In her book The Harvester, Gene Stratton-Porter describes two characters who love each other, but refuse to marry until they are convinced that their love is not based merely on something the other has done, but only on who the other person is. This is presented as a noble ideal, but one that is surprisingly difficult to attain, for they have many reasons to love each other. She is beautiful and gracious, he is ruddy and handsome. He hurts her devastatingly yet accidentally, and she forgives him once he realizes it and makes reparations. She falls into a desperate state, and he rescues her and exalts above her highest dreams. They share many trials and triumphs. They love each other. But they ask themselves whether their love is pure, untarnished by material circumstances, or whether, things be different, they would have cared for each other. The book finally ends with an unconvincing 'we do'.
This ideal appears in many forms in popular culture. True love, love at first sight, affinities, the one;-all are names for a love which supposedly has no material reason except for fate. To value someone, even initially, for their material advantages, is looked down upon (Pride and Prejudice). And this applies to more situations than just love: geniuses and infant prodigies are esteemed for their natural gifts, not for their efforts. Those with the inner potential , but not the circumstances, to perform heroic acts or create great works are lamented more than the great and successful are lauded. There is something in our culture (at least) which values charity or chivalry–the idea that weaker a thing is the more it should be respected, or that force is always wrong. Let things run their course, get back to the state of nature. God forbid anyone admit an initial bias or (gasp) prejudice.
This makes its strongest appearance in our worship of freedom, independence, sovereignty, free will. What everyone wants most is to be their own master, to be able to make decisions independent of any outside influence:—that is, personal sovereignty. All significant decisions must be credited to one's free will, meaning we would have made that decision even had we no inducement in that direction. To suggest that anything can influence, direct, harden, or cleanse our wills is counted blasphemy against the god of self. Even for those few who exalt God's sovereignty over their own do so in order to protect God's freedom of will–the idea that he cannot be made to do something by his creatures. They say God must act out of his inner nature or he is not God. But to act without cause is to act without reason. How can this be an attribute of God, let alone man? Some ask, what if God had been bad instead of good? How would that make a difference? How could we even tell? Do we value what is instinctive because it is right, or do we value what is good because it is natural? Seemingly, we believe that they are necessarily the same.
I begin to ask, where does this fetish come from? Is it normal? Is it right? And already I am sucked into the same value system I am trying to question. What does it matter whether I was born with this prejudice or whether I was indoctrinated by my culture? And how can I answer that when my answer depends on the influence of personal prejudice or culture? Does this question even make sense? (Not a rhetorical question!) Does my inability to communicate it mean that it is not a material question, or is this again a misguided cultural bias? (Rhetorical again.)
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Idiosyncrasies of Bible Translation
LXX
Greek does not distinguish between the verb forms 'he runs' and he is 'running' but the translator must.
Greek has a 'continuous' verb tense which is translated as '_always_ give us this bread' or 'he loved them _to the end_' or '_keep on_ loving'.
Greek pronouns are always included as a verb suffix, but they are sometimes also added separately. Too-literal translation leads to constructions such as 'the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My Name, He will' = 'he he will'.
Greek words with two or more opposing meanings must be translated according to one or the other, but it is the translators' interpretation as to which. The following English words translate the same Greek word (in NASB):
sir / lord = kurios (this word is also translated Master, but there are other Greek words also translated that)
slave / servant = dulos (also the case with Hebrew eved)
Rabbi is Aramaic for teacher
Hebrew words are more flexible than English. For example, וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֙ (wə·’ā·mar·tā) is translated 'say' or 'tell' depending on whether it is followed by the preposition 'to'.
To be continued....
Greek does not distinguish between the verb forms 'he runs' and he is 'running' but the translator must.
Greek has a 'continuous' verb tense which is translated as '_always_ give us this bread' or 'he loved them _to the end_' or '_keep on_ loving'.
Greek pronouns are always included as a verb suffix, but they are sometimes also added separately. Too-literal translation leads to constructions such as 'the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My Name, He will' = 'he he will'.
Greek words with two or more opposing meanings must be translated according to one or the other, but it is the translators' interpretation as to which. The following English words translate the same Greek word (in NASB):
sir / lord = kurios (this word is also translated Master, but there are other Greek words also translated that)
slave / servant = dulos (also the case with Hebrew eved)
Rabbi is Aramaic for teacher
Hebrew words are more flexible than English. For example, וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֙ (wə·’ā·mar·tā) is translated 'say' or 'tell' depending on whether it is followed by the preposition 'to'.
To be continued....
Saturday, November 17, 2012
The New Blogger Interface
This industry is contracting. Bloggers are getting fewer options to
work with, not more, as time goes on, which might be one reason why
Blogger has become so unresponsive to user concerns - monopolies or near
monopolies can get away with being arrogant and the fewer competitors
remain, the more arrogance the remaining competitors can get away with -
or so goes the theory.
The scenario practically nobody at these companies seems to envisage is the one in which we practically all finally run out of patience, go "to H*** with this", remove our content from their servers, shut off our computers, and go out to enjoy the fresh air, leaving all of the competitors to slowly go bankrupt. I trust we all had lives before the Internet. With all of the time we end up investing in dealing with the willful insanity of the people working for our providers, do our real lives really benefit from this activity, I wonder. At some point, doesn't one end up asking oneself "if I took the time I've spent rebuilding things that some nitwit destroyed, just so he could show the virtual world what a big man he was, and spent that time elsewhere, out in the real world, what could I have achieved with that effort"?
http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/FpGUoP1m21I[201-225]
If this was true about the back-end interface, how much more relevant is it when we lose the front-end: Google Reader?
The scenario practically nobody at these companies seems to envisage is the one in which we practically all finally run out of patience, go "to H*** with this", remove our content from their servers, shut off our computers, and go out to enjoy the fresh air, leaving all of the competitors to slowly go bankrupt. I trust we all had lives before the Internet. With all of the time we end up investing in dealing with the willful insanity of the people working for our providers, do our real lives really benefit from this activity, I wonder. At some point, doesn't one end up asking oneself "if I took the time I've spent rebuilding things that some nitwit destroyed, just so he could show the virtual world what a big man he was, and spent that time elsewhere, out in the real world, what could I have achieved with that effort"?
http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/FpGUoP1m21I[201-225]
If this was true about the back-end interface, how much more relevant is it when we lose the front-end: Google Reader?
Sunday, October 21, 2012
A Man after God's Own Heart
What does it mean to be a man after God's own heart? It our current sermon/Bible study series, people seem to assume that it means an upstanding moral character, with perhaps with a t-shirt reading 'Jesus saves'.
I suppose they're justified:
1 Samuel 13:14 - "kept the Lord's commands"
Acts 13:22 - "did all My will"
Psalm 16:2 - "apart from the Lord I have no good thing"
Psalm 38:9,15 - "Lord, all my desire is in You"
1 Kings 3:6 - "walked before You in truth and righteousness and uprightness of heart"
1 Kings 3:14 - "kept My statutes and commandments"
1 Kings 9:4 - "walked before Me in integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I commanded him"
1 Kings 11:4 - "his heart was wholly devoted to the Lord his God"
But I think a bare moralistic interpretation denigrates God's grace and condescension:
Psalm 32 - "I confessed my sin and you forgave me"
Psalm 51 - "I know my transgressions—create in me a clean heart"
I suppose they're justified:
1 Samuel 13:14 - "kept the Lord's commands"
Acts 13:22 - "did all My will"
Psalm 16:2 - "apart from the Lord I have no good thing"
Psalm 38:9,15 - "Lord, all my desire is in You"
1 Kings 3:6 - "walked before You in truth and righteousness and uprightness of heart"
1 Kings 3:14 - "kept My statutes and commandments"
1 Kings 9:4 - "walked before Me in integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I commanded him"
1 Kings 11:4 - "his heart was wholly devoted to the Lord his God"
But I think a bare moralistic interpretation denigrates God's grace and condescension:
Psalm 32 - "I confessed my sin and you forgave me"
Psalm 51 - "I know my transgressions—create in me a clean heart"
Monday, October 8, 2012
Finrod in Tol-in-Gaurhoth
Finrod in Tol-in-Gaurhoth: the closest an elf ever came to knowing what it feels like to be a man.
Prophets
The Hebrew words נָבָא (chôzeh), רֹאֶה (ro-eh'), נְבִיא (nebı̂y'), and נָבִיא (nâbı̂y') are variously translated as seer or prophet. Apparently the meanings of these words changed and merged over time (1 Samuel 9:9), making context necessary to determine what is meant in each case. Three of them are used as distinct appellations in 1 Chronicles 29:29.
Possible meanings include:
The English word prophet is directly derived from the Greek προφήτης (prophétés), meaning one who reveals or relates God's word or will. When the NT refers to an OT 'prophet', it is generally in the sense of one who foretold or foreshadowed Jesus Christ, but this is not the case for NT prophets.
Προφήτης is also used of the pagan Greek poet Epimenides.
Possible meanings include:
- One who has the ear of God, Genesis 20:7; Amos 3:7.
- The spokesman of God, Exodus 7:1; 1 Kings 22:8.
- One who receives words or visions from God, Numbers 12:6; 2 Kings 6:8-10.
- One who can obtain answers from God, 1 Samuel 9:6; 1 Kings 14:1-5.
- A musician or singer devoted to God, 1 Samuel 10:5; 1 Chronicles 25:1-3.
- One who experiences the Spirit of God in a dramatic way, 1 Samuel 19:23-24; Numbers 11:25.
- One who pretends to do one of the above, 1 Kings 22:10-12; Jeremiah 14:14.
- One who raves and cries out to false gods, 1 Kings 18:29.
The English word prophet is directly derived from the Greek προφήτης (prophétés), meaning one who reveals or relates God's word or will. When the NT refers to an OT 'prophet', it is generally in the sense of one who foretold or foreshadowed Jesus Christ, but this is not the case for NT prophets.
Προφήτης is also used of the pagan Greek poet Epimenides.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Covenants
I find it significant that God always initiates his covenants in a different location than he fulfills them; that is, they always include a command to "Go". This means we are called to leave our current location–that place which is both dangerously comfortable for us and deceptively close to God–the place we were before God called us and the place where he met us.
Thus, Noah is called to steer to a new world; Abraham (or his father) is called to move out of Ur and Haran; Moses is called to leave from Horeb to lead from Egypt; the people of Israel are called to march from Sinai to a new country; etc. Similarly, Elisha is made to leave both his mission field and his homeland to walk 40 days into the wilderness to meet God on 'the mountain of God'. I mean, what's the mountain of God doing in the wilderness anyway? Shouldn't that term refer to Mount Zion?
In the New Testament, the disciples are called to leave their homes and wander the lands, following Jesus, and eventually to transverse the known world seeking his people. If some Christians today find their mission field to be in their hometown, they are still called to plan for a final move to better mansions above. It is as if God wants to emphasize that we can bring absolutely nothing to the bargaining table–nothing we have done, nothing we are, not even any aspect of our current condition, such as location.
Thus, Noah is called to steer to a new world; Abraham (or his father) is called to move out of Ur and Haran; Moses is called to leave from Horeb to lead from Egypt; the people of Israel are called to march from Sinai to a new country; etc. Similarly, Elisha is made to leave both his mission field and his homeland to walk 40 days into the wilderness to meet God on 'the mountain of God'. I mean, what's the mountain of God doing in the wilderness anyway? Shouldn't that term refer to Mount Zion?
In the New Testament, the disciples are called to leave their homes and wander the lands, following Jesus, and eventually to transverse the known world seeking his people. If some Christians today find their mission field to be in their hometown, they are still called to plan for a final move to better mansions above. It is as if God wants to emphasize that we can bring absolutely nothing to the bargaining table–nothing we have done, nothing we are, not even any aspect of our current condition, such as location.
Monday, September 24, 2012
The Decay of Truthing
All the best novels I have read have had one thing in common - they are true, even more true perhaps than what is commonly accepted as 'true history'. What do I mean by this? Not that they are fitting allegories for this world—better that this world is a fitting allegory for them. I mean that the feelings expressed or evoked in them are not particular to them, but our fundamental to my nature, having awaited only such a summons. After all, how do you really know what is history and what is fiction? You take what someone tells you and judge it by comparing it with what other people have told you, and (more importantly) with what your own heart tells you. And these stories resonate within my soul more deeply than many superficially factual histories have done.
From this I derive four doctrines of aesthetics:
1. Good art never focuses on itself, but expresses universal truths.
2. Bad art comes from abstracting art, and elevating it into an ideal.
3. Art imitates Life far more than Life imitates Art.
4. Truthing, the telling of beautiful true things, is the proper aim of Art.
Edit:
After I wrote this I found this quote by Thornton Wilder:
The response we make when we 'believe' a work of the imagination is that of saying: "This is the way things are. I have always known it without being fully aware that I knew it. Now in the presence of this play of novel or poem (or picture or piece of music) I know that I know it." It is this form of knowledge which Plato called 'recollection'. We have all murdered, in thought; and been murdered. We have all seen the ridiculous in estimable persons and in ourselves. We have all know terror as well as enchantment. Imaginative literature has nothing to say to those who to not recognize—who cannot be reminded—of such conditions.
And this by G.K. Chesterton, in Twelve Types:
'Jane Eyre' is perhaps the truest book that was ever written. Its essential truth to life sometimes makes one catch one's breath. For it is not true to manners, which are constantly false, or to facts, which are almost always false; it is true to the only existing thing which is true, emotion, the irreducible minimum.
From this I derive four doctrines of aesthetics:
1. Good art never focuses on itself, but expresses universal truths.
2. Bad art comes from abstracting art, and elevating it into an ideal.
3. Art imitates Life far more than Life imitates Art.
4. Truthing, the telling of beautiful true things, is the proper aim of Art.
Edit:
After I wrote this I found this quote by Thornton Wilder:
The response we make when we 'believe' a work of the imagination is that of saying: "This is the way things are. I have always known it without being fully aware that I knew it. Now in the presence of this play of novel or poem (or picture or piece of music) I know that I know it." It is this form of knowledge which Plato called 'recollection'. We have all murdered, in thought; and been murdered. We have all seen the ridiculous in estimable persons and in ourselves. We have all know terror as well as enchantment. Imaginative literature has nothing to say to those who to not recognize—who cannot be reminded—of such conditions.
And this by G.K. Chesterton, in Twelve Types:
'Jane Eyre' is perhaps the truest book that was ever written. Its essential truth to life sometimes makes one catch one's breath. For it is not true to manners, which are constantly false, or to facts, which are almost always false; it is true to the only existing thing which is true, emotion, the irreducible minimum.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
New York Citiers
New York Citiers are neither rude nor friendly until they notice you; until they are forced to treat you as an individual. Before that, you are just a physical obstacle, with no more person or character than a ball of tumbleweed has to a cowboy in Arizona. That's not inherently a bad thing; in fact it is the only way to keep your sanity in a crowd of n million people. It permits them to brush past you brusquely on the subway, but still be helpful if you ask for directions. It's not ideal (I'm always afraid I'll be rude to someone I know), but it's just not possible here to know all your sheep by name. The problem (an insidious one) is not with how you treat others, but how you treat yourself. By treating others impersonally, you treat yourself that way as well. If a cowboy indifferently bumped into enough tumbleweed, he'd be acting like a ball of tumbleweed himself. So by failing to allow others their individuality, the New York Citier denies it of himself.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Proust Questionnaire
What is your idea of perfect happiness?
What is your greatest fear?
What is the trait you most deplore in yourself?
What is the trait you most deplore in others?
Which living person do you most admire?
What is your greatest extravagance?
What is your current state of mind?
What do you consider the most overrated virtue?
On what occasion do you lie?
What do you most dislike about your appearance?
Which living person do you most despise?
What is the quality you most like in a man?
What is the quality you most like in a woman?
Which words or phrases do you most overuse?
What or who is the greatest love of your life?
When and where were you happiest?
Which talent would you most like to have?
If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?
What do you consider your greatest achievement?
If you were to die and come back as a person or a thing, what would it be?
Where would you most like to live?
What is your most treasured possession?
What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery?
What is your favorite occupation?
What is your most marked characteristic?
What do you most value in your friends?
Who are your favorite writers?
Who is your hero of fiction?
Which historical figure do you most identify with?
Who are your heroes in real life?
What are your favorite names?
What is it that you most dislike?
What is your greatest regret?
How would you like to die?
What is your motto?
What is your greatest fear?
What is the trait you most deplore in yourself?
What is the trait you most deplore in others?
Which living person do you most admire?
What is your greatest extravagance?
What is your current state of mind?
What do you consider the most overrated virtue?
On what occasion do you lie?
What do you most dislike about your appearance?
Which living person do you most despise?
What is the quality you most like in a man?
What is the quality you most like in a woman?
Which words or phrases do you most overuse?
What or who is the greatest love of your life?
When and where were you happiest?
Which talent would you most like to have?
If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?
What do you consider your greatest achievement?
If you were to die and come back as a person or a thing, what would it be?
Where would you most like to live?
What is your most treasured possession?
What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery?
What is your favorite occupation?
What is your most marked characteristic?
What do you most value in your friends?
Who are your favorite writers?
Who is your hero of fiction?
Which historical figure do you most identify with?
Who are your heroes in real life?
What are your favorite names?
What is it that you most dislike?
What is your greatest regret?
How would you like to die?
What is your motto?
Monday, August 20, 2012
Randomness
Many people know how much difficulty we have generating random numbers. Especially in digital applications, great study has been given to the theory of randomness. I mean, Excel gives the exact same random numbers every time! Come on, people. In fact it is theoretically impossible for a closed-box digital system to generate true random numbers, as it must follow some predetermined algorithm based on a known input.
But there are not many good solutions. One that is popular today depends on atmospheric noise. Measurements collected from the air have good statistical properties and are currently impossible to predict, the two prerequisites for random numbers.
But this method actually produces perfectly deterministic numbers, not random ones. It is just that we are not smart enough yet to predict them. I have a solution in mind which, if I am right, is the theoretically one and only possible source of random numbers: human behavior.
Now, I don't mean human minds. Studies have shown that human minds are biased against repeating numbers when picking random numbers. So we pass the unpredictable test, but not the statistical distribution test. I am referring to human actions. If we could find a way to quantify subconscious decisions, we would have a perfect solution for generating randomness.
The reason this works is simple. The implicit assumption of all human behavior (although it is intellectually denied by a few) is that their choices are partially based on something unworldly and are therefore perfectly unpredictable. A corollary assumption is that this is not true for any other living creature. The alternative is insanity.
One example suffices: the stock market. Stock prices are entirely based on human decisions, either directly (by the stock people bidding on the floor) or indirectly (by computer programs). I believe that for the last century, nothing has been the study of a greater amount of intellectual and monetary capital than the stock market. Untold amounts of effort and money has been put into analysis of price histories, looking for trends that can be reliably extrapolated into the future. There has been absolutely no success. By definition any supposed success is immediately accounted for and made ineffectual by the market. All the programmer has to do is ping a stock exchange server for current prices and string together as many decimal places as he needs. And their randomness is guaranteed.
But there are not many good solutions. One that is popular today depends on atmospheric noise. Measurements collected from the air have good statistical properties and are currently impossible to predict, the two prerequisites for random numbers.
But this method actually produces perfectly deterministic numbers, not random ones. It is just that we are not smart enough yet to predict them. I have a solution in mind which, if I am right, is the theoretically one and only possible source of random numbers: human behavior.
Now, I don't mean human minds. Studies have shown that human minds are biased against repeating numbers when picking random numbers. So we pass the unpredictable test, but not the statistical distribution test. I am referring to human actions. If we could find a way to quantify subconscious decisions, we would have a perfect solution for generating randomness.
The reason this works is simple. The implicit assumption of all human behavior (although it is intellectually denied by a few) is that their choices are partially based on something unworldly and are therefore perfectly unpredictable. A corollary assumption is that this is not true for any other living creature. The alternative is insanity.
One example suffices: the stock market. Stock prices are entirely based on human decisions, either directly (by the stock people bidding on the floor) or indirectly (by computer programs). I believe that for the last century, nothing has been the study of a greater amount of intellectual and monetary capital than the stock market. Untold amounts of effort and money has been put into analysis of price histories, looking for trends that can be reliably extrapolated into the future. There has been absolutely no success. By definition any supposed success is immediately accounted for and made ineffectual by the market. All the programmer has to do is ping a stock exchange server for current prices and string together as many decimal places as he needs. And their randomness is guaranteed.
Friday, July 27, 2012
If You Could Go Back in Time
Truth or dare:
Dare: Ask me a really hard question, not a superficial one—one that cuts so deeply you're ashamed to care so much.
Truth: If you could live your life over again, is there anything you would change?
It depends what you mean. If I could change anything I would, then yes, absolutely. I would change every sin I ever committed to an act of kindness, and every act of kindness I ever failed to perform to a act of grace. But it's no use talking about things like that. It has already happened – not the sins; I mean the change: in the eyes of God, all my sins have been forever changed to grace.
Or do you mean if I was to live my life over again, knowing what I do know, would I do anything differently? If I have any memories I would prevent from happening? then I would have to answer no. Given a choice between my life now, with all its problems, and another life, as uncertain as my future is now, I would choose this life. Uncertainty is one of my biggest stumbling blocks, my greatest fears, and I pay almost any price to have certainty. But really, my life has been pretty good so far; there's nothing worth pursuing here.
Do you mean, are there sins in my past which I did not know were sins at the time? things which, with my present knowledge, I would certainly avoid? No, not really. Thanks mostly to my parents, all my sins (that I remember) were fully conscious and willful, insofar as any of my actions were. Were there sins? Countless. But I don't think I have gained any knowledge in life which would have helped me avoid them; just experience. And without a miracle (see above) that's not enough.
But what about any sins in my past which I knew were sins at the time, but did not fully recognize their consequences? In one sense, I have never fully understood the consequences of any of my actions. The myriad pathways of cause and effect are untraceable, even in hindsight. There are certainly some of my sins which have caused more visible hurt than others. [Actually I am more ashamed of the sins which have never come back to haunt me. For I feel (however wrongly) that if I have suffered for a sin, I have to some degree paid for it. But the sins which did not matter to me must have cost another innocent person all the more.] But I don't think that knowledge would have helped me avoid them. Because in another sense, I have always known the possible consequences of my sin: either death for me, or death for Jesus.
There remains one more option, which may be the weightiest. Are there any actions in my past which, considered in themselves, were good, but which coming when they did, were wrong? Yes. Any upright deeds accompanied by wrongful motives? Yes. And it is these that cut me the most. It is these that I would go back and change if I could; that I would spend the rest of my life paying for if I knew how: These things which were genuinely good from my perspective at the time, but which did not take into consideration the good of others.
Dare: Ask me a really hard question, not a superficial one—one that cuts so deeply you're ashamed to care so much.
Truth: If you could live your life over again, is there anything you would change?
It depends what you mean. If I could change anything I would, then yes, absolutely. I would change every sin I ever committed to an act of kindness, and every act of kindness I ever failed to perform to a act of grace. But it's no use talking about things like that. It has already happened – not the sins; I mean the change: in the eyes of God, all my sins have been forever changed to grace.
Or do you mean if I was to live my life over again, knowing what I do know, would I do anything differently? If I have any memories I would prevent from happening? then I would have to answer no. Given a choice between my life now, with all its problems, and another life, as uncertain as my future is now, I would choose this life. Uncertainty is one of my biggest stumbling blocks, my greatest fears, and I pay almost any price to have certainty. But really, my life has been pretty good so far; there's nothing worth pursuing here.
Do you mean, are there sins in my past which I did not know were sins at the time? things which, with my present knowledge, I would certainly avoid? No, not really. Thanks mostly to my parents, all my sins (that I remember) were fully conscious and willful, insofar as any of my actions were. Were there sins? Countless. But I don't think I have gained any knowledge in life which would have helped me avoid them; just experience. And without a miracle (see above) that's not enough.
But what about any sins in my past which I knew were sins at the time, but did not fully recognize their consequences? In one sense, I have never fully understood the consequences of any of my actions. The myriad pathways of cause and effect are untraceable, even in hindsight. There are certainly some of my sins which have caused more visible hurt than others. [Actually I am more ashamed of the sins which have never come back to haunt me. For I feel (however wrongly) that if I have suffered for a sin, I have to some degree paid for it. But the sins which did not matter to me must have cost another innocent person all the more.] But I don't think that knowledge would have helped me avoid them. Because in another sense, I have always known the possible consequences of my sin: either death for me, or death for Jesus.
There remains one more option, which may be the weightiest. Are there any actions in my past which, considered in themselves, were good, but which coming when they did, were wrong? Yes. Any upright deeds accompanied by wrongful motives? Yes. And it is these that cut me the most. It is these that I would go back and change if I could; that I would spend the rest of my life paying for if I knew how: These things which were genuinely good from my perspective at the time, but which did not take into consideration the good of others.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Investing II
I just had an revelation about the stock market. That I will disclose later. But first, let me establish that there are currently two philosophies of investing: in individual stocks, or in the market in general.
To confidently invest in individual stocks, you must know that they will go up more than other stocks. This knowledge can be gained by either information about the company's plans or about the data that those plans are contingent on. Investors who act based on knowledge of the company are call insider traders and are banned in all countries. Thus the only way to invest in individual stocks is based on knowledge which is publicly available.
But stock prices do not represent the current value of their company: they represent the expected value of their company. According to the weak-form market efficiency hypothesis, all publicly available information is already accounted for in the price of the stock. This would mean that every stock price accurately represents its expected value and there is no rational reason to buy one over another. Obviously people do, but on average over time their returns are the same.
But suppose this were false, and obvious general trends and societal influences could be used to determine the futures of individual stocks. What would this mean? It would mean that the average person was not smart enough, motivated enough, or informed enough to take advantage of this generally-available information. Given the number of geniuses and billionaires devoting their entire lives to studying the stock market, do I think I am smart enough to beat them at their own game, at less than 5 minutes per day? Most people would answer yes, but in good conscience I cannot.
People still buy stocks, and they are right to do so. Why? Because stocks, on average, have historically gone up. This is why I currently invest the overall market through index funds.
But I've been thinking; why does the stock market generally go up? It's a generational pyramid scheme! Why do people buy stocks? Because they will go up. Why will they go up? Because more people will want to buy them? Because there will be more people around in the future to want to buy them! We can be sure our kids will want to buy stocks because societal pressures and business/state policies (inflation) effectively force them to invest, at least for retirement funds if not for anything else. But obviously this all falls apart when the US population starts dropping, following that of other countries. The only chance left is to invest in fast-growing countries....
To confidently invest in individual stocks, you must know that they will go up more than other stocks. This knowledge can be gained by either information about the company's plans or about the data that those plans are contingent on. Investors who act based on knowledge of the company are call insider traders and are banned in all countries. Thus the only way to invest in individual stocks is based on knowledge which is publicly available.
But stock prices do not represent the current value of their company: they represent the expected value of their company. According to the weak-form market efficiency hypothesis, all publicly available information is already accounted for in the price of the stock. This would mean that every stock price accurately represents its expected value and there is no rational reason to buy one over another. Obviously people do, but on average over time their returns are the same.
But suppose this were false, and obvious general trends and societal influences could be used to determine the futures of individual stocks. What would this mean? It would mean that the average person was not smart enough, motivated enough, or informed enough to take advantage of this generally-available information. Given the number of geniuses and billionaires devoting their entire lives to studying the stock market, do I think I am smart enough to beat them at their own game, at less than 5 minutes per day? Most people would answer yes, but in good conscience I cannot.
People still buy stocks, and they are right to do so. Why? Because stocks, on average, have historically gone up. This is why I currently invest the overall market through index funds.
But I've been thinking; why does the stock market generally go up? It's a generational pyramid scheme! Why do people buy stocks? Because they will go up. Why will they go up? Because more people will want to buy them? Because there will be more people around in the future to want to buy them! We can be sure our kids will want to buy stocks because societal pressures and business/state policies (inflation) effectively force them to invest, at least for retirement funds if not for anything else. But obviously this all falls apart when the US population starts dropping, following that of other countries. The only chance left is to invest in fast-growing countries....
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Caring for Your Introvert
Do you know someone who needs hours alone every day? Not alone, just in quiet by himself or with a few close friends. Who loves quiet conversations about feelings or ideas, and can give a dynamite presentation to a big audience, but seems awkward in groups and maladroit at small talk? Yes. Who has to be dragged to parties and then needs the rest of the day to recuperate? More or less. Who growls or scowls or grunts or winces when accosted with pleasantries by people who are just trying to be nice? Do I do that?
If so, do you tell this person he is "too serious," or ask if he is okay? Yes, or tell him to smile, etc. Regard him as aloof, arrogant, rude? Yes. Redouble your efforts to draw him out? Yes.
If you answered yes to these questions, chances are that you have an introvert on your hands—and that you aren't caring for him properly. In the first two you are correct, but the third is desirable if handled gently. As the world cannot be made to fit introverts (being the minority), they must learn to fit into it—and they need the extroverts' help. Science has learned a good deal in recent years about the habits and requirements of introverts. It has even learned, by means of brain scans, that introverts process information differently from other people (I am not making this up). If you are behind the curve on this important matter, be reassured that you are not alone. Introverts may be common, but they are also among the most misunderstood and aggrieved groups in America, possibly the world.
I know. My name is Jonathan, and I am an introvert.
Oh, for years I denied it. After all, I have good social skills. I am not morose or misanthropic. Usually. Well I may be. I am far from shy. I'm also shy (when defined as 'wary and distrustful; disposed to fear and avoid other people'), which compounds the problem. I love long conversations that explore intimate thoughts or passionate interests. Yes. But at last I have self-identified and come out to my friends and colleagues. In doing so, I have found myself liberated from any number of damaging misconceptions and stereotypes. Now I am here to tell you what you need to know in order to respond sensitively and supportively to your own introverted family members, friends, and colleagues. Remember, someone you know, respect, and interact with every day is an introvert, and you are probably driving this person nuts. Or at least compounding their problem/difficulties. It pays to learn the warning signs.
What is introversion? In its modern sense, the concept goes back to the 1920s and the psychologist Carl Jung. Today it is a mainstay of personality tests, including the widely used Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Introverts are not necessarily shy. Shy people are anxious or frightened or self-excoriating in social settings; introverts generally are not. Introverts are also not necessarily misanthropic, though some of us do go along with Sartre as far as to say "Hell is other people at breakfast." Funny, but not relevant. Rather, introverts are people who find other people tiring. Here's where we split paths.
Extroverts are energized by people, and wilt or fade when alone. I don't believe this. All the extroverts I know who have studied this definition have become convinced (falsely) that they were introverts. Granted it's a small sample size, but 'energized by' is not the same as 'enjoy'. Constant activity is necessarily physically exhausting, no matter how much you want to continue. Extroverts may last longer, but they crash harder after the party. They often seem bored by themselves, in both senses of the expression. True. How is this related (cause or effect)? Are people with little interest in self-study, contemplation, or introspection naturally attracted to other people, making them extroverts? Or is the extrovert's increased interaction with other people detrimental to his imagination or personality, dulling his capacity for individual thought? (You can tell I despise people who are bored by themselves.) Leave an extrovert alone for two minutes and he will reach for his cell phone. Yes. In contrast, after an hour or two of being socially "on," we introverts need to turn off and recharge. Yes. I haven't experienced multiple-hour intimate conversations to know if they are tiring. My own formula is roughly two hours alone for every hour of socializing. This isn't antisocial. It isn't a sign of depression. It does not call for medication. For introverts, to be alone with our thoughts is as restorative as sleeping, as nourishing as eating. Unless our thoughts are perverted, in which case being alone is unhealthy. Our motto: "I'm okay, you're okay—in small doses."
How many people are introverts? I performed exhaustive research on this question, in the form of a quick Google search. The answer: About 25 percent. Or: Just under half. Or—my favorite—"a minority in the regular population but a majority in the gifted population."
Are introverts misunderstood? Wildly. That, it appears, is our lot in life. "It is very difficult for an extrovert to understand an introvert," write the education experts Jill D. Burruss and Lisa Kaenzig. (They are also the source of the quotation in the previous paragraph.) Extroverts are easy for introverts to understand, because extroverts spend so much of their time working out who they are in voluble, and frequently inescapable, interaction with other people. They are as inscrutable as puppy dogs. No, not easy to understand. Just easy to predict, since their actions are more public and we have more frequent experience with them. Besides the fact that introverts are more likely to study out the thoughts and personalities of others. But the street does not run both ways. Extroverts have little or no grasp of introversion. They assume that company, especially their own, is always welcome. They cannot imagine why someone would need to be alone; indeed, they often take umbrage at the suggestion. As often as I have tried to explain the matter to extroverts, I have never sensed that any of them really understood. They listen for a moment and then go back to barking and yipping. Ouch.
Are introverts oppressed? I would have to say so. For one thing, extroverts are overrepresented in politics, a profession in which only the garrulous are really comfortable. Look at George W. Bush. Look at Bill Clinton. They seem to come fully to life only around other people. To think of the few introverts who did rise to the top in politics—Calvin Coolidge, Richard Nixon—is merely to drive home the point. With the possible exception of Ronald Reagan, whose fabled aloofness and privateness were probably signs of a deep introverted streak (many actors, I've read, are introverts, and many introverts, when socializing, feel like actors), introverts are not considered "naturals" in politics.
Extroverts therefore dominate public life. This is a pity. If we introverts ran the world, it would no doubt be a calmer, saner, more peaceful sort of place. Ha. As Coolidge is supposed to have said, "Don't you know that four fifths of all our troubles in this life would disappear if we would just sit down and keep still?" (He is also supposed to have said, "If you don't say anything, you won't be called on to repeat it." The only thing a true introvert dislikes more than talking about himself is repeating himself.) I don't know. I think that is an unrelated issue. (The problem with this type of personality study is that it assumes that when to traits frequently go together, they must both be present for either of them to be individually genuine. This is completely wrong and makes the study useless. There are thousands of possible character choices, and if you can only give a name to a complete set of them, you are giving that title to a single person—usually yourself.) I may want to talk about myself if I think the other person (note singular) is really interested. Repeating yourself, no. Expanding a previous idea for further consideration, yes.
With their endless appetite for talk and attention, extroverts also dominate social life, so they tend to set expectations. Yes. In our extrovertist society, being outgoing is considered normal and therefore desirable, a mark of happiness, confidence, leadership. And so it is. Extroverts are seen as bighearted, vibrant, warm, empathic. I don't know. I don't think all those adjectives necessarily describe 75% of the US population (the number you said were extroverts). "People person" is a compliment. Yes. Introverts are described with words like "guarded," "loner," "reserved," "taciturn," "self-contained," "private"—narrow, ungenerous words, words that suggest emotional parsimony and smallness of personality. I don't know. Most of those words sound positive to me. Female introverts, I suspect, must suffer especially. Good point. In certain circles, particularly in the Midwest, a man can still sometimes get away with being what they used to call a strong and silent type; introverted women, lacking that alternative, are even more likely than men to be perceived as timid, withdrawn, haughty. Maybe I should move west.
Are introverts arrogant? Hardly. Is this sarcastic? See next sentence. I suppose this common misconception has to do with our being more intelligent, more reflective, more independent, more level-headed, more refined, and more sensitive than extroverts. I typically (not necessarily—see above) am all these, in addition to being inclined to arrogance. Also, it is probably due to our lack of small talk, a lack that extroverts often mistake for disdain. Yes. Although a better word would be coldness or disapproval. We tend to think before talking, whereas extroverts tend to think by talking, which is why their meetings never last less than six hours. "Introverts," writes a perceptive fellow named Thomas P. Crouser, in an online review of a recent book called Why Should Extroverts Make All the Money? (I'm not making that up, either), "are driven to distraction by the semi-internal dialogue extroverts tend to conduct. Introverts don't outwardly complain, instead roll their eyes and silently curse the darkness." Just so.
The worst of it is that extroverts have no idea of the torment they put us through. Sometimes, as we gasp for air amid the fog of their 98-percent-content-free talk, we wonder if extroverts even bother to listen to themselves. Yes. Still, we endure stoically, because the etiquette books—written, no doubt, by extroverts Writing books is a solitary activity and therefore dominated by introverts. But proper etiquette is not determined by etiquette books, it is determined by popular people, social people—extroverts—and blindly recorded by introverts.—regard declining to banter as rude and gaps in conversation as awkward. True. We can only dream that someday, when our condition is more widely understood, when perhaps an Introverts' Rights movement has blossomed and borne fruit, it will not be impolite to say "I'm an introvert. You are a wonderful person and I like you. But now please shush."
How can I let the introvert in my life know that I support him and respect his choice?First, recognize that it's not a choice. It's not a lifestyle. It's an orientation. But it is a choice to allow that orientation to dominate your life, as opposed to learning to thrive in society.
Second, when you see an introvert lost in thought, don't say "What's the matter?" or "Are you all right?" At least not unless you really care and want to get into a long conversation about whatever they were contemplating.
Third, don't say anything else, either. Again, no. Introverts rely on extroverts to draw them into conversation in situations where it is appropriate or will produce desired goals. If no extrovert ever talked to an introverts, they would lead a lonely life.
Introverts want and need quiet time (note I did not say time alone). But when they choose to appear in social gatherings, they want someone to talk to. If no one approaches them, they do not know what to do, resulting in a feeling of helplessness, which only leads to a greater distaste for social gatherings and other people in particular. The second week after I started attending a new church, one of the matrons asked me if I was an introvert or an extrovert. I answered truthfully, introvert, and for the next year I don't believe one of the ladies entered into conversation with me or asked me to do anything. (I think there is always a women's cabal at these churches.) I would have been miserable (and was, but didn't know any better) except some of the men didn't pay any mind to my introversion, and reached out to me.My shyness didn't help, but neither did over-accounting for my introversion.
If so, do you tell this person he is "too serious," or ask if he is okay? Yes, or tell him to smile, etc. Regard him as aloof, arrogant, rude? Yes. Redouble your efforts to draw him out? Yes.
If you answered yes to these questions, chances are that you have an introvert on your hands—and that you aren't caring for him properly. In the first two you are correct, but the third is desirable if handled gently. As the world cannot be made to fit introverts (being the minority), they must learn to fit into it—and they need the extroverts' help. Science has learned a good deal in recent years about the habits and requirements of introverts. It has even learned, by means of brain scans, that introverts process information differently from other people (I am not making this up). If you are behind the curve on this important matter, be reassured that you are not alone. Introverts may be common, but they are also among the most misunderstood and aggrieved groups in America, possibly the world.
I know. My name is Jonathan, and I am an introvert.
Oh, for years I denied it. After all, I have good social skills. I am not morose or misanthropic. Usually. Well I may be. I am far from shy. I'm also shy (when defined as 'wary and distrustful; disposed to fear and avoid other people'), which compounds the problem. I love long conversations that explore intimate thoughts or passionate interests. Yes. But at last I have self-identified and come out to my friends and colleagues. In doing so, I have found myself liberated from any number of damaging misconceptions and stereotypes. Now I am here to tell you what you need to know in order to respond sensitively and supportively to your own introverted family members, friends, and colleagues. Remember, someone you know, respect, and interact with every day is an introvert, and you are probably driving this person nuts. Or at least compounding their problem/difficulties. It pays to learn the warning signs.
What is introversion? In its modern sense, the concept goes back to the 1920s and the psychologist Carl Jung. Today it is a mainstay of personality tests, including the widely used Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Introverts are not necessarily shy. Shy people are anxious or frightened or self-excoriating in social settings; introverts generally are not. Introverts are also not necessarily misanthropic, though some of us do go along with Sartre as far as to say "Hell is other people at breakfast." Funny, but not relevant. Rather, introverts are people who find other people tiring. Here's where we split paths.
Extroverts are energized by people, and wilt or fade when alone. I don't believe this. All the extroverts I know who have studied this definition have become convinced (falsely) that they were introverts. Granted it's a small sample size, but 'energized by' is not the same as 'enjoy'. Constant activity is necessarily physically exhausting, no matter how much you want to continue. Extroverts may last longer, but they crash harder after the party. They often seem bored by themselves, in both senses of the expression. True. How is this related (cause or effect)? Are people with little interest in self-study, contemplation, or introspection naturally attracted to other people, making them extroverts? Or is the extrovert's increased interaction with other people detrimental to his imagination or personality, dulling his capacity for individual thought? (You can tell I despise people who are bored by themselves.) Leave an extrovert alone for two minutes and he will reach for his cell phone. Yes. In contrast, after an hour or two of being socially "on," we introverts need to turn off and recharge. Yes. I haven't experienced multiple-hour intimate conversations to know if they are tiring. My own formula is roughly two hours alone for every hour of socializing. This isn't antisocial. It isn't a sign of depression. It does not call for medication. For introverts, to be alone with our thoughts is as restorative as sleeping, as nourishing as eating. Unless our thoughts are perverted, in which case being alone is unhealthy. Our motto: "I'm okay, you're okay—in small doses."
How many people are introverts? I performed exhaustive research on this question, in the form of a quick Google search. The answer: About 25 percent. Or: Just under half. Or—my favorite—"a minority in the regular population but a majority in the gifted population."
Are introverts misunderstood? Wildly. That, it appears, is our lot in life. "It is very difficult for an extrovert to understand an introvert," write the education experts Jill D. Burruss and Lisa Kaenzig. (They are also the source of the quotation in the previous paragraph.) Extroverts are easy for introverts to understand, because extroverts spend so much of their time working out who they are in voluble, and frequently inescapable, interaction with other people. They are as inscrutable as puppy dogs. No, not easy to understand. Just easy to predict, since their actions are more public and we have more frequent experience with them. Besides the fact that introverts are more likely to study out the thoughts and personalities of others. But the street does not run both ways. Extroverts have little or no grasp of introversion. They assume that company, especially their own, is always welcome. They cannot imagine why someone would need to be alone; indeed, they often take umbrage at the suggestion. As often as I have tried to explain the matter to extroverts, I have never sensed that any of them really understood. They listen for a moment and then go back to barking and yipping. Ouch.
Are introverts oppressed? I would have to say so. For one thing, extroverts are overrepresented in politics, a profession in which only the garrulous are really comfortable. Look at George W. Bush. Look at Bill Clinton. They seem to come fully to life only around other people. To think of the few introverts who did rise to the top in politics—Calvin Coolidge, Richard Nixon—is merely to drive home the point. With the possible exception of Ronald Reagan, whose fabled aloofness and privateness were probably signs of a deep introverted streak (many actors, I've read, are introverts, and many introverts, when socializing, feel like actors), introverts are not considered "naturals" in politics.
Extroverts therefore dominate public life. This is a pity. If we introverts ran the world, it would no doubt be a calmer, saner, more peaceful sort of place. Ha. As Coolidge is supposed to have said, "Don't you know that four fifths of all our troubles in this life would disappear if we would just sit down and keep still?" (He is also supposed to have said, "If you don't say anything, you won't be called on to repeat it." The only thing a true introvert dislikes more than talking about himself is repeating himself.) I don't know. I think that is an unrelated issue. (The problem with this type of personality study is that it assumes that when to traits frequently go together, they must both be present for either of them to be individually genuine. This is completely wrong and makes the study useless. There are thousands of possible character choices, and if you can only give a name to a complete set of them, you are giving that title to a single person—usually yourself.) I may want to talk about myself if I think the other person (note singular) is really interested. Repeating yourself, no. Expanding a previous idea for further consideration, yes.
With their endless appetite for talk and attention, extroverts also dominate social life, so they tend to set expectations. Yes. In our extrovertist society, being outgoing is considered normal and therefore desirable, a mark of happiness, confidence, leadership. And so it is. Extroverts are seen as bighearted, vibrant, warm, empathic. I don't know. I don't think all those adjectives necessarily describe 75% of the US population (the number you said were extroverts). "People person" is a compliment. Yes. Introverts are described with words like "guarded," "loner," "reserved," "taciturn," "self-contained," "private"—narrow, ungenerous words, words that suggest emotional parsimony and smallness of personality. I don't know. Most of those words sound positive to me. Female introverts, I suspect, must suffer especially. Good point. In certain circles, particularly in the Midwest, a man can still sometimes get away with being what they used to call a strong and silent type; introverted women, lacking that alternative, are even more likely than men to be perceived as timid, withdrawn, haughty. Maybe I should move west.
Are introverts arrogant? Hardly. Is this sarcastic? See next sentence. I suppose this common misconception has to do with our being more intelligent, more reflective, more independent, more level-headed, more refined, and more sensitive than extroverts. I typically (not necessarily—see above) am all these, in addition to being inclined to arrogance. Also, it is probably due to our lack of small talk, a lack that extroverts often mistake for disdain. Yes. Although a better word would be coldness or disapproval. We tend to think before talking, whereas extroverts tend to think by talking, which is why their meetings never last less than six hours. "Introverts," writes a perceptive fellow named Thomas P. Crouser, in an online review of a recent book called Why Should Extroverts Make All the Money? (I'm not making that up, either), "are driven to distraction by the semi-internal dialogue extroverts tend to conduct. Introverts don't outwardly complain, instead roll their eyes and silently curse the darkness." Just so.
The worst of it is that extroverts have no idea of the torment they put us through. Sometimes, as we gasp for air amid the fog of their 98-percent-content-free talk, we wonder if extroverts even bother to listen to themselves. Yes. Still, we endure stoically, because the etiquette books—written, no doubt, by extroverts Writing books is a solitary activity and therefore dominated by introverts. But proper etiquette is not determined by etiquette books, it is determined by popular people, social people—extroverts—and blindly recorded by introverts.—regard declining to banter as rude and gaps in conversation as awkward. True. We can only dream that someday, when our condition is more widely understood, when perhaps an Introverts' Rights movement has blossomed and borne fruit, it will not be impolite to say "I'm an introvert. You are a wonderful person and I like you. But now please shush."
How can I let the introvert in my life know that I support him and respect his choice?First, recognize that it's not a choice. It's not a lifestyle. It's an orientation. But it is a choice to allow that orientation to dominate your life, as opposed to learning to thrive in society.
Second, when you see an introvert lost in thought, don't say "What's the matter?" or "Are you all right?" At least not unless you really care and want to get into a long conversation about whatever they were contemplating.
Third, don't say anything else, either. Again, no. Introverts rely on extroverts to draw them into conversation in situations where it is appropriate or will produce desired goals. If no extrovert ever talked to an introverts, they would lead a lonely life.
Introverts want and need quiet time (note I did not say time alone). But when they choose to appear in social gatherings, they want someone to talk to. If no one approaches them, they do not know what to do, resulting in a feeling of helplessness, which only leads to a greater distaste for social gatherings and other people in particular. The second week after I started attending a new church, one of the matrons asked me if I was an introvert or an extrovert. I answered truthfully, introvert, and for the next year I don't believe one of the ladies entered into conversation with me or asked me to do anything. (I think there is always a women's cabal at these churches.) I would have been miserable (and was, but didn't know any better) except some of the men didn't pay any mind to my introversion, and reached out to me.My shyness didn't help, but neither did over-accounting for my introversion.
Monday, February 20, 2012
To Live For
It is precisely because men can live without something that they do live for that thing. Men do not live for food because they cannot live without food; although they may live for delicacies, since the continuation of life does not depend on the consumption of delectable dishes. Men live for pleasures because they can live without them. No one lives for necessities. Necessities are what you die for.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Baptism
Baptism is an important rite of Christianity around the world, and people still instinctively seek baptism as a response to conversion, even as did the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:36. The story of the first great baptizer, John, is well-known, and many evangelists today could trace their heritage to him. But did baptism seem as natural back then as it does now? Why was the cleansing action of baptism the default recourse for John the Baptizer in his efforts to teach repentance? And why did the Jews receive his baptism as a natural mode of response? My reading of John's gospel has raised these and other questions.
First, in John 3:25-26 we see that baptism was related (in the minds of the disciples and of the Jews) to the Jewish custom of purification. "There arose a discussion on the part of John’s disciples with a Jew about purification. And they came to John and said to him, 'Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified, behold, He is baptizing and all are coming to Him.'" Ceremonial purification was a form instituted by God and expanded by the Pharisees into an intricate series of rules. Thus the Jews would have had a specific process in mind when they spoke of purification. Is it possible that they thought of the baptisms of John simply as purifications?
Well, as uncleanliness was a incessant problem for the Jews, they would have been used to purifications occurring at all times and in all places. There would have been no difficulty in the fact that the purifications were performed by untutored men in the wilderness, since the only qualification in the Law seems to have been a state of cleanness on the part of the purifier (Numbers 19:18). And although no particular sins needed to be acknowledged before baptism (Matthew 3:14), this would not have been unusual for a people constantly in transition between cleanness and uncleanness (Job 1:5). In fact, it is likely that by Jesus' day the common people routinely failed to keep up with the washings required, leading to the need for a prophetical call to repentance such as John's.
What is the significance of this? If the Jews thought of baptism simply as a form of purification en masse, how does this influence our view of baptism? It certainly does not preclude its meaning something more to us. For one thing, baptism is once-for-all, while purification had to be performed every time a person became unclean (Numbers 19:20), which is indicative of a significant change in our relationship with God. Nonetheless, the connection between baptism and purification does suggest that we can look to the Old Testament for details on the outward ceremony of baptism. I would go so far as to say that the word 'baptism' likely meant simply 'the washing of purification' to the Jews before the New Testament authors took it and gave it a specific sacramental meaning.
What then did the baptism of the old covenant involve and express? In Numbers 8:7, 19:17-18, and Ezekiel 36:25 water is sprinkled as a means or sign of cleansing and recommitment to God. But the best case study is John 2:1-11, an occasion at the very end of the old covenant. There we see that "the Jewish custom of purification" required water, conveniently stored in 30 gallon drums, and filled from a nearby well. Too small for bathing and too large for sprinkling, these drums were probably used for ritual washings, where a jug would be dipped in and poured out over the hands or feet (Exodus 30:19). But at the wedding in John 2, the water-pots were empty! Symbolically, this suggests that the old traditions were replaced or fulfilled in Jesus. Practically, it means that either the laws of purification were not being observed, or that the many wedding guests had used up the available water. Either way, we see need for a new method, one that cleanses our insides, permanently, and not our outsides merely temporarily.
Does this correspond to the description of baptism under the new covenant? There are ten examples of water baptism in Acts: of Jews in Acts 2:1-41; Samaritans in Acts 8:5-12; Simon in Acts 8:13; an Ethiopian in Acts 8:26-40; Saul in Acts 9:1-18/22:1-16; Cornelius in Acts 10:1-11:18; Lydia in Acts 16:14-15; the jailer in Acts 16:25-34; the Corinthians in Acts 18:8; and the Ephesians in Acts 19:1-7. In each case, baptism is a convert's response in faith to the preaching of the gospel. Water is not always mentioned explicitly, but this is always clearly a physical baptism. The mode is never described, although we can say that in some cases immersion is less probable (the 3,000 Jews, Acts 2:41; the jailer and his family at midnight, Acts 16:33) than in others (the Ethiopian eunuch, Acts 8:36). Sometimes individuals were baptized, and sometimes entire households when the head was converted. These examples leave open the possibility of a lot of variability in the mode of baptism.
To complicate the matter further, the word 'baptism' is used in about fourteen different ways in the Bible: Noahaic baptism (Gen 6:13; 1 Pet 3:20-21); baptism unto Moses (Ex 14:29; 1 Cor 10:2); Israel’s ceremonial cleansings (Num 19:13; Lev 11:25; Ex 19:14; Ex 30:17-21; Heb 9:10); Levitical priesthood baptisms (Ex 29:4; Lev 8:6; Num 8:7); traditional Jewish cleansings (Matt 15:12; Mark 7:19; Luke 11:38); John’s baptism (Matt 3:56; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; John 1:31; Luke 7:29; Acts 10:37); Jesus’ baptism by John (Matt 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-10); baptism with fire (Isa 4:4; Mal 3:2-3; Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16); Jesus’ baptism unto death (Matt 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50); water baptism (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Matt 28:19; Acts 22:16; Ez 36:25); Spirit baptism (Isa 44:3; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 24:49; Acts 2:17-18; Acts 8:15-17; Acts 11:16; Titus 3:5); Gentile baptism (Acts 10:45-48); baptism for the dead (1 Cor 15:29); and baptism into Christ (John 13:8; 1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Gal 3:27; Rom 6:3-4). Obviously all of these cannot be treated as the same physical action. How then can we distinguish them?
The primary distinction should be between the instances when baptism is commanded, and the instances when baptism is described as part of salvation. The baptism that saves us can never be an outward work, but only an appeal to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21). On the other hand, there certainly is a baptism which is commanded in the New Testament. But in those cases it is varyingly coupled with evangelism (Matthew 28:19), repentance (Acts 2:38), and belief (Mark 16:16). Together, these passages definitely teach Christians to be baptized, but they do not clearly teach at what time. On the other hand, the baptism into Christ (1 Cor 12:13; Col 2:12) seems to be a necessary and certain part of salvation, but it is never commanded, but promised to the saved. Finally, there is a baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is neither required of nor guaranteed to Christians, but which is a gift of God as a response to prayer (Acts 2:17-18; Acts 8:15-17).
Most of the fourteen possible usages of 'baptism' above can be fit into one of these three categories. (I say most because I don't know what 'baptism for the dead' even means). Particularly, the physical baptisms described above seem to be a natural part of or response to conversion, as opposed to a necessary step in conversion. In summary, there seems to be a lot we are not told about water baptism. We do not know what it looks like (sprinkling, pouring, or immersion?). We do not know when it is to occur (with hearing, with repentance, or with belief?). We do not know exactly who it is to be performed on (individuals or households?). We do not even know which baptism is that which is commanded by God (although process of elimination suggests it is water baptism). We can make deductions and persuasive arguments for each of these, but we must not miss the main point:
We are to be baptized in Jesus' name because Jesus was baptized for us. He did not require cleansing from sin; he did not deserve the punishment of death. But he underwent it because we did require it, and we faced inevitable death as a consequence. He did it all for us ahead of time. Each of our sins was washed away in his blood, and in his death our deadliness died. 3"Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life ... and no longer be slaves to sin (Romans 6:3-4, 6)."
First, in John 3:25-26 we see that baptism was related (in the minds of the disciples and of the Jews) to the Jewish custom of purification. "There arose a discussion on the part of John’s disciples with a Jew about purification. And they came to John and said to him, 'Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified, behold, He is baptizing and all are coming to Him.'" Ceremonial purification was a form instituted by God and expanded by the Pharisees into an intricate series of rules. Thus the Jews would have had a specific process in mind when they spoke of purification. Is it possible that they thought of the baptisms of John simply as purifications?
Well, as uncleanliness was a incessant problem for the Jews, they would have been used to purifications occurring at all times and in all places. There would have been no difficulty in the fact that the purifications were performed by untutored men in the wilderness, since the only qualification in the Law seems to have been a state of cleanness on the part of the purifier (Numbers 19:18). And although no particular sins needed to be acknowledged before baptism (Matthew 3:14), this would not have been unusual for a people constantly in transition between cleanness and uncleanness (Job 1:5). In fact, it is likely that by Jesus' day the common people routinely failed to keep up with the washings required, leading to the need for a prophetical call to repentance such as John's.
What is the significance of this? If the Jews thought of baptism simply as a form of purification en masse, how does this influence our view of baptism? It certainly does not preclude its meaning something more to us. For one thing, baptism is once-for-all, while purification had to be performed every time a person became unclean (Numbers 19:20), which is indicative of a significant change in our relationship with God. Nonetheless, the connection between baptism and purification does suggest that we can look to the Old Testament for details on the outward ceremony of baptism. I would go so far as to say that the word 'baptism' likely meant simply 'the washing of purification' to the Jews before the New Testament authors took it and gave it a specific sacramental meaning.
What then did the baptism of the old covenant involve and express? In Numbers 8:7, 19:17-18, and Ezekiel 36:25 water is sprinkled as a means or sign of cleansing and recommitment to God. But the best case study is John 2:1-11, an occasion at the very end of the old covenant. There we see that "the Jewish custom of purification" required water, conveniently stored in 30 gallon drums, and filled from a nearby well. Too small for bathing and too large for sprinkling, these drums were probably used for ritual washings, where a jug would be dipped in and poured out over the hands or feet (Exodus 30:19). But at the wedding in John 2, the water-pots were empty! Symbolically, this suggests that the old traditions were replaced or fulfilled in Jesus. Practically, it means that either the laws of purification were not being observed, or that the many wedding guests had used up the available water. Either way, we see need for a new method, one that cleanses our insides, permanently, and not our outsides merely temporarily.
Does this correspond to the description of baptism under the new covenant? There are ten examples of water baptism in Acts: of Jews in Acts 2:1-41; Samaritans in Acts 8:5-12; Simon in Acts 8:13; an Ethiopian in Acts 8:26-40; Saul in Acts 9:1-18/22:1-16; Cornelius in Acts 10:1-11:18; Lydia in Acts 16:14-15; the jailer in Acts 16:25-34; the Corinthians in Acts 18:8; and the Ephesians in Acts 19:1-7. In each case, baptism is a convert's response in faith to the preaching of the gospel. Water is not always mentioned explicitly, but this is always clearly a physical baptism. The mode is never described, although we can say that in some cases immersion is less probable (the 3,000 Jews, Acts 2:41; the jailer and his family at midnight, Acts 16:33) than in others (the Ethiopian eunuch, Acts 8:36). Sometimes individuals were baptized, and sometimes entire households when the head was converted. These examples leave open the possibility of a lot of variability in the mode of baptism.
To complicate the matter further, the word 'baptism' is used in about fourteen different ways in the Bible: Noahaic baptism (Gen 6:13; 1 Pet 3:20-21); baptism unto Moses (Ex 14:29; 1 Cor 10:2); Israel’s ceremonial cleansings (Num 19:13; Lev 11:25; Ex 19:14; Ex 30:17-21; Heb 9:10); Levitical priesthood baptisms (Ex 29:4; Lev 8:6; Num 8:7); traditional Jewish cleansings (Matt 15:12; Mark 7:19; Luke 11:38); John’s baptism (Matt 3:56; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; John 1:31; Luke 7:29; Acts 10:37); Jesus’ baptism by John (Matt 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-10); baptism with fire (Isa 4:4; Mal 3:2-3; Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16); Jesus’ baptism unto death (Matt 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50); water baptism (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Matt 28:19; Acts 22:16; Ez 36:25); Spirit baptism (Isa 44:3; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 24:49; Acts 2:17-18; Acts 8:15-17; Acts 11:16; Titus 3:5); Gentile baptism (Acts 10:45-48); baptism for the dead (1 Cor 15:29); and baptism into Christ (John 13:8; 1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Gal 3:27; Rom 6:3-4). Obviously all of these cannot be treated as the same physical action. How then can we distinguish them?
The primary distinction should be between the instances when baptism is commanded, and the instances when baptism is described as part of salvation. The baptism that saves us can never be an outward work, but only an appeal to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21). On the other hand, there certainly is a baptism which is commanded in the New Testament. But in those cases it is varyingly coupled with evangelism (Matthew 28:19), repentance (Acts 2:38), and belief (Mark 16:16). Together, these passages definitely teach Christians to be baptized, but they do not clearly teach at what time. On the other hand, the baptism into Christ (1 Cor 12:13; Col 2:12) seems to be a necessary and certain part of salvation, but it is never commanded, but promised to the saved. Finally, there is a baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is neither required of nor guaranteed to Christians, but which is a gift of God as a response to prayer (Acts 2:17-18; Acts 8:15-17).
Most of the fourteen possible usages of 'baptism' above can be fit into one of these three categories. (I say most because I don't know what 'baptism for the dead' even means). Particularly, the physical baptisms described above seem to be a natural part of or response to conversion, as opposed to a necessary step in conversion. In summary, there seems to be a lot we are not told about water baptism. We do not know what it looks like (sprinkling, pouring, or immersion?). We do not know when it is to occur (with hearing, with repentance, or with belief?). We do not know exactly who it is to be performed on (individuals or households?). We do not even know which baptism is that which is commanded by God (although process of elimination suggests it is water baptism). We can make deductions and persuasive arguments for each of these, but we must not miss the main point:
We are to be baptized in Jesus' name because Jesus was baptized for us. He did not require cleansing from sin; he did not deserve the punishment of death. But he underwent it because we did require it, and we faced inevitable death as a consequence. He did it all for us ahead of time. Each of our sins was washed away in his blood, and in his death our deadliness died. 3"Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life ... and no longer be slaves to sin (Romans 6:3-4, 6)."
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Epistemological Self-Consciousness
n., the knowledge of who you are, and the knowledge of the implications of this knowledge on yourself and others.
It is impossible to truly know oneself. One's biases and self-deceits are too fully ingrained to allow one to unearth and dissect oneself. To attempt to do so would be death. It is only through the study of others that one can come to comprehend oneself. It is only when one's bubble presses up against that of another that it deforms enough to reflect back a part of itself. For what is a soul in the end, solitary and isolated from the rest of humanity, but a grain of dust?
It is impossible to truly know another. One's habitual prejudices and dissemblances are too resilient to be completely overcome in any relationship. To attempt to do so would be murder. It is only through the study of oneself that one can come to apprehend another. It is only when one's eyes turn inward that they can avoid their self-induced blindness and see through to others. For what is humanity in the end, commingled and confused, but a storm of dust?
Can there then be any genuine personality, any honest impression, any clear perception? Any 'real me' among the myriad kaleidoscopic projections of myself? Any answer to the primal question, 'What is man?' (Psalm 144:3)? Truly, the only definition of existence is 'that which God sees'. For in seeing, He creates reality.
It is impossible to truly know oneself. One's biases and self-deceits are too fully ingrained to allow one to unearth and dissect oneself. To attempt to do so would be death. It is only through the study of others that one can come to comprehend oneself. It is only when one's bubble presses up against that of another that it deforms enough to reflect back a part of itself. For what is a soul in the end, solitary and isolated from the rest of humanity, but a grain of dust?
It is impossible to truly know another. One's habitual prejudices and dissemblances are too resilient to be completely overcome in any relationship. To attempt to do so would be murder. It is only through the study of oneself that one can come to apprehend another. It is only when one's eyes turn inward that they can avoid their self-induced blindness and see through to others. For what is humanity in the end, commingled and confused, but a storm of dust?
Can there then be any genuine personality, any honest impression, any clear perception? Any 'real me' among the myriad kaleidoscopic projections of myself? Any answer to the primal question, 'What is man?' (Psalm 144:3)? Truly, the only definition of existence is 'that which God sees'. For in seeing, He creates reality.
Senses
What's your favorite sensory faculty and why?
Thermoception; I'd be left stone-cold without it.
Nociception; I'd be paralyzed without it.
Equilibrioception; I couldn't stand to go without it.
Proprioception; I'd be lost without it.
Kinesthesioception; I'd be turned around without it.
Ophthalmoception; life without it would be very dark.
Audioception; life without it would be like living in a vacuum.
Gustaoception; life without it would be very bland.
Olfacoception; life without it would not be a bed of roses.
Tactioception; life without it would be very dull.
Thermoception; I'd be left stone-cold without it.
Nociception; I'd be paralyzed without it.
Equilibrioception; I couldn't stand to go without it.
Proprioception; I'd be lost without it.
Kinesthesioception; I'd be turned around without it.
Ophthalmoception; life without it would be very dark.
Audioception; life without it would be like living in a vacuum.
Gustaoception; life without it would be very bland.
Olfacoception; life without it would not be a bed of roses.
Tactioception; life without it would be very dull.
Heart's Desire
King Arthur was once asked, 'What do women desire the most?'
At that time, the correct answer was said to be 'sovereignty'. From my experience, I don't think things have changed much over the centuries. Indeed, I would say that if you apply this broadly it is true for any created being. But autonomy and omnipotence in humans are more than impossible; any attempt towards them would be in opposition to God's authority.
What then is the greatest desire one can have without sin? What is the highest and purest longing of every human heart? What really makes us tick? I think what we want and need is to be known without explanation, and loved without justification—to be fully known, and yet fully loved. Not that I came up with this myself. I think I heard it first from Scott Mitchell, but poets have been saying it for ages as well:
"Blessed are you," say I, who know all now,
"you who have had some beautiful soul that lived life strongly,
and knew you all through, and loved you ever."
—Edgar Lee Masters, Spoon River Anthology, Le Roy Goldman.
The pressing question is then: 'Can this be fulfilled by another person? Will it ever be?' I am not going to answer this for you. Scientifically, the absence of proof is not proof of absence. But it is evidence. Instead, I want to answer a different question: 'Can this be fulfilled by God? Has it been already?'
This question was asked (and answered) by King David in Psalm 139, and I turn there first to find the solution. David begins with the intimate and disconcerting fact that an omniscient God can and does know us fully. No matter where we are or what we do, we cannot escape from God's knowledge, which resolves the first half of the question.
1 O LORD, You have searched me and known me.
You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
2 You understand my thought from afar.
But this is not all. David continues in the second half of the psalm to praise God for his grace. God has done things for us which make David believe that He still loves him. His very knowledge suggests a concern for us, and all his works towards us are marvelous.
17 How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God!
How vast is the sum of them
18 If I should count them, they would outnumber the sand.
But still it is not enough. At the end of the psalm, close though David has come to God, he still senses distance, uncertainty, separation. He is not yet fully loved as he is fully known. There is something missing, and he cries:
23 Search me, O God, and know my heart;
Try me and know my anxious thoughts;
24 And see if there be any hurtful way in me,
And lead me in the everlasting way.
The world had to wait another two thousand years before that missing piece was revealed in Jesus. In Him is all the love of the Father expressed and manifested.Through Him we can approach God's holiness and be united with Him, receiving upon ourselves all the love which He has for His Son. Only one example will be necessary. When Jesus met the Samaritan woman by a well, he already knew everything she had ever done (John 4:29). And it wasn't pretty. But he still loved her enough to give her the water of life, and his offer stands for all of us as well:
14 Whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst, but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.
They say there's a teacher from Galilee
Who says "If you're thirsty, come, come to me."
And if you believe you will receive
A fountain that flows from your heart.
Drink from the river, the river of life
Come and drink from the river that never runs dry.
—Marty Goetz
At that time, the correct answer was said to be 'sovereignty'. From my experience, I don't think things have changed much over the centuries. Indeed, I would say that if you apply this broadly it is true for any created being. But autonomy and omnipotence in humans are more than impossible; any attempt towards them would be in opposition to God's authority.
What then is the greatest desire one can have without sin? What is the highest and purest longing of every human heart? What really makes us tick? I think what we want and need is to be known without explanation, and loved without justification—to be fully known, and yet fully loved. Not that I came up with this myself. I think I heard it first from Scott Mitchell, but poets have been saying it for ages as well:
"Blessed are you," say I, who know all now,
"you who have had some beautiful soul that lived life strongly,
and knew you all through, and loved you ever."
—Edgar Lee Masters, Spoon River Anthology, Le Roy Goldman.
The pressing question is then: 'Can this be fulfilled by another person? Will it ever be?' I am not going to answer this for you. Scientifically, the absence of proof is not proof of absence. But it is evidence. Instead, I want to answer a different question: 'Can this be fulfilled by God? Has it been already?'
This question was asked (and answered) by King David in Psalm 139, and I turn there first to find the solution. David begins with the intimate and disconcerting fact that an omniscient God can and does know us fully. No matter where we are or what we do, we cannot escape from God's knowledge, which resolves the first half of the question.
1 O LORD, You have searched me and known me.
You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
2 You understand my thought from afar.
But this is not all. David continues in the second half of the psalm to praise God for his grace. God has done things for us which make David believe that He still loves him. His very knowledge suggests a concern for us, and all his works towards us are marvelous.
17 How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God!
How vast is the sum of them
18 If I should count them, they would outnumber the sand.
But still it is not enough. At the end of the psalm, close though David has come to God, he still senses distance, uncertainty, separation. He is not yet fully loved as he is fully known. There is something missing, and he cries:
23 Search me, O God, and know my heart;
Try me and know my anxious thoughts;
24 And see if there be any hurtful way in me,
And lead me in the everlasting way.
The world had to wait another two thousand years before that missing piece was revealed in Jesus. In Him is all the love of the Father expressed and manifested.Through Him we can approach God's holiness and be united with Him, receiving upon ourselves all the love which He has for His Son. Only one example will be necessary. When Jesus met the Samaritan woman by a well, he already knew everything she had ever done (John 4:29). And it wasn't pretty. But he still loved her enough to give her the water of life, and his offer stands for all of us as well:
14 Whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst, but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.
They say there's a teacher from Galilee
Who says "If you're thirsty, come, come to me."
And if you believe you will receive
A fountain that flows from your heart.
Drink from the river, the river of life
Come and drink from the river that never runs dry.
—Marty Goetz
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Atonement
Sometimes it is worth thinking through a problem for yourself, even if it has been solved before – and whether or not you get the right answer. Let me start with a proposition, which will become clearer as I progress:
Our problem is threefold: 1. Debt; 2. Guilt; and 3. Corruption.
The solution must then also be threefold: 1. Credit; 2. Merit; and 3. Character.
These ideas are presented in Colossians 2:13-14, although in reverse order: "He made you alive3. together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions2. and having canceled out the certificate of debt1. consisting of decrees against us.
In the Old Testament God solved our first problem (debt) through the institution of a system of sacrifices. He decreed, as was his right, that the debt acquired through an act of sin could be paid through the credit acquired by making a sacrifice for it. "The priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven" (Leviticus 4:35). But it was recognized even in Old Testament times that this was not enough. "Not for your sacrifices do I rebuke you; your burnt offerings are continually before me.... The one who offers thanksgiving as his sacrifice glorifies me; to one who orders his way rightly I will show the salvation of God" (Psalm 50:8, 23).
Thus God gave the promise of a solution to the second problem: a ransom. "If a ransom is imposed on him, than he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him" (Exodus 21:30). The guilt or stain remaining after all debts have been paid can be covered by a ransom or hostage – someone who is willing to give his life in surety for the good faith of the perpetrator. Yet it was plain that "no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life, for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice" (Psalm 49:7-8). Thus faith was required that "God will ransom my soul" (v. 15), although the means was not clear until Christ's death. "The Son of Man came to give His life as a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28).
But one problem remains: "You shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, but he shall be put to death" (Numbers 35:31). A ransom can only guarantee the outward behavior of the sinner, not the inward behavior of his heart. Suppose that a murderer could apparently reform his attitude and even miraculously raise his victim from the dead — would he then be given liberty by the law? No, he would not, not before he had paid for his crime. How then can God, who looks on the heart (1 Samuel 16:7), approach one whose "heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" (Jeremiah 17:9)?
Look at it from the other side. It is said (see Cur Deus Homo, by Anselm of Canterbury) that Jesus had to be fully God, in order to be a worthy ransom, and fully man, in order to receive our punishment (Hebrews 9:14 and 2:14). As God, Jesus had the authority and will to become man and live in full accord with God's law (John 10:18). As man, He had the responsibility and ability to pay for any wrongs committed (Hebrew 9:22). The question is, 'How could God have the right and power to punish Him for the sins of others?'. Not, 'How could He bear all our sins?', but, 'How could He bear any one of our sins?'. Granted that 1. the law allows the free to pay the debt of the slave, and given that 2. justice permits an innocent to accept punishment for the guilt of another, how could 3. any such sacrifice cleanse the corruption from the sinner?
A murder cannot be ransomed because the law cannot correct the heart. Is there any way that justice could transfer the status of one to another – any way that one could be so identified with another as to allow the character of one to be shared with the other? It seems to me that the relationship of a father and a child is the only thing that comes close. If a son willfully kills a fellow person, although ignorant of the consequences, the father will be required not only to pay the debt of the son (to the family of the deceased) and to cover his guilt (perhaps by reform school), but to labor under the bad repute deserved by his son. He will (probably fairly) be considered the source and cause of the youth's corruption.
Does this make sense? How could a perfect God become responsible for the failures of His creatures? He claims the position of Father, offering us the position of the prodigal son. But what a relationship that must be – far beyond that of earthly father and son! Christ must become the spiritual and legal head of all believers, in some fundamental sense. And what a weight God must account to human relationships! As God described Himself as He passed by Moses on the mountain: "The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation" (Exodus 34:6-7).
This hereditary transfer of culpability and responsibility had previously bothered me, but now I find comfort in it, as I recognize this as the gracious means whereby God has ordained to redeem His people. When we accept God as our Father, Jesus takes full responsibility for our behavior, and in our adoption imbues us with new natures. Thus, with Christ dies our corruption, inherited from our other fathers, and we receive His perfect character, outwardly and (eventually) inwardly. In this way earthly parents can take responsibility for their children's faith and baptize them in infancy before these children are able to decide for themselves. As their legal and spiritual head, they have authority over them even in this. But I suspect I should reserve an entire post for this subject.
As James Boice puts it, "The representative nature of Adam’s sin is an example of God’s grace toward us, for it is on the basis of that representation that God is able to save us. Paul says, "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s [Jesus'] obedience many will be made righteous" (Rom. 5:19). Because we are beings who live in relationships and because God has chosen to deal with us in that way, both in regard to Adam and his sin and to Jesus and his righteousness, there can be salvation" (Foundation of the Christian Faith II.1.2). If we were not condemned with Adam, we could not be restored with him, and my heart assures me that my sin alone is more than enough to weigh me down to Hell! Thanks be to God for his gracious plan, which covers our debt, guilt, AND corruption in Christ Jesus.
Our problem is threefold: 1. Debt; 2. Guilt; and 3. Corruption.
The solution must then also be threefold: 1. Credit; 2. Merit; and 3. Character.
These ideas are presented in Colossians 2:13-14, although in reverse order: "He made you alive3. together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions2. and having canceled out the certificate of debt1. consisting of decrees against us.
In the Old Testament God solved our first problem (debt) through the institution of a system of sacrifices. He decreed, as was his right, that the debt acquired through an act of sin could be paid through the credit acquired by making a sacrifice for it. "The priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven" (Leviticus 4:35). But it was recognized even in Old Testament times that this was not enough. "Not for your sacrifices do I rebuke you; your burnt offerings are continually before me.... The one who offers thanksgiving as his sacrifice glorifies me; to one who orders his way rightly I will show the salvation of God" (Psalm 50:8, 23).
Thus God gave the promise of a solution to the second problem: a ransom. "If a ransom is imposed on him, than he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him" (Exodus 21:30). The guilt or stain remaining after all debts have been paid can be covered by a ransom or hostage – someone who is willing to give his life in surety for the good faith of the perpetrator. Yet it was plain that "no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life, for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice" (Psalm 49:7-8). Thus faith was required that "God will ransom my soul" (v. 15), although the means was not clear until Christ's death. "The Son of Man came to give His life as a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28).
But one problem remains: "You shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, but he shall be put to death" (Numbers 35:31). A ransom can only guarantee the outward behavior of the sinner, not the inward behavior of his heart. Suppose that a murderer could apparently reform his attitude and even miraculously raise his victim from the dead — would he then be given liberty by the law? No, he would not, not before he had paid for his crime. How then can God, who looks on the heart (1 Samuel 16:7), approach one whose "heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" (Jeremiah 17:9)?
Look at it from the other side. It is said (see Cur Deus Homo, by Anselm of Canterbury) that Jesus had to be fully God, in order to be a worthy ransom, and fully man, in order to receive our punishment (Hebrews 9:14 and 2:14). As God, Jesus had the authority and will to become man and live in full accord with God's law (John 10:18). As man, He had the responsibility and ability to pay for any wrongs committed (Hebrew 9:22). The question is, 'How could God have the right and power to punish Him for the sins of others?'. Not, 'How could He bear all our sins?', but, 'How could He bear any one of our sins?'. Granted that 1. the law allows the free to pay the debt of the slave, and given that 2. justice permits an innocent to accept punishment for the guilt of another, how could 3. any such sacrifice cleanse the corruption from the sinner?
A murder cannot be ransomed because the law cannot correct the heart. Is there any way that justice could transfer the status of one to another – any way that one could be so identified with another as to allow the character of one to be shared with the other? It seems to me that the relationship of a father and a child is the only thing that comes close. If a son willfully kills a fellow person, although ignorant of the consequences, the father will be required not only to pay the debt of the son (to the family of the deceased) and to cover his guilt (perhaps by reform school), but to labor under the bad repute deserved by his son. He will (probably fairly) be considered the source and cause of the youth's corruption.
Does this make sense? How could a perfect God become responsible for the failures of His creatures? He claims the position of Father, offering us the position of the prodigal son. But what a relationship that must be – far beyond that of earthly father and son! Christ must become the spiritual and legal head of all believers, in some fundamental sense. And what a weight God must account to human relationships! As God described Himself as He passed by Moses on the mountain: "The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation" (Exodus 34:6-7).
This hereditary transfer of culpability and responsibility had previously bothered me, but now I find comfort in it, as I recognize this as the gracious means whereby God has ordained to redeem His people. When we accept God as our Father, Jesus takes full responsibility for our behavior, and in our adoption imbues us with new natures. Thus, with Christ dies our corruption, inherited from our other fathers, and we receive His perfect character, outwardly and (eventually) inwardly. In this way earthly parents can take responsibility for their children's faith and baptize them in infancy before these children are able to decide for themselves. As their legal and spiritual head, they have authority over them even in this. But I suspect I should reserve an entire post for this subject.
As James Boice puts it, "The representative nature of Adam’s sin is an example of God’s grace toward us, for it is on the basis of that representation that God is able to save us. Paul says, "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s [Jesus'] obedience many will be made righteous" (Rom. 5:19). Because we are beings who live in relationships and because God has chosen to deal with us in that way, both in regard to Adam and his sin and to Jesus and his righteousness, there can be salvation" (Foundation of the Christian Faith II.1.2). If we were not condemned with Adam, we could not be restored with him, and my heart assures me that my sin alone is more than enough to weigh me down to Hell! Thanks be to God for his gracious plan, which covers our debt, guilt, AND corruption in Christ Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
