If you've ever got a Scriptural question, go to Leithart's blog and check his archives. If it's not there, then email him. You'll probably get an answer within a couple of days.
Vineyard and bride
Peter J. Leithart
June 16, 2010
Category: Bible - OT - Song of Songs
Let us stipulate that the vineyard is the temple and the bride is Jerusalem. That clarifies two passages of the Song.
“They made me caretaker of the vineyards, but I have not taken care of my own vineyard” (1:6). True enough; Jerusalem did not care for the temple-vineyard in her midst, but turned instead to the many vineyards (high places) scattered throughout the land.
“Solomon had a vineyard at Ball-hamon; he entrusted the vineyard to caretakers; each one was to bring a thousand of silver for his fruit. My own vineyard is before me; the thousand are for you, Solomon” (8:11-12). This passage is often understood to contrast Solomon’s “thousand vineyards,” i.e., wives, with the singular vineyard belonging to the lover. If the temple is the vineyard, though, then the contrast is between the singular house belonging to Jerusalem (or to Yahweh) and the thousand vineyards that Solomon supports for the benefit of his thousand wives.
Article printed from Peter J. Leithart: http://www.leithart.com
URL to article: http://www.leithart.com/2010/06/16/vineyard-and-bride/
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Seven Days Thou Shalt Work
My new schedule is as follows: I work Monday through Friday making cabinets and other woodwork from 7:30-4:30. Fridays and Saturdays I work on the floors at the hospital from 6:00-2:30. I'm not sure how long this will last (or how long I will last), but I'm finally making money, which is nice.
Wodehouse and Circumcision
go hand in hand.
Not really. But, I added a Wodehouse quote generator at the bottom of the page, and here is the best explanation of God not killing someone(?) cause Moses' wife circumcised her son and threw(?) the foreskin at someone else(?) that I've yet seen. Courtesy of my pastor Toby Sumpter at Having Two Legs.
Blessings, and enjoy.
Seventh Sunday in Trinity: Exodus 4:1-31
Opening Prayer: Almighty and gracious Lord, we humble ourselves before you now and ask that you would deal with us. We thank you that you do not deal with us only where we should have been, but you come and meet us where we are. Empower your word and remake us. And as we are humbled before your word, lift us up and exalt us and free us to serve You. Through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen!
Introduction
Who are you? Who are you to pray, to decide, to plan? Your identity is bound up with the God who sends you, the God who is with you (Mt. 28:18-20). And it is not humility to doubt this. True humility believes and obeys.
The Signs for the Elders
Both of the first two signs have to do with healing and making useful. The serpent is the same word for serpent in Genesis 3 suggesting that Moses will lead the people to reverse the dominion of the serpent (“dragon” in 7:9ff). Remember, that Pharaoh is a “seed of the serpent” at war with the “seed of the woman” who is being “fruitful and multiplying.” Notice also that both signs have to do with the hand. The hand of man is his tool for work, the most basic technology. The rod of course is an extension of a man’s hand, a tool for shepherding sheep. As we noted with the burning bush, these signs are probably also meant to picture something fundamental about Israel and her situation in Egypt. Under Joseph, Israel had exerted great influence for the blessing of Egypt. Israel, under Joseph’s leadership had been a “helping hand” and a “shepherd” for Egypt and even all the nations around them. But Israel has fallen from this high calling. Leprosy will always have strong associations with Egypt as a plague (Num. 14:3, 37, Lev. 13-14). The final sign shows how God is going to accomplish his work. Through Moses, not only is God going to tame the serpent-Pharaoh and heal the uncleanness of his people, but Yahweh will also do battle with the gods of Egypt. The Nile was the most important source of life in ancient Egypt and one of their principle gods. But God rules creation, and Moses will pour out the Nile on the ground and instead of being fruitful and giving life it will turn to blood and death. Remember, it has already been a source of death to the Hebrew baby boys. The Nile god has killed the sons of Israel. Idolatry is death.
Moses and Aaron
Moses is a little more than reluctant to take up God’s call on his life. This is somewhat understandable given how his leadership was taken 40 years ago (2:14), but Moses’ persistent reluctance is not excusable (4:14). He has gone from asking “why me?” (3:11) to “what is your name?” (3:13) to “what if they don’t believe me?” (4:1) to “I’m not a good public speaker” (4:10) and now finally “send someone else, please” (4:13). This passage could also be described as a battle of the “I’s.” The Hebrew first person pronoun for “I” is used repeatedly back and forth between Moses and God (3:6, 11, 12, 13, 4:10, 11, 12, 15, 23). While this is not particularly strange, it seems significant given the name God has given himself of “I AM” (3:14). Moses may have any number of excuses for being reluctant, but the fact is that God doesn’t care. God is the God of our fathers, the God who rules nature, the God who is with our words, and the God who is determined to accomplish his purposes. We are not sufficient of ourselves, but we are not by ourselves. “I AM” is with us and with our mouths (4:12, 15). Finally, God allows Moses to share the task with Aaron, but this concession is not a relenting of God’s purposes.
Proleptic Passover
After asking for Jethro’s blessing to leave, God speaks to Moses once more and makes even more explicit his interest in his people. Israel is his son, and he will take Pharaoh’s son if he does not let His son go to serve Him (4:22-23). This is to be a battle between fathers. Yahweh is jealous for the service of his son, and Pharaoh is effectively a kidnapper. Then, on the way into the land, Yahweh comes to kill Moses’s son (4:24). We know it is his son because it is the circumcision of his son that turns away God’s wrath (4:26). This is a somewhat mysterious event, but given the context we should be able see what God intends to teach Moses here. Evidently, Moses’ son had not been circumcised. Circumcision is the sign of God’s covenant promises. This display of blood reminded God of his promise to Abraham to be his God and make him into a nation (Gen. 15). Here, Zipporah circumcises her son and touches it to her son’s legs (4:15). Many translations do not get this right. The point is that Zipporah is displaying the blood of the circumcision to turn away the “angel of death.” She calls him a “bridegroom of blood” reminding us that the covenant is a marriage to God and His people. This is yet another preview of the Exodus in the life of Moses.
Conclusion & Application
Moses and Aaron call the elders of the people together. Aaron speaks and Moses performs the signs (4:30), and the response of the elders is worship (4:31). This is the driving motivation for bringing the Israelites out in the first place (3:18). Of course God knows (and Pharaoh knows) that the freedom to worship would turn into freedom in life. Worship drives culture and society. We’ve previously noted that the Israelites had fallen into idolatry in Egypt (Josh. 24:14). Liturgical idolatry is slavery and leads to a slave culture.
We are called to worship God faithfully and in faith; this is the single most important thing that we do. But this worship is not unrelated to the rest of our lives. Freedom here necessarily creates freedom out there. But freedom is never just doing whatever we want. Freedom is receiving the Word of God with faith and joy. Freedom is the ability to do what we were made for. Freedom is the opportunity to lay our lives down for others. If Moses had looked back in faith, he ought to have seen how God had been preparing him to obey. Just as He always does.
In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Amen!
Not really. But, I added a Wodehouse quote generator at the bottom of the page, and here is the best explanation of God not killing someone(?) cause Moses' wife circumcised her son and threw(?) the foreskin at someone else(?) that I've yet seen. Courtesy of my pastor Toby Sumpter at Having Two Legs.
Blessings, and enjoy.
Seventh Sunday in Trinity: Exodus 4:1-31
Opening Prayer: Almighty and gracious Lord, we humble ourselves before you now and ask that you would deal with us. We thank you that you do not deal with us only where we should have been, but you come and meet us where we are. Empower your word and remake us. And as we are humbled before your word, lift us up and exalt us and free us to serve You. Through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen!
Introduction
Who are you? Who are you to pray, to decide, to plan? Your identity is bound up with the God who sends you, the God who is with you (Mt. 28:18-20). And it is not humility to doubt this. True humility believes and obeys.
The Signs for the Elders
Both of the first two signs have to do with healing and making useful. The serpent is the same word for serpent in Genesis 3 suggesting that Moses will lead the people to reverse the dominion of the serpent (“dragon” in 7:9ff). Remember, that Pharaoh is a “seed of the serpent” at war with the “seed of the woman” who is being “fruitful and multiplying.” Notice also that both signs have to do with the hand. The hand of man is his tool for work, the most basic technology. The rod of course is an extension of a man’s hand, a tool for shepherding sheep. As we noted with the burning bush, these signs are probably also meant to picture something fundamental about Israel and her situation in Egypt. Under Joseph, Israel had exerted great influence for the blessing of Egypt. Israel, under Joseph’s leadership had been a “helping hand” and a “shepherd” for Egypt and even all the nations around them. But Israel has fallen from this high calling. Leprosy will always have strong associations with Egypt as a plague (Num. 14:3, 37, Lev. 13-14). The final sign shows how God is going to accomplish his work. Through Moses, not only is God going to tame the serpent-Pharaoh and heal the uncleanness of his people, but Yahweh will also do battle with the gods of Egypt. The Nile was the most important source of life in ancient Egypt and one of their principle gods. But God rules creation, and Moses will pour out the Nile on the ground and instead of being fruitful and giving life it will turn to blood and death. Remember, it has already been a source of death to the Hebrew baby boys. The Nile god has killed the sons of Israel. Idolatry is death.
Moses and Aaron
Moses is a little more than reluctant to take up God’s call on his life. This is somewhat understandable given how his leadership was taken 40 years ago (2:14), but Moses’ persistent reluctance is not excusable (4:14). He has gone from asking “why me?” (3:11) to “what is your name?” (3:13) to “what if they don’t believe me?” (4:1) to “I’m not a good public speaker” (4:10) and now finally “send someone else, please” (4:13). This passage could also be described as a battle of the “I’s.” The Hebrew first person pronoun for “I” is used repeatedly back and forth between Moses and God (3:6, 11, 12, 13, 4:10, 11, 12, 15, 23). While this is not particularly strange, it seems significant given the name God has given himself of “I AM” (3:14). Moses may have any number of excuses for being reluctant, but the fact is that God doesn’t care. God is the God of our fathers, the God who rules nature, the God who is with our words, and the God who is determined to accomplish his purposes. We are not sufficient of ourselves, but we are not by ourselves. “I AM” is with us and with our mouths (4:12, 15). Finally, God allows Moses to share the task with Aaron, but this concession is not a relenting of God’s purposes.
Proleptic Passover
After asking for Jethro’s blessing to leave, God speaks to Moses once more and makes even more explicit his interest in his people. Israel is his son, and he will take Pharaoh’s son if he does not let His son go to serve Him (4:22-23). This is to be a battle between fathers. Yahweh is jealous for the service of his son, and Pharaoh is effectively a kidnapper. Then, on the way into the land, Yahweh comes to kill Moses’s son (4:24). We know it is his son because it is the circumcision of his son that turns away God’s wrath (4:26). This is a somewhat mysterious event, but given the context we should be able see what God intends to teach Moses here. Evidently, Moses’ son had not been circumcised. Circumcision is the sign of God’s covenant promises. This display of blood reminded God of his promise to Abraham to be his God and make him into a nation (Gen. 15). Here, Zipporah circumcises her son and touches it to her son’s legs (4:15). Many translations do not get this right. The point is that Zipporah is displaying the blood of the circumcision to turn away the “angel of death.” She calls him a “bridegroom of blood” reminding us that the covenant is a marriage to God and His people. This is yet another preview of the Exodus in the life of Moses.
Conclusion & Application
Moses and Aaron call the elders of the people together. Aaron speaks and Moses performs the signs (4:30), and the response of the elders is worship (4:31). This is the driving motivation for bringing the Israelites out in the first place (3:18). Of course God knows (and Pharaoh knows) that the freedom to worship would turn into freedom in life. Worship drives culture and society. We’ve previously noted that the Israelites had fallen into idolatry in Egypt (Josh. 24:14). Liturgical idolatry is slavery and leads to a slave culture.
We are called to worship God faithfully and in faith; this is the single most important thing that we do. But this worship is not unrelated to the rest of our lives. Freedom here necessarily creates freedom out there. But freedom is never just doing whatever we want. Freedom is receiving the Word of God with faith and joy. Freedom is the ability to do what we were made for. Freedom is the opportunity to lay our lives down for others. If Moses had looked back in faith, he ought to have seen how God had been preparing him to obey. Just as He always does.
In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Amen!
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Unity Joke
Thanks to Toby Sumpter.
A man is walking down a bridge and sees another man standing on the railing. Naturally, he yells over "What are you doing?"
"I just can't take it anymore. I'm going to jump."
"Don't you believe in God?"
"Yes, but it's just not enough anymore."
"Are you Catholic?"
"Protestant."
"Me too! Reformed or Arminian?"
"Reformed."
"Me too! Presbyterian? Reformed Baptist?"
"Presbyterian."
"Me too! Amillenial, Postmillenial, or Premillenial?"
"Post."
"I am too! Weekly communion?"
"Yeah."
"This is amazing! Robes or no robes?"
"No robes."
"Jump already, you stupid heretic!"
You can only be so unified.
A man is walking down a bridge and sees another man standing on the railing. Naturally, he yells over "What are you doing?"
"I just can't take it anymore. I'm going to jump."
"Don't you believe in God?"
"Yes, but it's just not enough anymore."
"Are you Catholic?"
"Protestant."
"Me too! Reformed or Arminian?"
"Reformed."
"Me too! Presbyterian? Reformed Baptist?"
"Presbyterian."
"Me too! Amillenial, Postmillenial, or Premillenial?"
"Post."
"I am too! Weekly communion?"
"Yeah."
"This is amazing! Robes or no robes?"
"No robes."
"Jump already, you stupid heretic!"
You can only be so unified.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Courting Employment
I am officially hired as a night EVS worker at the hospital as well as a cabinet-maker during the day, and I've got enough yard work lined up to live off of, so all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well, to quote the Mystic and not the infinitely superior Modern. Ten points to anyone who names the two authors referred to.
And now for sleep, that opiate of the soul...
Blessings,
JB
Zechariah and Esther
This is a theory I've been working on. I'm hesitant to publicly declare it, so I decided to hide it safely away where none may find it.
It started when I was trying to figure out the significance of different types of trees in Scripture. I finally decided to just pick one type and try to track it, seeing if there are any patterns, etc, and the type I picked was myrtle. Initial results were rather scattered, but a fact that interested me was that the Hebrew for myrtle was also a name: Hadassah.
Then, ages passed, things that should never have been forgotten were eternally lost (like my keys), Gollum picked up a ring and I read Zechariah about three weeks after reading Esther: whose name in Hebrew is of course Hadassah.
Now, a great deal of my theory is dependent upon the dates for these two books, so let it be said from the outset that I believe Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther to have been contemporaries, and I think they were shortly preceded by Zechariah. I won't be defending that here; have fun tracking it down if you want.
My theory in brief: the events described in Esther were a fulfillment of the prophecies of Zechariah 2:6-13.
The ramifications of this (so far as an interpretation of Zechariah is concerned) aren't really all that great, but are kind of interesting. First, Zechariah and Ezekiel are strongly linked (Ezekiel 36's new covenant and Zechariah 3's High Priest is one of the more obvious correlations), so if this link is carried forward, it would quite possibly link the armies of Gog and Magog to the Agogite (from the Amalekites) son of Esau, Haman (see Ezekiel 39:11: Hamon-Gog and Haman are obviously very similar linguistically). Second, the "wall of fire" that the Lord will be around Israel in Zechariah 2:5 is exemplified by an arrogant, pragmatic pagan ruler.
There is more there, but I need to buttress the theory before I build it any higher.
Blessings,
JB
It started when I was trying to figure out the significance of different types of trees in Scripture. I finally decided to just pick one type and try to track it, seeing if there are any patterns, etc, and the type I picked was myrtle. Initial results were rather scattered, but a fact that interested me was that the Hebrew for myrtle was also a name: Hadassah.
Then, ages passed, things that should never have been forgotten were eternally lost (like my keys), Gollum picked up a ring and I read Zechariah about three weeks after reading Esther: whose name in Hebrew is of course Hadassah.
Now, a great deal of my theory is dependent upon the dates for these two books, so let it be said from the outset that I believe Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther to have been contemporaries, and I think they were shortly preceded by Zechariah. I won't be defending that here; have fun tracking it down if you want.
My theory in brief: the events described in Esther were a fulfillment of the prophecies of Zechariah 2:6-13.
The ramifications of this (so far as an interpretation of Zechariah is concerned) aren't really all that great, but are kind of interesting. First, Zechariah and Ezekiel are strongly linked (Ezekiel 36's new covenant and Zechariah 3's High Priest is one of the more obvious correlations), so if this link is carried forward, it would quite possibly link the armies of Gog and Magog to the Agogite (from the Amalekites) son of Esau, Haman (see Ezekiel 39:11: Hamon-Gog and Haman are obviously very similar linguistically). Second, the "wall of fire" that the Lord will be around Israel in Zechariah 2:5 is exemplified by an arrogant, pragmatic pagan ruler.
There is more there, but I need to buttress the theory before I build it any higher.
Blessings,
JB
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Defensio
I finally realized, while listening to mind-numbing lectures on every possible hospital procedure, that Goodreads has a "Blog your review" option. So, uh... Yeah. Sorry about that.
No, You are On Jesse's Blog
Yes, I am reviewing Twilight.
Twilight by Stephenie Meyer
My rating: 1 of 5 stars
I read this series in four days, and am still regretting having listened to all those whiny teenyboppers. Poor prose, but readable, poor plot, poor characters, and more than just kinda stupid. I think my pastor described them as something along the lines of "cartoonish porn for the woman's emotions" and that's not a bad way of putting it.
Theoretically, the whole vampire thing started out with syphilis: the virginal girl destroyed by her deadly yet seductive lover, which is another reason that absentee fathers should prescribe these to their twleve year olds. Well, at least the public school system is protecting otherwise defenseless children by promoting illiteracy: go government.
View all my reviews >>
Twilight by Stephenie MeyerMy rating: 1 of 5 stars
I read this series in four days, and am still regretting having listened to all those whiny teenyboppers. Poor prose, but readable, poor plot, poor characters, and more than just kinda stupid. I think my pastor described them as something along the lines of "cartoonish porn for the woman's emotions" and that's not a bad way of putting it.
Theoretically, the whole vampire thing started out with syphilis: the virginal girl destroyed by her deadly yet seductive lover, which is another reason that absentee fathers should prescribe these to their twleve year olds. Well, at least the public school system is protecting otherwise defenseless children by promoting illiteracy: go government.
View all my reviews >>
Book 2 of Infinity
New Moon by Stephenie MeyerMy rating: 1 of 5 stars
In this book, she's depressed, and nothing happens, then she rides a motorcycle and Jake gets a growth spurt, and it ends. Oh, and Jake's a werewolf, if you hadn't figured that out by page ten of the first book. Hadn't thought it could be more boring than the first. I was so very wrong.
View all my reviews >>
And She's Still Being Published?
Eclipse by Stephenie MeyerMy rating: 1 of 5 stars
I'm not going to bother reviewing these any more.
View all my reviews >>
Finis, Satis, Nimis: So She Writes A Sequel
Breaking Dawn by Stephenie MeyerMy rating: 2 of 5 stars
At least this one had an almost fight scene.
View all my reviews >>
N. D. Wilson's Past Misdemeanors
Right Behind: A Parody of Last Days Goofiness by N.D. WilsonMy rating: 4 of 5 stars
Oh wow. This was one of the most delightfully hilarious books I've ever read. Written by a postmillenial author (who is an astonishing author as well as my rhetoric teacher) in response to the Left Behind series, and it is amazing. He makes fun of the prose:
"Buff sat by his window in business class and watched the sun come up like a single tooth in a bleeding gum."
He makes fun of the inherent gnosticism:
"Then he has finally turned his back on this world of matter and all things evil. He has jumped right out of the corruption that matter entails... He has reached the enlightened world of Forms where there is no jewelry but spiritual jewels, where dentures cannot go, where everyone is naked. He has been raptured..."
And he had way too much fun writing it (unless it was his co-author, Mr. Sock, the "renown prophecy expert...who for the last four decades has been carefully predicting the beginning of the apocalypse as always within the next four years. Sadly, Mrs. Sock was never seen after a tragic washing-machine journey in 1988...")
"'Haddie (the Whore of Babylon) was enthralled. This man had ideas.'
'Ninety-two percent of each of your country's arms will be destroyed. The other eight percent will be given to me personally. The keys to all the tanks and jeeps will be mailed to the following address...
'Lastly for now, the headquarters of the United Nations is no longer in New York. The entire building, and even the delegates, shall in one week be moved to the city of Babylon. It is currently only a Kurdish trailer court, but I think if we move there, others will follow.
'I would once again like to thank you for choosing me as your Antichrist. I will do...'
Haddie's phone rang.
'Hello?' Haddie said.
'Haddie. This is Buff. Do you still wanna warm the bed of the Antichrist?'
'Absolutely!'
'Did you see him on TV?'
'Yes. Isn't he gorgeous?'
'He looks like a small carpet salesman, but that's your call... He'll be at the Manhattan Comfort Inn for another week... Haddie, he's an evil man.'
'Yes, but so cute.'
'Haddie, he asked me if you wear scarlet.'
'I love scarlet, especilly if he does.'
'Haddie, the man laughed and said, "The smoke from her goes up forever." '
'You know that I smoke.'
'Haddie, he wants to make you the Whore of Babylon.'
'I'm no prude.'
'He wants you to live in a trailer court with him.'
'I'll talk to him about that one, but I'm sure that it's a mere stepping stone...' "
It's just great.
View all my reviews >>
R. L. Dabney
Evangelical Eloquence: A Course of Lectures of Preaching by Robert Lewis DabneyMy rating: 3 of 5 stars
So far it is enjoyable, if a bit dry. Nothing really remarkable prose-wise, but content has a few notable issues.
First, his classification of oration is somewhat odd--it doesn't include poetry or anything that we would consider "just for fun." "The immediate end of eloquence is to produce in the hearer some practical volition."--page 30. "The end, I repeat, of every oration is to make men do."--page 34 But, if you just insert "sermon" for each "oration," it works out pretty well.
Second, he doesn't (and this surprised me, considering his uncompromising nature) consider it appropriate for a sermon to alienate. I understand this as a general rule, and I'm sure he just doesn't qualify it, or maybe I just haven't reached the qualification yet. Whatever. Just keep that in mind.
Third, and this was the big one for me, is that when speaking of the Sabbath, he seems to do what we all too often do--separate the week into secular and spiritual (page 42). The week is not ours with the Lord's Day being God's. The week is God's, and the Lord's Day is for us to renew the covenant that we broke over the week, and then start serving God in a new week. This is something that he lived correctly, but apparently taught wrongly, as it wasn't a big concern for his day. It is for ours.
Fourth, and this was an ouch, he seems to think that humans are rational, which we generally aren't: "How shall the heart be reached, except through the head?"--53. Generally, we should ask, "How shall the head be reached, except the defenses of the heart be superseded?" We don't use logos to affect a change in pathos, but vice versa.
However, it has so far been excellent, with a great wealth of invaluable teaching.
View all my reviews >>
Potter: Hallows
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J.K. RowlingMy rating: 4 of 5 stars
Best of the Potter books by far. It does show that there is no such thing as pure evil, only good twisted beyond repair. Requires three pages of a review or none at all, and since I'm lazy, guess which one you're going to get.
The most annoying things about it are 1. We never really get to know the main character's wife: she's still a throwaway character, and 2. Why on earth doesn't she give the Defense Against the Dark Arts position to Harry? Oh well.
View all my reviews >>
Melville
Moby Dick by Herman MelvilleMy rating: 3 of 5 stars
Tweakeresquely garrulous--how many tiles on the roof of that house two doors down? Let me tell you!
Great story, kinda skim the book.
View all my reviews >>
Wilde
The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde by Oscar WildeMy rating: 4 of 5 stars
Wilde's poetry leaves a good deal to be desired, but is generally enjoyable and occasionally profound.
View all my reviews >>
More Books
Rebecca's Daughters by Dylan ThomasMy rating: 4 of 5 stars
Just great fun.
"You wouldn't say 'Bo' to a goose!" "Of course I wouldn't. What an absurd thing to say to a goose."
"And now, gentlemen, like your manners, I must leave you."
"After that night he spent tied up in a ditch..."
"A very distressing night for Sir Henry."
"Yes, very. And it wasn't even a ditch he knew."
View all my reviews >>
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Two Books
Point of Impact
Stephen Hunter
This is the book that the sermon called Shooter, starring Marky Mark of the Funky Bunch was taken from. Of course the book is better, but more than that, the book isn't bad at all. A lot of fun, and a one-two day read for sure (about a five hour read).
The Most Brilliant Thoughts of All Time (In Two Lines or Less)
by John M. Shanahan (hooked on phonics fame)
The author is arrogant, repetitive, and careless in his citations (he attributes a quote from Ovid's Amores to Cato and enters the same quotes in multiple locations throughout the book). He apparently never thought anyone would read it cover to cover, and I wish he'd been right.
Just a tip: if you're writing a book called "The Most Brilliant Thoughts of All Time," you probably shouldn't quote yourself, and you really shouldn't quote yourself twelve times, but if you're going to quote yourself twelve times, you should really make sure that they're all new quotes: not ten quotes with two repetitions. And seriously: how do you quote yourself more than Chesterton, Bierce and Shaw combined? Ouch.
Stephen Hunter
This is the book that the sermon called Shooter, starring Marky Mark of the Funky Bunch was taken from. Of course the book is better, but more than that, the book isn't bad at all. A lot of fun, and a one-two day read for sure (about a five hour read).
The Most Brilliant Thoughts of All Time (In Two Lines or Less)
by John M. Shanahan (hooked on phonics fame)
The author is arrogant, repetitive, and careless in his citations (he attributes a quote from Ovid's Amores to Cato and enters the same quotes in multiple locations throughout the book). He apparently never thought anyone would read it cover to cover, and I wish he'd been right.
Just a tip: if you're writing a book called "The Most Brilliant Thoughts of All Time," you probably shouldn't quote yourself, and you really shouldn't quote yourself twelve times, but if you're going to quote yourself twelve times, you should really make sure that they're all new quotes: not ten quotes with two repetitions. And seriously: how do you quote yourself more than Chesterton, Bierce and Shaw combined? Ouch.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Leithart
MOSES' ARK AND BABEL'S TOWER
Exegetica
BY PETER J. LEITHART
SATURDAY, 26 JUNE 2010 05:53
Question from sharp-witted kid: How many animals did Moses take on the ark?
Answer from inattentive adult: Two of each kind.
Alternative answer from inattentive adult who wants to teach the kid something: Two of each unclean animal, and seven of each clean animal.
Punch-line from child: Moses didn’t take any animals on the ark! He didn’t have an ark.
Retort from adult with facility in Hebrew, who doesn’t want to be bested by a kid: Ahh, but he did have an ark, though it’s true he didn’t take any animals on it.
And don’t guess it was the “ark of the covenant,” because it wasn’t.
The Hebrew word for Noah’s “ark” is tevah, and the only other use outside the flood story is in Exodus 2:2-3, where the word is used to describe the “basket” in which Moses floats down the Nile. Moses is a new Noah, the one rescued from water who later rescues Israel through water in the Exodus and bring them rest (cf. Gen. 5:29). Water first appears in the first chapter of Exodus, where Pharaoh decrees that all male Israelite children will be drowned in the Nile (1:22). From the first, then, the waters of Egypt are the waters of death; the Nile is a river of blood long before Yahweh makes this visible in the first plague (7:14-19).
Yet, through the courage of his parents, Moses is delivered from the waters of death, in an ark-like basket, and raised up to have a new life in Pharaoh’s house. Were we unaware that the Nile was the grave of many Israelite boys, the rescue of Moses would be far less significant. As it is, his passage through the death waters is a resurrection, a baptism through death-waters to life. The waters of death turn back on Pharaoh, however. In a poetic application of the lex talionis, Yahweh drowns drowning Pharaoh in the Red Sea (14:28-31). Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, wound for wound, water for water.
When Moses is grown, he kills an Egyptian and flees to Midian, where he defends seven sisters from surly shepherds, and draws water for them (2:16-17). Moses, the one drawn from the water, is also a water-provider. Later, all Israel passes through the water of the Red Sea, and the same Moses who provided water for Jethro’s daughters will provide water for all Israel (17:5). Moses’ experience becomes the model for the experience of all Israel. Finally, the priests are required to wash from the water of the tabernacle laver before they enter the holy place. This is a “cleansing,” but it is, against the background of the water imagery of Exodus, a new exodus, a part of the priestly ascent through the waters to the architectural Sinai that is the tabernacle.
“Water” accumulates significance as the story goes. Initially associated with death, water is overcome by Moses and in the Exodus, and the water of death becomes water of life. By the time we read the end of Exodus, “water” is no longer merely referential, or a one-for-one symbol. It evokes a cluster of prior events, an entire story-line, the entire story of oppression and deliverance. It is no longer a single note, but strikes a chord.
But there’s more. When the men of Babel organize to build a tower reaching to heaven, they decide to use “tar for mortar” (Gen. 11:3; NASB). The Hebrew phrase repeats two different forms of the same root (chmr): The word for “tar” is chemar and the word for “mortar” is chomer, and the word is used elsewhere only in Genesis 14:10 (referring to “tar pits”) and Exodus 2:3 (referring to what was spread on the “ark” made for the baby Moses). Plus, earlier in Genesis, Yahweh instructed Noah to build an ark and to cover it inside and out with “pitch” (Gen. 6:14), using the Hebrew word kofer, related to the verb for “cover.” Like Genesis 11:3, Genesis 6:14 doubles the word: “you shall kafar it inside and out with kofer.”
Though the wording of the two passages is different, the contexts indicate that chemar and kofer are closely related terms. The ark is covered with pitch/asphalt, and the men of Babel use tar/asphalt as mortar in building their tower. The use of chemar in Exodus 2:3 supports this. As we’ve seen, Moses’ “ark” is clearly paralleled to Noah’s yet the word for the “pitch” that covers Moses’ ark is the word used for “tar” in Genesis 11:3. Moses’ ark is described with wording that draws on both the flood story and the Babel story, which not only links these two stories to the story of infant Moses, but confirms that the two other stories are linked as well.
Instead of a simple Moses-Noah parallel, then, we have a third term, the building of the tower of Babel.
These verbal links invite us to see other connections between these three passages, and indicates that the men of Babel see their tower as something of an ark of safety. They build the tower and city out of fear of scattering (11:4), as Noah builds his ark under the threat of the flood. The city and tower are intended to house all the peoples of the world, as Noah’s ark houses the one family that will survive the flood. More broadly, this connection seems reasonable and even obvious: Babel is the perennial symbol of the false church as the ark is historically a symbol of the true church or, as Luther had it in his great baptismal prayer, of Christendom. Genesis thus presents two contrasting building projects for the salvation of the nations and of creation.
All this is background for the ark of Moses. His ark is a reversal of the tower of Babel, for the Israel that Moses rescues through water is the seed of Abraham, the true humanity, which will bring blessing to the nations and will build the city of God and its tower. Through Moses, of the seed of Abraham, the curse of Babel is being reversed and the true gate of God – the tabernacle – will be built.
Exegetica
BY PETER J. LEITHART
SATURDAY, 26 JUNE 2010 05:53
Question from sharp-witted kid: How many animals did Moses take on the ark?
Answer from inattentive adult: Two of each kind.
Alternative answer from inattentive adult who wants to teach the kid something: Two of each unclean animal, and seven of each clean animal.
Punch-line from child: Moses didn’t take any animals on the ark! He didn’t have an ark.
Retort from adult with facility in Hebrew, who doesn’t want to be bested by a kid: Ahh, but he did have an ark, though it’s true he didn’t take any animals on it.
And don’t guess it was the “ark of the covenant,” because it wasn’t.
The Hebrew word for Noah’s “ark” is tevah, and the only other use outside the flood story is in Exodus 2:2-3, where the word is used to describe the “basket” in which Moses floats down the Nile. Moses is a new Noah, the one rescued from water who later rescues Israel through water in the Exodus and bring them rest (cf. Gen. 5:29). Water first appears in the first chapter of Exodus, where Pharaoh decrees that all male Israelite children will be drowned in the Nile (1:22). From the first, then, the waters of Egypt are the waters of death; the Nile is a river of blood long before Yahweh makes this visible in the first plague (7:14-19).
Yet, through the courage of his parents, Moses is delivered from the waters of death, in an ark-like basket, and raised up to have a new life in Pharaoh’s house. Were we unaware that the Nile was the grave of many Israelite boys, the rescue of Moses would be far less significant. As it is, his passage through the death waters is a resurrection, a baptism through death-waters to life. The waters of death turn back on Pharaoh, however. In a poetic application of the lex talionis, Yahweh drowns drowning Pharaoh in the Red Sea (14:28-31). Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, wound for wound, water for water.
When Moses is grown, he kills an Egyptian and flees to Midian, where he defends seven sisters from surly shepherds, and draws water for them (2:16-17). Moses, the one drawn from the water, is also a water-provider. Later, all Israel passes through the water of the Red Sea, and the same Moses who provided water for Jethro’s daughters will provide water for all Israel (17:5). Moses’ experience becomes the model for the experience of all Israel. Finally, the priests are required to wash from the water of the tabernacle laver before they enter the holy place. This is a “cleansing,” but it is, against the background of the water imagery of Exodus, a new exodus, a part of the priestly ascent through the waters to the architectural Sinai that is the tabernacle.
“Water” accumulates significance as the story goes. Initially associated with death, water is overcome by Moses and in the Exodus, and the water of death becomes water of life. By the time we read the end of Exodus, “water” is no longer merely referential, or a one-for-one symbol. It evokes a cluster of prior events, an entire story-line, the entire story of oppression and deliverance. It is no longer a single note, but strikes a chord.
But there’s more. When the men of Babel organize to build a tower reaching to heaven, they decide to use “tar for mortar” (Gen. 11:3; NASB). The Hebrew phrase repeats two different forms of the same root (chmr): The word for “tar” is chemar and the word for “mortar” is chomer, and the word is used elsewhere only in Genesis 14:10 (referring to “tar pits”) and Exodus 2:3 (referring to what was spread on the “ark” made for the baby Moses). Plus, earlier in Genesis, Yahweh instructed Noah to build an ark and to cover it inside and out with “pitch” (Gen. 6:14), using the Hebrew word kofer, related to the verb for “cover.” Like Genesis 11:3, Genesis 6:14 doubles the word: “you shall kafar it inside and out with kofer.”
Though the wording of the two passages is different, the contexts indicate that chemar and kofer are closely related terms. The ark is covered with pitch/asphalt, and the men of Babel use tar/asphalt as mortar in building their tower. The use of chemar in Exodus 2:3 supports this. As we’ve seen, Moses’ “ark” is clearly paralleled to Noah’s yet the word for the “pitch” that covers Moses’ ark is the word used for “tar” in Genesis 11:3. Moses’ ark is described with wording that draws on both the flood story and the Babel story, which not only links these two stories to the story of infant Moses, but confirms that the two other stories are linked as well.
Instead of a simple Moses-Noah parallel, then, we have a third term, the building of the tower of Babel.
These verbal links invite us to see other connections between these three passages, and indicates that the men of Babel see their tower as something of an ark of safety. They build the tower and city out of fear of scattering (11:4), as Noah builds his ark under the threat of the flood. The city and tower are intended to house all the peoples of the world, as Noah’s ark houses the one family that will survive the flood. More broadly, this connection seems reasonable and even obvious: Babel is the perennial symbol of the false church as the ark is historically a symbol of the true church or, as Luther had it in his great baptismal prayer, of Christendom. Genesis thus presents two contrasting building projects for the salvation of the nations and of creation.
All this is background for the ark of Moses. His ark is a reversal of the tower of Babel, for the Israel that Moses rescues through water is the seed of Abraham, the true humanity, which will bring blessing to the nations and will build the city of God and its tower. Through Moses, of the seed of Abraham, the curse of Babel is being reversed and the true gate of God – the tabernacle – will be built.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
A Song of Lewes
Any of you that have read Sharon Kay Penman may enjoy this: I squeaked when de Montfort was mentioned. Odd looks abounded all round.
A Song of Lewes
Sit still now and hearken to me!
The King of Allemagne, by my loyalty,
Thirty thousand pounds asked he
For to make peace in the country,
And so he did more.
Richard, though thou be ever trichard,
Trick shalt thou nevermore!
Richard of Allemagne, while he was king,
He spent all his treasure upon swyving.
He gets himself not from Wallingford a farthing;
Let him have as he brew, sorrow to drink,
In spite of Windsor.
Richard, though thou be ever trichard,
Trick shalt thou nevermore!
The King of Allemagne thought to do well;
He seized upon the mill for a castle.
With their sharp swords they ground the mill;
He thought the sails were mangonel
To help Windsor.
Richard, though thou be ever trichard,
Trick shalt thou nevermore!
The King of Allemagne gathered his host,
Made him a castle of a mill post;
Puffed by his pride and by his great boast,
Brought from Allemagne many a sorry ghost
To store Windsor.
Richard, though thou be ever trichard,
Trick shalt thou nevermore!
By God that is above us, he did much sin
That let pass over sea the Earl of Warenne;
He has robbed England, the moor and the fen,
The gold and the silver, and taken them then
For love of Windsor.
Richard, though thou be ever trichard,
Trick shalt thou nevermore!
Sir Simon de Montfort has sworn by his chin,
If he had here now the earl of Warenne,
He should never more come to his inn,
Nor with shield, nor with spear, nor other engine,
Come to aid Windsor.
Richard, though thou be ever trichard,
Trick shalt thou nevermore!
Sir Simon de Montfort has sworn by his top,
Had he now here Sir Hugh de Bigot,
He'd pay him back his twelve-month scot
So he'd never more cast in his lot
To help Windsor.
Richard, though thou be ever trichard,
Trick shalt thou nevermore!
Be thee lief, be thee loth, Sir Edward,
Thou shalt ride spurless on thy lyard
All the right way to Doverward;
Shalt thou nevermore break forward,
And that reweth sore.
Edward thou didst as a shreward,
Left thine uncle's lore.
Richard, though thou be ever trichard,
Trick shalt thou nevermore!
A Song of Lewes
Sit still now and hearken to me!
The King of Allemagne, by my loyalty,
Thirty thousand pounds asked he
For to make peace in the country,
And so he did more.
Richard, though thou be ever trichard,
Trick shalt thou nevermore!
Richard of Allemagne, while he was king,
He spent all his treasure upon swyving.
He gets himself not from Wallingford a farthing;
Let him have as he brew, sorrow to drink,
In spite of Windsor.
Richard, though thou be ever trichard,
Trick shalt thou nevermore!
The King of Allemagne thought to do well;
He seized upon the mill for a castle.
With their sharp swords they ground the mill;
He thought the sails were mangonel
To help Windsor.
Richard, though thou be ever trichard,
Trick shalt thou nevermore!
The King of Allemagne gathered his host,
Made him a castle of a mill post;
Puffed by his pride and by his great boast,
Brought from Allemagne many a sorry ghost
To store Windsor.
Richard, though thou be ever trichard,
Trick shalt thou nevermore!
By God that is above us, he did much sin
That let pass over sea the Earl of Warenne;
He has robbed England, the moor and the fen,
The gold and the silver, and taken them then
For love of Windsor.
Richard, though thou be ever trichard,
Trick shalt thou nevermore!
Sir Simon de Montfort has sworn by his chin,
If he had here now the earl of Warenne,
He should never more come to his inn,
Nor with shield, nor with spear, nor other engine,
Come to aid Windsor.
Richard, though thou be ever trichard,
Trick shalt thou nevermore!
Sir Simon de Montfort has sworn by his top,
Had he now here Sir Hugh de Bigot,
He'd pay him back his twelve-month scot
So he'd never more cast in his lot
To help Windsor.
Richard, though thou be ever trichard,
Trick shalt thou nevermore!
Be thee lief, be thee loth, Sir Edward,
Thou shalt ride spurless on thy lyard
All the right way to Doverward;
Shalt thou nevermore break forward,
And that reweth sore.
Edward thou didst as a shreward,
Left thine uncle's lore.
Richard, though thou be ever trichard,
Trick shalt thou nevermore!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
