comes: you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its own source. When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on."

There are far too many for me to type them all. It is a glorious, five star book that should be read with one eye on it and the other on the Scriptures.

More Revelation

An interesting note from Chilton's commentary, Days of Vengeance.

The seven churches (though quite real) can be seen to represent seven ages of Old Testament Church history.

1). Ephesus: Christ introduces himself as the Creator, the "angel" is commended for guarding the church from her enemies, and note the Edenic language at the end (tree of life...). Also, "the one who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands" is reminiscent of "walking in the garden," which in itself implies imminent judgment.

2). Smyrna: "tribulation ten days" takes us back to Egypt's ten plagues; "Who was dead, and has come to life" reflects Isaac (Gen. 22:1-4) and Joseph (Gen.37:18-16). False Jews correspond with Ishmael, imprisonment via slander is Joseph, and Aaron had a "crown of life."

3). For the skeptics, Pergamos is explicit. If dwelling "where Satan's house is" does not bring to mind the wilderness temptation of Christ (corresponding to the wilderness wandering of Israel: forty days=forty years, grumbling about food=fasting, etc), then the reference to Baalam and Balak should do it. Christ comes as our hero Phineas, and the overcomers are promised "hidden manna" (from the ark, see also Heb. 9:4).

4). Thyatira corresponds to to the Israelite monarchy and Davidic covenant. The "angel's" tolerance of Jezebel who leads God's people into sexual immorality (idolatry), that she and her offspring will be killed, and verse 27 corresponding to David.

5). Sardis would be the later prophetic period: reputation for life when it is actually dead, "wake up" and "strengthen the things that remain," and the "few people" who remained faithful.

6). Philadelphia is Ezra and Nehemiah, having "a little power," the Synagogue of Satan..." corresponds to "false Jews" in Ezra 4 and Nehemiah 4, 6, and 13 (please take a short chronology with Esther, Ezra and Nehemiah), the hour of testing recalls Antiochus Epiphanes (aka, Epimanes, the mad, sacrificed a pig on the altar, declared himself to be god), and he who overcomes will become a pillar in the house of God (rebuilding of the temple).

7). Laodicea is AD 30-70. The pharisaical judaism, the curse of Lev. 18:24-28, and the dominion with Christ granted to the true church.

Blessings,
J. Broussard

Beyond my ilk...

As you will probably know, I hold to a preterist interpretation of most of Scripture, and I believe that we are currently in the millenial reign of Christ. This puts me in somewhat sparse company, though not quite as much so as I used to believe. This means that I hold almost all of Revelation to have been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d. This position is consistent with Scripture, and, I believe, is the most consistent with Scripture. The symbolism in the book of Revelation is found all throughout Scripture (just read Ezekiel), and should be understood symbolically.

Well, I came across an interesting similarity in two very odd passages. One is in Zechariah, and the other, of course, is to be found in the Revelation of Saint John.

Zechariah chapter one, verse seven begins the vision of the horses. The weight of orthodox exegesis holds these horses to be the church, though others are inclined to view the horses as angels. The Man is quite obviously Christ (Meredith Kline's treatment of Zechariah, Glory in our Midst, is commendable, though in some places greatly lacking).

Anyway, the Revelation passage is quite famous, and provides a basis for lots of pathetic movies and self-consciously dramatic quotes: head bowed, eyes looking up through strands of hair, the absolute stillness, and then, "I looked, and behold, a pale horse. And the name of him who sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him..." It is chapter six, the horses and the riders.

A brief comparison of these passages would seem to indicate that the Rider of Revelation is in all cases Christ, which is quite consistent with the text--just read it over and over, paying attention to what is given to the Rider. This would imply that the horses of Revelation are the Church--the ones controlled and used by Christ.

Not definitive, and I wouldn't make it a point of fellowship (saving that for infralapsarianism), but nothing if not thought provoking.

More Declamations

Jesse Broussard
Chalcedon Rhetoric
251 Words


We were going for a walk, Holly and I. The night was what I then considered to be skin-thickeningly cold, and the stars were liberally dusted across a clear sky; a full moon haloed above the tree line. The silence was silhouetted against the distant violence of the ocean; punctuated by a whinnying horse and dog collars jingling. Holly and I crossed the mud-slathered road, picking our steps as if it were a minefield, and stopped in awe. A lake of fog was languidly pooled in our field, mulling upon the alfalfa, the moonlit white peripherally pierced by jagged islands of trees. The lake gingerly slipped through the narrow, gate-bereft opening we stood in, where it mused upon our sandaled feet.
Our joined hands tightened. I looked at Holly, and saw the look I was expecting—eyes luminous, dimpled cheeks smattered with freckles, and her slightly parted mouth the embodiment of delighted mischief. She laughed out loud and began sprinting, still holding my hand. Exhilarated at the sheer, glorious absurdity, I raced through the waist deep fog with her, laughing as our unified hands threw off our balance.
Suddenly she screamed and hurled all of her 95 pound, 5’ 1 ¾” body onto my back, one hand on my shoulder, the other on my hair.
“Slugs” she gasped, “in my sandals.”
Ah. The fate worse than death. I cleaned her sandals as she dried her feet on my pants, then stuck them into my pockets.
We took the long way home.


Rosalie Comer
Rhetoric/Chalcedon
January 23, 2008
Word Count: 253

Feline Felicity

“Rosalie, you may now kiss your groom.”
I thought about it and looked at my companion’s hairy lips and tiny mouth. I chucked the idea and kissed his forehead. I knew this cat completed me, and I told it so.
“Cat, you complete me.”
I was five years old and discovering the joys of marriage. Cat and I had been best friends since infancy. I had never seen whiskers so refined. I glowed.
“Rosalie, does the cat want out?” my mom called.
I dashed to let my thirty-pound husband out the door, eager to take my roll as the doting wife. His finely chiseled cat jaw and shiny black fur dash between my feet and out the door.
“Mom, aren’t husbands wonderful?”
My mother was busy making dinner. “Rosalie, I don’t know how you would know.”
I resented this. Couldn’t she believe that her little girl was growing up, or didn’t she notice the king size bed sheet wrapped around my head as a veil?
I heard a meow at the door that only a wife can discern.
“The cat wants back in, Rosalie.”
I arched my back. Didn’t she think that as a good wife, I would hear it myself?
I let him in. This was love. He pranced around my feet and headed back to the door. He wanted out. This was love. I let him out… I let him in. This was…
Too much. I turned to my mother, hands on hips. “Mom, husbands can never make up their minds.”





Kelly Rhine
New Saint Andrews College
RHT-01 – Chalcedon Term
Creative Sketch
Word Count: 278

Going East

The backseat of a Ford Ranger isn’t really a back seat. It’s a coffin that would hardly fit a pygmy. But in the twenty-seventh hour of driving, it seemed as inviting as a mattress store open 24 hours. But sleep didn’t happen. I thought back to being in class, and how easy it had been to sleep there, but my thought was interrupted. The scent didn’t just seep into the backseat, timidly passing through the truck, hoping to go unnoticed. It charged through the cab like a sign of the apocalypse. Suddenly I was returning from Christmas break to find my refrigerator unplugged and left open. Suddenly I was plunged face first into a pool of tuna noodle casserole that had been sitting at room temperature week after week. Suddenly I was Dante, nostrils aflame, cowering behind Virgil as the abyss greeted us with the intense fumes of gangrened flesh slow roasted on a spit. My lungs seized and my eyes watered. With desperation I broke the bonds of seat and panel that pinned me to the floor. I shot up and threw myself at the back window frantic to open it before it shattered. Brandon was at the wheel gasping, as frantic as I was to break the airless vacuum. Tollefson was asleep. Morning air hit me like a strong side safety, but this time giving breath. I leaned over into the front, Tollefson was slowly waking as Brandon plugged him with right hands, shouting at him with the urgency of a mother in labor: “Put your shoes back on!!”


Michael Plaza

The Vacuum Battle

My mom told me to vacuum the cobwebs stuck to the walls in my room. After finishing, I, an obedient 16 year-old, glanced around the room for the third time. None left. So, I began to use the hose on my jeans. The hose hovered over my pant leg making it tremble in mid-air and then gulped up the denim. I felt air sweep past my leg. The vacuum started to shriek for help with its increased high pitch. After being rescued from the pants, it investigated my t-shirt. The t-shirt falsely branded me "lifeguard". And like a dog back to its vomit, it choked on the shirt and for the second time screeched for assistance. Saved again, it stared me in the face. I stared back and wondered. Would it be entertaining to put my mouth around the hose? It looked like a good time waiting to happen. Overconfidently, I brought the hose closer to my mouth and took a firm hold on it with my lips. My tongue instantly swelled in my throat and denied the wind access to my innards. It was like a newborn suffocating on a plastic bag. Terrified by the abrupt fascination the hose had about my tongue, I tore the fiend from mouth like a hook from a confused fish's jaw. I had trusted that tube and it betrayed me. Upon further inspection in the mirror I witnessed a dark cherry colored tongue quivering in the back of my mouth… much like my embarrassed face.