Matthew 20

Matthew 20 tells the story of a landowner hiring workers for his vineyard.  He hires them in five different groups, and none but the first group had an agreed upon wage.  Each of the different groups end up being paid the same amount, despite the fact that they all worked different amounts of time.

This appears to be a picture of the Jews and Gentiles, as the Jews had the initial covenant (the Abrahamic), which is then inherited by the late-coming Gentiles.  Also, the vineyard is a common picture of the people of God (faithful or not).

Checking Our Woods for a Lamp Post

It has snowed every day for the past week and a half, and is expected to snow all this upcoming week.  Moscow's idea of Spring differs greatly from mine.

Grades

Well, they're out.  CL in Rhetoric, MCH in Lordship (ouch), and M in Math (by literally one point on a quiz).  So, I am now four full terms behind.  My roommate Travis has dropped completely, Luke is down to two classes, and that is the general trend of the school.  Approximately half of the Latin class failed this last term, and no one failed Rhetoric, which is very odd.

Keep Sproul in mind--he is going home and probably not coming back.  He leaves on Monday, despite all that I could do to keep him.

Blessings.

Commonplaces

Augustine:  A spirit is that which is everywhere the whole.

Graham: Some people say, "I could never receive Christ, because I couldn't live up to what God expects of me."  That is like a person saying, "I can never fly on an airplane, because I don't think I have the strength to keep it in the air."

P. G. Wodehouse, via Bertie Wooster to Jeeves:  You can't be a successful dictator and design women's underclothing...it's really one or the other.

My rhetoric teacher:  I don't know why they're even in churches, because they're ordaining homosexuals...  They've thrown out all of Scripture; they must just like the outfits.

Ibid:  A certain turn of (unpoetic) mind is unhappily literal... over the last century or so, a certain school of hermeneutical interpretation has turned this failure of soul into an interpretative virtue.

Lewis:  For the church has no beauty but what the Bridegroom gives her; he does not find, but makes her, lovely.

Supper of the Lamb: Book Review

I usually do not actually post my book reviews, so allow this to emphasize the joy that I am receiving from being forced to read Rober Farrar Capon's Supper of the Lamb (click on my title to purchase).  It is a small, wry, Chestertonian "cookbook,"  and worth the spare money and time that you nonchalantly leave lying around.

I have enclosed a small sample of the prose from this book dedicated to his wife: "The lightning behind all this thunder."

"The world may or may not need another cookbook, but it needs all the lovers--amateurs--it can get.  It is a gorgeous old place, full of clownish graces and beautiful drolleries, and it has enough textures, tastes, and smells to keep us intrigued for more time than we have.  Unfortunately, however, our response to its loveliness is not always delight: It is, far more often than it should be, boredom.  And that is not only odd, it is tragic; for boredom is not neutral--it is the fertilizing principle of unloveliness."

Enjoy.

Compelled to agree...

From St. Anne's Public House (just click on my title):

"Smoking kills.  If you're killed, you lose a very important part of your life."

--Brooke Shields

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.