If my sister ever read my blog she would say that the only reason I would ever say what I am about to write, is because I do not have a girlfriend...and that I need to get one. The statement would be true, but that is not why I decided to post this blog.
Valentine's day, as many of you well know, is the feast day of St. Valentine. As best I can tell, there are at least three ancient saints named Valentine and none know for sure which is to be commemorated on February 14th. All of them were holy martyrs. They dared to preach and live the gospel in a time when it was illegal to do so. They faced persecution for not bowing down to the emporer and having a steadfast faith in the promises of God. This fact should not go unnoticed this coming Sunday.
But how did Valentine's day come to be a popular day for marriages, romance, and profit for Hallmark and Russell Stover? This likely has its origin in the work of Geoffrey Chaucer, the English poet. On the occasion of a royal engagement, Chaucer wrote a poem linking the coming together of turtledoves in mid-February, with Valentine's day and the impending marriage. The following is an excerpt:
"For this was on St. Valentine's Day
When every fowl cometh there to choose his mate"
Since medieval times, romantic love came to be associated with the feast of the martyrs bearing the name Valentine. However, one of the liturgical revisions of the Roman Church in the late 60's was purging the calendar of saints whose origins and lives were not a matter of record. Because so little was known of St. Valentine, including which one we actually commemorate, this feast was removed from the liturgical calendar. The only meaning left to Feb. 14th was the meaning infused in it by Chaucer. That being the case, the day's significance is now relegated to cheap poetry, over-priced restaurants, and imported flowers. Or is it?
"There is no greater love than a man would lay down his life for his friends." These words of Jesus are fulfilled by himself in his selfless death and sacrifice on the cross. However, it is an aspect of love in which all people can participate. The martyrs have given their lives, not only on behalf of Jesus, but as a testimony to the world around them. It is a gift of themselves to the Church and their friends. St. Valentine, by becoming a martyr, is indeed a tremendous example of all-consuming love. Regardless of whether it is a sanctioned feast day of the Church or not, Valentine and all the martyrs remind us of what it really means to love.
Whether you find yourself with your spouse, sweetheart, or simply by yourself this Valentine's day, know that real acts of love are possible for everyone, but especially the Christian. Sacrifice is always a component of love, therefore it is appropriate that on the feast of a martyr we as a culture celebrate the beauty of love...as long as we remember it is not simply a feeling but the action of always putting the other before the Self. Thus, it becomes apparent, that while the romantic side of Valentine's day did not exist until the days of Chaucer, the day had already been a celebration of true love.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Why did Christ Descend to Hell?
The Creed informs us of this truth; that after the death and suffering of Jesus on the cross he descended into hell (or to the dead). Many evangelical Christians who are aware of the Creeds protest the phrase because the earliest manuscripts of the Creed do not contain it and they do not find it to be a doctrine borne out by Scripture. To be fair, they are correct that it is not in the earliest manuscripts and the Scriptures are a bit unclear on the matter. We need to answer several questions:
1.) Why is there confusion on this issue?
2.) Where is the hell to which Christ descended?
3.) What Scripture references might help us to understand this reality?
4.) And ultimately, why go there?
The first question may be answered by understanding that the Christian concept of Hell cannot be read into the hebrew word "Sheol" which means the grave or the Greek word "Hades", the equivalent of the Hebrew "sheol". Thus, many of the most commonly referenced passages of Scripture by those who support the doctrine, but may not be as well versed in biblical languages, are found to be lacking any substance. For instance, Psalm 16:10 as well as Peter's two quotations of it "Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell", is simply referring to the realm of the dead. We should not think of Christ descending into a place of torment, at least not for the purpose of being tormented. Otherwise, his words on the cross "it is finished" have little meaning. This means that a slew of "proof texts" immediately have to be tossed out. This causes confusion as to the source of the doctrine.
To answer the second, third, and fourth questions, however, we do need to realize that where Christ went he did encounter those suffering for their unbelief in this world.
"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that he might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh but made alive in the Spirit. In which also he went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark in which a few, that is eight were saved by water." (I Peter 3:18-20)
While we do not know the physical place, or whether Hell is even a physical place, we do know that Jesus went to the place called, Gehenna, the place of torment which he mentions in Matthew 25. St. Peter teaches us that he went to proclaim the gospel to the souls which had been disobedient since days of old. But why? Is there any hope for these lost souls? No, of course not. Aside from the multiple verses that could be cited, C.S. Lewis's remark that Hell is a door locked from the inside is very helpful. The dead in Gehenna have no desire for God, for they exist in a state where there sin and rejection of him has been actualized for eternity. As hard as it is to imagine, their final rejection of God and his love causes them to desire Hell over Heaven.
If it was not for evangelization, and I think we can say for sure that Christ was not gloating in some way, what is the purpose of the descent into Hell? I think the best explanation I can give is found in verse 18 of the passage cited above. "But made alive in the Spirit." That is, his Spirit was released from the bonds of his physical body. This was true for three days until his Spirit and Body were reunited, never again to be separated. What does this teach us? I believe the moral of this clause of the Creed to be that Christ has not only been through life and death, to lead us through, he has also conquered the area between death and the Great Resurrection. That means there is literally nowhere, no time, no space between time, where we can go that Jesus has not already been. Which means there is not only nothing to fear in death, but as we wait in the presence of God for the restoration of all things and the Great Resurrection, we can be assured that we will be in place that Jesus has already visited.
This is comforting to me. Christ's descent into Hell is real and it was not for punishment, but to lead us through the last of the valleys of death.
1.) Why is there confusion on this issue?
2.) Where is the hell to which Christ descended?
3.) What Scripture references might help us to understand this reality?
4.) And ultimately, why go there?
The first question may be answered by understanding that the Christian concept of Hell cannot be read into the hebrew word "Sheol" which means the grave or the Greek word "Hades", the equivalent of the Hebrew "sheol". Thus, many of the most commonly referenced passages of Scripture by those who support the doctrine, but may not be as well versed in biblical languages, are found to be lacking any substance. For instance, Psalm 16:10 as well as Peter's two quotations of it "Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell", is simply referring to the realm of the dead. We should not think of Christ descending into a place of torment, at least not for the purpose of being tormented. Otherwise, his words on the cross "it is finished" have little meaning. This means that a slew of "proof texts" immediately have to be tossed out. This causes confusion as to the source of the doctrine.
To answer the second, third, and fourth questions, however, we do need to realize that where Christ went he did encounter those suffering for their unbelief in this world.
"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that he might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh but made alive in the Spirit. In which also he went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark in which a few, that is eight were saved by water." (I Peter 3:18-20)
While we do not know the physical place, or whether Hell is even a physical place, we do know that Jesus went to the place called, Gehenna, the place of torment which he mentions in Matthew 25. St. Peter teaches us that he went to proclaim the gospel to the souls which had been disobedient since days of old. But why? Is there any hope for these lost souls? No, of course not. Aside from the multiple verses that could be cited, C.S. Lewis's remark that Hell is a door locked from the inside is very helpful. The dead in Gehenna have no desire for God, for they exist in a state where there sin and rejection of him has been actualized for eternity. As hard as it is to imagine, their final rejection of God and his love causes them to desire Hell over Heaven.
If it was not for evangelization, and I think we can say for sure that Christ was not gloating in some way, what is the purpose of the descent into Hell? I think the best explanation I can give is found in verse 18 of the passage cited above. "But made alive in the Spirit." That is, his Spirit was released from the bonds of his physical body. This was true for three days until his Spirit and Body were reunited, never again to be separated. What does this teach us? I believe the moral of this clause of the Creed to be that Christ has not only been through life and death, to lead us through, he has also conquered the area between death and the Great Resurrection. That means there is literally nowhere, no time, no space between time, where we can go that Jesus has not already been. Which means there is not only nothing to fear in death, but as we wait in the presence of God for the restoration of all things and the Great Resurrection, we can be assured that we will be in place that Jesus has already visited.
This is comforting to me. Christ's descent into Hell is real and it was not for punishment, but to lead us through the last of the valleys of death.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Habakkuk, the nature of sin, and the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary
"You who are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong; why do you idly look at traitors? and are silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?"
(Hab. 1:13)
In his prophecy, Habakkuk sees the coming destruction of his nation by the Chaldeans, that is the Babylonian empire. He writes a litany of complaints against the Israelites. Violence, a justice system that is crippled by perverted laws and poor judgments, are several of the complaints listed. For these reasons, the wrath of God will be excercised by raising up the Chaldeans to conquer and pillage the Holy Land. But verse 13 of the opening chapter is a question by Habakkuk for God. The prophet understands that his people have done evil and deserve punishment. But he does not understand how God can use a people, who are by all accounts more evil than the Israelites, to accomplish his purpose. How can God be silent when those who are less righteous attack those who are more righteous?
This question and the knowledge that Jerusalem did indeed fall to Babylon, is quite telling. What are the primary lessons we learn?
1.) God can use anything or anyone to accomplish his purposes. This is not always a negative thing (remember Baalam's Ass? cf: Numbers 22:28-31), but in this case it is. God can use the unjust to correct and chastise his people.
2.) God is of purer eyes than to behold evil. This means that while there are degrees of justice within individuals (i.e. Mother Teresa vs. the unabomber), not even the Good and Righteous are as holy as the LORD. The sin and wrongdoings of the just are also worthy of punishment. These sins are of course forgivable because of God's grace, but that does not exclude divine justice. We believe that Jesus paid the price for our sins, but there are still consequences for what we do wrong. It is not enough to say "I am better than that one." Indeed, was this not the sin of the Pharisee who boasted that he was better than the tax collector? All of us, as Paul reminds, have fallen short of God's glory. This means we all need a Savior and none of us can question God's justice.
3.) Lastly, we must see this as a call to holiness. C.S. Lewis once described the soul's desire for purging in the terms of this verse. In his work "Letters to Malcolm" he writes the following:
"The right view returns magnificently in Newman's DREAM. There if I remember it rightly, the saved soul, at the very foot of the throne, begs to be taken away and cleansed. It cannot bear for a moment longer with its darkness to affront that light."
Lewis here is specifically stating his belief in Purgatory, but it is applicable even to our present situation. We stand somewhere in time between the foot of the cross and the foot of God's throne. Our souls ought to be begging God to be thoroughly cleansed from every vestige of sin. God cannot look on anything that is impure. Our faith in Jesus makes us, as St. Paul also teaches, "the righteousness of God in Him [Christ]." But it ought also to lead us to purity from the inside out. Our desire should be for holiness, through obedience to God.
Today being the 2nd of February, it is the feast of the purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is on this day that we remember the Virgin and Joseph presenting Jesus at the Temple. It was at this time that Mary participated in the ritual of purification from legal uncleanliness. She brought two turtle doves as a sacrifice and in thanksgiving for the blessings God had given her in fulfillment of the Mosaic law. Throughout the life of our Savior, Mary stands to the Church as an example of obedience and purity.
May we today walk in holiness that we may be found acceptable in the eyes of him who cannot behold our misdeeds.
(Hab. 1:13)
In his prophecy, Habakkuk sees the coming destruction of his nation by the Chaldeans, that is the Babylonian empire. He writes a litany of complaints against the Israelites. Violence, a justice system that is crippled by perverted laws and poor judgments, are several of the complaints listed. For these reasons, the wrath of God will be excercised by raising up the Chaldeans to conquer and pillage the Holy Land. But verse 13 of the opening chapter is a question by Habakkuk for God. The prophet understands that his people have done evil and deserve punishment. But he does not understand how God can use a people, who are by all accounts more evil than the Israelites, to accomplish his purpose. How can God be silent when those who are less righteous attack those who are more righteous?
This question and the knowledge that Jerusalem did indeed fall to Babylon, is quite telling. What are the primary lessons we learn?
1.) God can use anything or anyone to accomplish his purposes. This is not always a negative thing (remember Baalam's Ass? cf: Numbers 22:28-31), but in this case it is. God can use the unjust to correct and chastise his people.
2.) God is of purer eyes than to behold evil. This means that while there are degrees of justice within individuals (i.e. Mother Teresa vs. the unabomber), not even the Good and Righteous are as holy as the LORD. The sin and wrongdoings of the just are also worthy of punishment. These sins are of course forgivable because of God's grace, but that does not exclude divine justice. We believe that Jesus paid the price for our sins, but there are still consequences for what we do wrong. It is not enough to say "I am better than that one." Indeed, was this not the sin of the Pharisee who boasted that he was better than the tax collector? All of us, as Paul reminds, have fallen short of God's glory. This means we all need a Savior and none of us can question God's justice.
3.) Lastly, we must see this as a call to holiness. C.S. Lewis once described the soul's desire for purging in the terms of this verse. In his work "Letters to Malcolm" he writes the following:
"The right view returns magnificently in Newman's DREAM. There if I remember it rightly, the saved soul, at the very foot of the throne, begs to be taken away and cleansed. It cannot bear for a moment longer with its darkness to affront that light."
Lewis here is specifically stating his belief in Purgatory, but it is applicable even to our present situation. We stand somewhere in time between the foot of the cross and the foot of God's throne. Our souls ought to be begging God to be thoroughly cleansed from every vestige of sin. God cannot look on anything that is impure. Our faith in Jesus makes us, as St. Paul also teaches, "the righteousness of God in Him [Christ]." But it ought also to lead us to purity from the inside out. Our desire should be for holiness, through obedience to God.
Today being the 2nd of February, it is the feast of the purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is on this day that we remember the Virgin and Joseph presenting Jesus at the Temple. It was at this time that Mary participated in the ritual of purification from legal uncleanliness. She brought two turtle doves as a sacrifice and in thanksgiving for the blessings God had given her in fulfillment of the Mosaic law. Throughout the life of our Savior, Mary stands to the Church as an example of obedience and purity.
May we today walk in holiness that we may be found acceptable in the eyes of him who cannot behold our misdeeds.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
State of the Union Address
Hello readers,
How did you all feel about last night's State of the Union Address. Four thoughts immediately came to my mind listening to the president last night.
1.) I cannot understand what the point of forgiving college debt after a certain time is. Where is the incentive for me to pay off my own? Yeah, it might hurt my credit score, but I will never have to pay off any more! Right now, I still owe about $11, 000 to Sallie Mae. I wouldn't mind saving that money. But if I do not pay for it, who will?
The only possible benefit I could see to such a program is that those whose debt is forgiven might spend their saved money, helping the economy to grow. Somehow I doubt that this will work out.
2.) Why on earth did President Obama call out the Supreme Court? It was a cheap political shot and frankly I don't blame Obama for looking away from the justices in attendance when he spoke. He should have been ashamed. The court's recent ruling, relaxing limitations on what corportations and unions can spend on election advertising, was an excellent one. No, I'm not a big fan of money in politics. It obviously has a corrupting influence. But as Obama said, the reason he opposed the ruling is because "elections should be decided by the American People" not corporations. Well, Mr. President, I certainly could not agree with you more. I fail to see how this ruling changes that, however. The only way this can be a game changer is if the American people are too stupid to realize when they are being sold propaganda in commercials and other advertisements. Besides, I have a hard time listening to someone lecture me on money in a political race, when he outspent his main opponent in the 2008 election by a margin of nearly 2.5/1. A whopping 730 million to ensure his election to the presidency. Yup, let the people decide.
3.) I strongly support a spending freeze like the one the president proposed. But what the president proposed last night was a spending freeze that does not include the military industrial complex, Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Yet, in the same speech he spoke of the deficit that was created by two wars and an expensive prescription drug benefit from the Bush administration. He is right of course about the major source of our national debt but he is not really addressing the problem. We have to cut defense spending in our country. The pentagon must be reigned in. Secondly, medicare and Social Security are eating up our entire federal tax revenue. They are simply too expensive. Either the SS tax has to be increased, or the age for receiving benefits must be pushed back.
4.) I wanted to commend the president on the call to Congress to begin governing. I suppose you could blame the sound byte, sour grapes, partisanship, whatever you choose...but the current crop of Republican Senators and Representatives have largely been an embarassment. They have acted like stingy school children. Now, largely I agree with them on what they have said "no" to. But it might seem a bit more genuine if they had ever stood up to President Bush when he was spending us into oblivion. I generally hope, along with the president, that Washington can again begin, not necessaily to set aside differences, but to actually debate the merits of policy. That is what a deliberative body like the Senate is supposed to do.
Your thoughts?
How did you all feel about last night's State of the Union Address. Four thoughts immediately came to my mind listening to the president last night.
1.) I cannot understand what the point of forgiving college debt after a certain time is. Where is the incentive for me to pay off my own? Yeah, it might hurt my credit score, but I will never have to pay off any more! Right now, I still owe about $11, 000 to Sallie Mae. I wouldn't mind saving that money. But if I do not pay for it, who will?
The only possible benefit I could see to such a program is that those whose debt is forgiven might spend their saved money, helping the economy to grow. Somehow I doubt that this will work out.
2.) Why on earth did President Obama call out the Supreme Court? It was a cheap political shot and frankly I don't blame Obama for looking away from the justices in attendance when he spoke. He should have been ashamed. The court's recent ruling, relaxing limitations on what corportations and unions can spend on election advertising, was an excellent one. No, I'm not a big fan of money in politics. It obviously has a corrupting influence. But as Obama said, the reason he opposed the ruling is because "elections should be decided by the American People" not corporations. Well, Mr. President, I certainly could not agree with you more. I fail to see how this ruling changes that, however. The only way this can be a game changer is if the American people are too stupid to realize when they are being sold propaganda in commercials and other advertisements. Besides, I have a hard time listening to someone lecture me on money in a political race, when he outspent his main opponent in the 2008 election by a margin of nearly 2.5/1. A whopping 730 million to ensure his election to the presidency. Yup, let the people decide.
3.) I strongly support a spending freeze like the one the president proposed. But what the president proposed last night was a spending freeze that does not include the military industrial complex, Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Yet, in the same speech he spoke of the deficit that was created by two wars and an expensive prescription drug benefit from the Bush administration. He is right of course about the major source of our national debt but he is not really addressing the problem. We have to cut defense spending in our country. The pentagon must be reigned in. Secondly, medicare and Social Security are eating up our entire federal tax revenue. They are simply too expensive. Either the SS tax has to be increased, or the age for receiving benefits must be pushed back.
4.) I wanted to commend the president on the call to Congress to begin governing. I suppose you could blame the sound byte, sour grapes, partisanship, whatever you choose...but the current crop of Republican Senators and Representatives have largely been an embarassment. They have acted like stingy school children. Now, largely I agree with them on what they have said "no" to. But it might seem a bit more genuine if they had ever stood up to President Bush when he was spending us into oblivion. I generally hope, along with the president, that Washington can again begin, not necessaily to set aside differences, but to actually debate the merits of policy. That is what a deliberative body like the Senate is supposed to do.
Your thoughts?
Friday, January 22, 2010
Cardinal Newman and King David
"Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions." (Ps. 25:7)
Many, if not all of us, have skeletons in our closets; ghosts in our past. It would be just as well if none of them ever saw the light of day. But all of these sins are rooted in the one great sin of youth, a character flaw of eternal consequence, pride. Learning humility is perhaps one of the greatest tasks of the Christian life. It is the example Christ set for us "who humbled himself to death, even the death of the cross." (Phil. 2)
This trait is seen, however, in some of the great saints of the Church. Showing us it is more than possible to emulate Christ in this regard. But it took many of them years of following Jesus and asking for his grace to even begin mastering their pride. One such saint is Cardinal John Henry Newman. Below are two verses of one of his great hymns "Lead, Kindly Light":
Lead, kindly light amid th'encircling gloom,
Lead thou me on.
The night is dark and I am far from home,
Lead thou me on.
Keep thou my feet, I do not ask to see,
The distant scene, one step enough for me.
I was not ever thus, nor prayed that thou,
should lead me on.
I loved to choose and see my path but now,
the night is gone.
I loved the garish day, and spite of fears,
Pride ruled my will, remember not past years.
These two verses speak of two very different lifestyles. The second verse reminisces about the days when Newman did not seek God's guidance but preferred his own path to the Lord's. He even notes that this was despite the fact that he knew it was wrong (spite of fears). Pride kept him from asking for God to lead him in the way he should go.
But verse one is a reflection of the life he lives now; a life over which he does not attempt too much control; a life whose destiny is simply entrusted to his Father. He does not ask to see the distant future, just to be led step by step.
In all, what is written here is something with which all Christians struggle. It is impossible, and undesirable to try and control everything about ourselves. Too many things are uncertain. Yet ceding control over our lives to Another, is most difficult and scary. This is not a fear that can be overcome by anything natural. Rather it is only the life of faith which frees and liberates us. It is the life of faith which allows us to say "keep my feet...direct my path...it is too dark for me to see on my own...lead Thou me on." If you have not let go of the pride with which you were born, the pride that has led to the sins of your youth, pray that God will grant you the faith to simply say "I trust in you." Pride is the fruit of original sin...and itself the chief of all sins. Pride says "my way is best and I'll choose my path on my own." The humility to completely entrust our ways, our lives, our whole selves to God..."the distant scene", is the fruit of faith.
"A man's heart devises his way, but the Lord directs his steps." (Prov. 16:9)
Many, if not all of us, have skeletons in our closets; ghosts in our past. It would be just as well if none of them ever saw the light of day. But all of these sins are rooted in the one great sin of youth, a character flaw of eternal consequence, pride. Learning humility is perhaps one of the greatest tasks of the Christian life. It is the example Christ set for us "who humbled himself to death, even the death of the cross." (Phil. 2)
This trait is seen, however, in some of the great saints of the Church. Showing us it is more than possible to emulate Christ in this regard. But it took many of them years of following Jesus and asking for his grace to even begin mastering their pride. One such saint is Cardinal John Henry Newman. Below are two verses of one of his great hymns "Lead, Kindly Light":
Lead, kindly light amid th'encircling gloom,
Lead thou me on.
The night is dark and I am far from home,
Lead thou me on.
Keep thou my feet, I do not ask to see,
The distant scene, one step enough for me.
I was not ever thus, nor prayed that thou,
should lead me on.
I loved to choose and see my path but now,
the night is gone.
I loved the garish day, and spite of fears,
Pride ruled my will, remember not past years.
These two verses speak of two very different lifestyles. The second verse reminisces about the days when Newman did not seek God's guidance but preferred his own path to the Lord's. He even notes that this was despite the fact that he knew it was wrong (spite of fears). Pride kept him from asking for God to lead him in the way he should go.
But verse one is a reflection of the life he lives now; a life over which he does not attempt too much control; a life whose destiny is simply entrusted to his Father. He does not ask to see the distant future, just to be led step by step.
In all, what is written here is something with which all Christians struggle. It is impossible, and undesirable to try and control everything about ourselves. Too many things are uncertain. Yet ceding control over our lives to Another, is most difficult and scary. This is not a fear that can be overcome by anything natural. Rather it is only the life of faith which frees and liberates us. It is the life of faith which allows us to say "keep my feet...direct my path...it is too dark for me to see on my own...lead Thou me on." If you have not let go of the pride with which you were born, the pride that has led to the sins of your youth, pray that God will grant you the faith to simply say "I trust in you." Pride is the fruit of original sin...and itself the chief of all sins. Pride says "my way is best and I'll choose my path on my own." The humility to completely entrust our ways, our lives, our whole selves to God..."the distant scene", is the fruit of faith.
"A man's heart devises his way, but the Lord directs his steps." (Prov. 16:9)
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Undoing of the Curse: Jezebel and Eutychus
The Recapitulation theory of the Atonement states that Christ's death undoes all of what we got wrong. This view sees many New Testament figures and events as being the anti-type of their Old Testament counterparts. Hence, Christ gives the law again on a mountain; the New Moses. The miracle of all hearing the gospel in their own language at Pentecost is the undoing of the curse placed on the people of the world at the Tower of Babel in Genesis. Many, many other examples could be cited.
A thought came to my mind Tuesday night though of what might potentially be another example. Many know the story of the evil queen Jezebel. The wife of King Ahab, Jezebel was a hateful, adulterous woman. She murdered Naboth, was an idolater, and was responsible for the slaying of many of the Lord's prophets. ( I Kings 18:3 ) As a punishment for her sins, several eunuchs toss Jezebel out of a window later in II Kings, and she is trampled underfoot by a horse and was nearly completely devoured by dogs. Death by window.
Wouldn't you know it, there is a case in the New Testament of a man falling out of a window and dying. At this point I should inform you, my readers, that I originally had intended this to be a somewhat funny post...one that played off my friend Father Peter's idea that a "little bit of levity, leaveneth the entire lump." But as I thought about it there may be something much more significant at play. In Acts 20:9 it is recorded that a man named Eutychus fell out of a window three stories high while listening to Saint Paul preach. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
In other words, we have in the story of Jezebel a woman who would not listen to the prophets of the Lord who were calling her to repentance. In fact, she aggressively sought to snuff them out. While Eutychus was not as malicious, he too did not find the Word of the Lord or the prophet of the Lord stimulating enough to listen.
But here is the twist. Whereas Jezebel was left for animal food, Eutychus was raised from the dead by Paul in the ensuing verses. It is important not to violate a text of Scripture by seeing things that are not there. But it really is a wonderful picture of the powerful grace of Christ, poured out in the New Testament, to restore one who failed to hear his prophet. Perhaps, than, the story of Eutychus stands to us as one of the great "undoings" of the curse in the Old Testament.
A thought came to my mind Tuesday night though of what might potentially be another example. Many know the story of the evil queen Jezebel. The wife of King Ahab, Jezebel was a hateful, adulterous woman. She murdered Naboth, was an idolater, and was responsible for the slaying of many of the Lord's prophets. ( I Kings 18:3 ) As a punishment for her sins, several eunuchs toss Jezebel out of a window later in II Kings, and she is trampled underfoot by a horse and was nearly completely devoured by dogs. Death by window.
Wouldn't you know it, there is a case in the New Testament of a man falling out of a window and dying. At this point I should inform you, my readers, that I originally had intended this to be a somewhat funny post...one that played off my friend Father Peter's idea that a "little bit of levity, leaveneth the entire lump." But as I thought about it there may be something much more significant at play. In Acts 20:9 it is recorded that a man named Eutychus fell out of a window three stories high while listening to Saint Paul preach. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
In other words, we have in the story of Jezebel a woman who would not listen to the prophets of the Lord who were calling her to repentance. In fact, she aggressively sought to snuff them out. While Eutychus was not as malicious, he too did not find the Word of the Lord or the prophet of the Lord stimulating enough to listen.
But here is the twist. Whereas Jezebel was left for animal food, Eutychus was raised from the dead by Paul in the ensuing verses. It is important not to violate a text of Scripture by seeing things that are not there. But it really is a wonderful picture of the powerful grace of Christ, poured out in the New Testament, to restore one who failed to hear his prophet. Perhaps, than, the story of Eutychus stands to us as one of the great "undoings" of the curse in the Old Testament.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
As With Gladness Men Of Old
It's a few days after the Epiphany, but still well within the octave. I thought then I might post a small meditation on one of my favorite Epiphany hymns. It's not that this hymn is musically anything special and as a whole the text is not as good as a few other hymns for this season. But the last verse is special. Read these words:
In that heavenly country bright,
Need they no created light.
Thou its Light, its Joy, its Crown
Thou its Sun which goes not down.
Jesus is the Light of this world, but he is also the light of heaven. He will one day perfectly shine on us the glory of the everlasting Father. As Malachi prophesied ages before, he is the "Sun of Righteousness." His purity and perfection radiate throughout the celestial city, granting unfading light. Ephiphany has to do with the manifestations of Christ. He appears to the Gentile wise men. He manifests portions of his identity at his Baptism and then at the first miracle which we performed at the wedding in Cana. But his final manifestation to his people will show that he dwells in, and is, Light. While on earth we did behold his glory, but the entirety of this was hidden, save the moment of Transfiguration, which only three saw. In heaven, we will behold the full glory of our Redeemer-not darkly, as through a glass, but face to face. We will, as St. John confesses, see him "as he is."
"There shall be no night there; and they need no candle, nor light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light." (Rev. 22:5)
In that heavenly country bright,
Need they no created light.
Thou its Light, its Joy, its Crown
Thou its Sun which goes not down.
Jesus is the Light of this world, but he is also the light of heaven. He will one day perfectly shine on us the glory of the everlasting Father. As Malachi prophesied ages before, he is the "Sun of Righteousness." His purity and perfection radiate throughout the celestial city, granting unfading light. Ephiphany has to do with the manifestations of Christ. He appears to the Gentile wise men. He manifests portions of his identity at his Baptism and then at the first miracle which we performed at the wedding in Cana. But his final manifestation to his people will show that he dwells in, and is, Light. While on earth we did behold his glory, but the entirety of this was hidden, save the moment of Transfiguration, which only three saw. In heaven, we will behold the full glory of our Redeemer-not darkly, as through a glass, but face to face. We will, as St. John confesses, see him "as he is."
"There shall be no night there; and they need no candle, nor light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light." (Rev. 22:5)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)