Church of the Fist-Fighting Monks

This is hilarious and appalling. Check it out here, and here.

Eucharist Life

Christ reigns immortal.
And remember, the life is in the blood. In drinking his blood every week, we sip immortality.

Holy Ground, Part II

Ex 3.5, "Then He said, 'Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.'"
I see three possible explanations:

Possibility 1. This is primarily a negative command, remove your shoes. Moses' sandals are incompatible with the holy ground, somehow. Perhaps there's something symbolically offensive about footwear when its juxtaposed with holy ground.

Possibility 2. This is primarily a positive command, make yourself barefoot. Something about holy ground requires barefeet. So, Moses' sandal is only important insofar as it happens to be the object that forms a barrier between his foot and the ground.

Possibility 3. Both of the above.

Gen 9.4

"But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood."
I see three possible explanations:

Possibility 1. Drinking blood is prohibited because of what's not happening; i.e., it's a sin of omission. In other words, it's wrong simply because the blood needs to be used for some other purpose. Maybe he should pour it on the ground as some shadowy type of sacrifice. I don't know. {{shrugs}} The ground cries out for our blood, so we give it animal blood instead. Something like that.

Possibility 2. Drinking blood is prohibited because of what is happening; it's a sin of comission. This is a bit more straight-forward: the act itself of imbibing blood is sinful. But I can't think of why that would be. Perhaps drinking nephesh symbolizes an attempt to obtain "life" illicitly, outside of God's provision.

Possibility 3. Both of the above.

Against Ex Nihilo

Rodney Stark, in The Rise of Christianity, tries to explain the incredible spread of the Christian Church during its first few centuries, using only natural phenomena. He claims it was because of its unique historical setting, or because the Christians made a special effort to convert the widely-distributed Jews, or because women were more privileged in the Church, or because it happened to arise in the midst of Greek/Roman culture, etc. etc. In short, the rise of Christianity was a perfectly natural thing; we should have expected it. It was the right ideology, in the right place at the right time.

I believe the rise of Christianity was miraculous. But that doesn't mean I deny Stark's thesis. On the contrary, I embrace many of his secular explanations. They don't make the rise of Christianity any less miraculous; they only increase my awe! God made Greece, and he made Rome the master of Greece. He spread out the Jews in every city of the empire, and taught everybody to speak Greek. A host of natural phenomena came together and formed the symphony that brought about the rise of Christianity. And God made all of it.

Digestion is a miracle. Yes, it involves plenty of digestive enzymes and hydrochloric acid and bacteria and millions of intestinal villi. That's why it's a miracle. God made all that amazing stuff.

I'm the type of person who likes to find a "natural explanation" for miracles. For example, when Constantine saw his vision of the cross in the sky, it was probably a sundog. I believe most of God's miracles are pieces of his original one: creation. God made the world Ex Nihilo, and He doesn't need to do it again. He's already got all this stuff lying around, waiting to be turned into something better.

Lay Baptisms

Even Roman Catholics accept them.

"Although, however, all the faithful can baptize, the priest alone can complete the building up of the Body in the eucharistic sacrifice" (Vatican II, LG, section 17)

"[Baptism] is validly conferred only by a washing in real water with the proper form of words." (Code of Canon Law, Canon 849)

Church Unity

I believe the Christian Church is more unified today than it has ever been.

The Ancient Church was not unified. (Anyone who says different is trying to sell you something.) Ancient Church History was just as messy as current events on CNN, if not messier. The Early Church Fathers weren't Anabaptist, they weren't Federal-Vision-Presbyterian, and they weren't Council-of-Trent-Roman-Catholic. They were all of the above! They got together and held councils and screamed at each other. Not even Ecumenical Councils could reconcile them. After the 1st Council of Nicea, for example, there were still plenty of Arian Bishops and Emperors. Simply put, if you search for a pure "strand" of unity throughout the ages, you'll never find it.

I have to give the Ancient Church some credit, though. They did have a certain kind of unity. Most compelling is their ecclesiastical structure: they had the episcopacy, or the pseudo-episcopacy, or whatever you want to call it. No competing denominations. When modern Christians read about it, we ooh and ahh. "So unified!" we say, "if only we could attain that kind of agreement today!" And that's not all. Their liturgies were relatively uniform. They argued over issues like the dating of Easter, or standing while praying, and came to a general consensus. The Ancient Church possessed a primal, simple sort of unity.

But under that apparent unity lurked a demon. Christians sued each other. Bishops contended for the same position...with casualties! Christians murdered each other. Donatists in the 4th century conquered and stole church buildings. (But don't worry, the Catholics usually stole them back.) And this isn't limited to the Ancient Church; we all know about the hostilities between Protestants and Catholics, or between Protestants and Anabaptists. Historically, our deadliest enemies have been other Christians. Philip Schaff says, "More Christian blood has been shed by Christians than by heathens and Mohommedans."

Today I believe this is no longer the case. Perhaps I'm misinformed (or uninformed), but it seems Christians don't commonly murder each other anymore. When I meet a Catholic in the street, I don't feel compelled to duel him to the death like the Irish used to. The Modern Christian Church is more... well... Christian. Yes, we have more denominations than ever, and more variant theological opinions. We have scandals and kerfuffles, like the Federal Vision Fiasco among conservative Presbyterians here in America. But no PCA pastors are plotting to assassinate Doug Wilson for it. When push comes to shove, we love each other.

That is why the Christian Church today is more unified than it's ever been. We live at peace with one another, or at least, more peacefully than we used to. That's a broad generalization, I know, and I can't really defend it perfectly. Certainly, during times of persecution the church has been unified. Christians generally forget about their hatred and superficial differences when they're hunted by a common enemy. But overall, I think we give the modern global church far too little credit. There's more to unity than creeds and liturgies.

Barefoot humility?

Unfinished thoughts and questions on sandals:

1. Sandals and clothing go together--that's pretty intuitive, and also backed up biblically. Furthermore, sandals/clothes are a blessing (2 Chron 28.15, Song of Sol 7.1, Deut 29.5). Presumably, Adam would've worn sandals and robes eventually if he had never sinned.

2. In other words, it seems there's more to shoes than just protecting our feet from cursed ground.

3. Barefeet in the OT usually carry connotations of nakedness or shame (2 Sam 15.30, Isaiah 20.2-4, Micah 1.8).

4. So then, why does God require Moses to take off his sandals as he approaches the holy ground in Ex 3? Is God requiring "symbolic nakedness" of Moses? Why? Are barefeet more humble than shoes, perhaps?

5. How does this affect our understanding of holiness in general in the OT?

6. How might all this change in the NT?

Holy Ground

Question: Why does God command Moses and Joshua to take off their sandals, "for this is holy ground" (Ex 3.5, Josh 5.15)? Some unfinished thoughts:

James Jordan's explanation doesn't seem quite satisfactory. He says that shoes symbolically protect our feet from the cursed ground, and "holy ground" isn't cursed, rendering such protection unneccesary.

My objection: JBJ's theory might explain why Moses could have taken off his shoes, but it doesn't explain why he had to. The most he can say about sandals is that they are unneeded or superfluous on holy ground.

Or, to put it another way, I think holy ground is more than just "uncursed" ground. There's something substantial about holiness that requires barefeet.

5 Coolest Scientific Things

To celebrate Keith Woodford's new book, here are what I consider to be the 4 other most exciting scientific things I've learned in the past few years. All of these are worth doing cartwheels over:

1. Heart attacks are caused by the failure of blood capillaries, not clogged arteries. (2007, Tom Cowan)

2. AIDS is probably caused by an HIV infection combined with selenium deficiency. (Harold Foster summarizes many researchers)

3. The mysterious "x-factor," unidentified for over 60 years, was finally discovered to be Vitamin K2. (2006, Christ Masterjohn)

4. Low-dose naltrexone stimulates endorphin production and thereby promotes healing of all kinds, especially of the immune system. (Bernard Bihari)

A1 beta-casein BCM 7 mutation!

Fantastic news! This has got to be one of the 5 coolest scientific things I've learned in the past few years. Keith Woodford has just published a book, Devil in the Milk, explaining why some organic grass-fed raw milk is good and some is bad. Modern breeds of cow have a BCM 7 promoting beta-casein mutation! Consequently, their milk contains opiates that can contribute to diabetes, congestion, heart disease, lethargy, autism, infection, cancer, etc. Traditional breeds of cow do not have this mutation. Therefore, Holstein milk is bad and Jersey milk is good! This explains why some people respond so well to raw milk and some don't. They're not drinking the same thing!

Returning to Egypt?

YHWH says, "Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness." At one point Moses explains this involves traveling three days into the wilderness to sacrifice. The implication, however, is that they will return to Egypt! How can that be?

If the goal was to leave Egypt behind entirely and travel to the Promised Land, then why did YHWH only ask for his people for a few days of sacrificing/feasting/worshipping? Why didn't he ask for more? He could have told Pharaoh, "Let my people go, for they are my slaves and not yours, and I will utterly remove them from your grasp."

Is God just playing around with Pharaoh, knowing that he won't grant even the smallest request and taking it as an opportunity to level his nation? In any case, why don't the People of Israel return after doing their sacrificing and worshipping in the wilderness? Is it because Pharaoh and his firstborn son are dead? If Pharaoh hadn't died in the Red Sea, would Israel have returned to Egypt and continued serving him? Or is Pharaoh's death inconsequential, with Israel continuing on to Canaan regardless?

Jerome, Unbathed Super-Scholar

Commonplaces from Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, pp. 967-88 (and 205-14). Concerning Saint Jerome:

"He was one of those intellectual natures, to which reading and studying are as indispensable as daily bread."

"He...[had] contempt of the natural ordinances of God, especially of marriage; and, completely reversing sound principles, he advocated even ascetic filth as an external mark of inward purity."

"Of marriage he had a very low conception, regarding it merely as a necessary evil for the increase of virgins."

"His principle in studying was, in his own words: 'To read the ancients, to test everything, to hold fast the good, and never depart from the catholic faith.'" ('Meum propositum est, antiquos legere, probare singula, retinere quae bona sunt, et a fide catholica numquam recedere')

"[Jerome] inspired several of his admiring female pupils, like St. Paula and her daughter Eustochium, with enthusiasm for the study of the sacred language of the old covenant, and brought them on so far that they could sing with him the Hebrew Psalms in praise of the Lord."

"He lamented the injurious influence of [Hebrew] studies on his style, since 'the rattling sound of the Hebrew soiled all the elegance and beauty of Latin speech.'"

"But his exegetical labours are not uniformly carried out; many parts are very indifferent, others thrown off with unconscionable carelessness in reliance on his genius and his reading, or dictated to an amanuensis as they came into his head.(1)" FOOTNOTE: He frequently excuses this 'dictare quodcunque in buccam venerit,' by his want of time and the weakness of his eyes...At the close of the brief Preface to the second book of his Commentary on the Ep. to the Ephesians...he says that he often managed to write as many as a thousand lines in one day. (!!!)

3 x 3 Plagues on Egypt

James Jordan claims the first nine plagues against Egypt come in three cycles of three each.

First cycle: 1. Blood, 2. Frogs, 3. Gnats
Second cycle: 4. Flies, 5. Livestock, 6. Boils
Third cycle: 7. Hail, 8. Locusts, 9. Darkness

Each cycle begins with YHWH telling Moses to "Rise up early in the morning and present yourself to Pharaoh" or "Go to Pharaoh in the morning" Ex 7:15, 8:20, and 9:13. (Oh, and in the first two cycles, Moses comes to Pharaoh while he is down at the water.)

The second plague in each cycle begins by YHWH commanding Moses, "Go in to Pharaoh." Ex 8:1, 9:1, and 10:1.

The third plague in each cycle comes without any warning. God simply commands Moses or Aaron to "stretch out their hand to heaven." Ex 8:16-17, 9:8, and 10:21.

A Betrothed Wife

Exodus 11:1-2, "Yet one plague more I will bring upon Pharaoh and upon Egypt. Afterward he will dismiss you from here. When he lets you go, driving he will drive you away kalah. Speak now in the hearing of the people, that they ask, every man of his neighbor and every woman of her neighbor, for silver and gold jewelry."

Let's talk about the italicized parts, especially that one word, kalah. It has two possible meanings:
(1) "thoroughly" or "completely"
(2) "as a betrothed wife"
Most translators pick the first meaning, but Jim Jordan argues the second makes more sense in context.

Support for the Second Meaning: earlier in the Bible, the words dismiss and driving-out are both reminiscent of situations concerning wives or betrothed wives. In Gen 21:10, Sarah commands Abraham to drive-out Hagar, and later in 21:14 Abraham dismisses Hagar with food and water. In Gen 24:59 Rebekah's family dismisses her and sends her with Abraham's servant. Here again, Pharaoh is going to dismiss and drive-out Israel. It only fits that he would be dismissing them as a betrothed wife.

When you send away a betrothed wife, you always send her away with fine things: gold, silver, clothes, etc. And in this passage, notice what the Egyptians will give Israel (cf. Ex 3:22).

Who is Israel about to marry? Why, YHWH, of course.

Mark 2:27

The heavens help us define the years, the months, the days and nights, and even festivals in the OT.

What they don't help us with is weeks. We have to keep track of the Sabbath on our own. It's none of the stars' business. Why? Because, "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."

Serpent vs. Serpent, Part II

Continuing from the last post, Moses' staff becoming a snake meant something totally different than Aaron's staff becoming a dragon. Each miracle had an entirely different audience and meaning.

Moses' staff is the first of a triad of miracles intended to teach the children of Israel the word of YHWH. Jim Jordan suggests that the staff/snake represents Egypt. When the Israelites were faithful under Joseph, they took dominion over Egypt and used it to minister to the world. But when the Israelites began worshipping foreign gods, Egypt became a snake. The solution is to repent and grab that snake by the tail (the most dangerous part to grab). Only by trusting in God's commands can we conquer the snake and make it our staff again.

Aaron's staff, I suppose, is intended to teach Pharaoh that YHWH means business. The God who rules over dragons says, "Let my people go!"

Serpent vs. Serpent

What's the difference between Moses' staff and Aaron's staff? One becomes a serpent, and one becomes a serpent. Big difference.

Ex. 4:3, Moses' staff becomes a nahash, and when he grabs it by the tale it turns back into his staff.---This word is best translated "snake" or "viper."

Ex. 7:9, Aaron's staff becomes a tanin, and it eats the taninim of Pharaoh's magicians.---This word is best translated "dragon" or "crocodile," or even "sea serpent."

Avenger of Blood

In Numbers 35, the Kinsman Redeemer (i.e., the Avenger of Blood) was required to seek out the death of the man-slayer. Why? It's not familial devotion, and it's not "righteous anger." The reason is given in vs. 33-34: to cleanse the land. Cf. Genesis 4; the ground is bloody and cries forth for vengeance.

He had to stay in a City of Refuge until the death of the High Priest. Then--and only then--he was free to live. The blood of the High Priest cleanses the land and atones for his manslaughter. Only the death of the High Priest himself can satisfy the ground's cry for vengeance.

Jesus' crucifixion was the death of the High Priest. He cleansed the land; the ground no longer cries out for our blood. Now we are free to live.

Lot the Prophet

The NT explicitly calls Lot "righteous."
The OT implicitly calls Lot "righteous," because God saved him from Sodom's destruction.

Lot is compared to Noah twice:
2 Peter 2.5-8
Luke 17.26-29

Noah and Lot apparently preached against the perverse generation of their day, calling them to repentance, judging them for their crimes.

Compare this to Genesis 19.9--was Lot acting as a judge of some kind in the city?
(Also, in vs. 1, notice that Lot was sitting in the gate for some reason)

Mohar

If you wanted a wife in the OT, you paid a "bride price" for her. She received this and kept it as her insurance ever after. She was expected to invest her "mohar", manage it, use it to buy fields, spin cloth, and do Proverbs 31 stuff. It was sort of like having her own separate bank account. And remember, a wife lived in her own separate tent. (Note: I'm not saying marriage should still work like this; I'm just pointing out the way it used to be.)

A concubine is simply a wife who never received a bride-price. She has no separate bank account, no independent source of income, no insurance, no protection in times of danger. Concubine = wife with no mohar. A second-class wife, if you will.

My brother Evan today suggested that perhaps we could think of Canaan as Israel's "mohar." God chooses a wife for Himself, not a concubine. Accordingly, he provides a bride-price: a land full of vineyards, flowing with milk and honey. God gives Israel her own bank account.

Jesus' Baptism

The Spirit of God descended onto him, like a dove, and a voice from heaven said, Behold, this is my beloved son, with whom I am well pleased.
After that, Jesus' ministry began.

The same happened to me, years ago. I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I received my baptism precisely because I am God's beloved son, with whom He is well pleased.
After that, my ministry began.

The Problem With Capitalism

I appreciate capitalists' emphasis on a Free Market.
I appreciate capitalists' critiques of Government Intervention.
I appreciate capitalists' Anti-Statism.
But I wish they were more consistent with all of it.

The basic idea is that men work better and get richer when they have more freedom, i.e., when someone isn't "bullying" them. That "bullying" might be taxes, or minimum-wage laws, or a fiat currency, or rent-fixing, etc. Read Milton Friedman or Ludwig von Mises or Ayn Rand and the identity of the "bully" becomes clear: it's the gov'ment. Everything would be fine if we just got rid of Government Intervention.

But since when is the government the only bully in the world? Some Multi-National Corporations are more powerful than governments! What about their intervention? Ironically, I believe Capitalism's vehement opposition to the state actually gives too much credit to the state.

To invert the argument a bit...while I appreciate their emphasis on a Free Market, I believe they should be more thorough in how they define "free." Your government isn't the only entity capable of oppressing you. Vikings could come burn all of your possessions. Market intervention! Just imagine your Anglo-Saxon ancestors, gallivanting across Europe, spreading deflation and recession. Clearly, Viking Intervention is a bad thing. It should be obvious that when ANY man threatens you, or steals from you, that's an "intervention" with your freedom and the Free Market.

In conclusion: what is a state, if not a really, really powerful corporation? And what is a corporation, if not a miniature state? One supposedly looks to the interest of its shareholders, the other supposedly looks to the interest of its citizens. One is run by corrupt, self-serving CEOs, the other is run by corrupt, self-serving politicians.

Easter and Anti-Semitism

I'm not Quartodecimian. I see no reason to be. Nevertheless, I find the following interesting:

'The feast of the resurrection was thenceforth required to be celebrated everywhere on a Sunday, and never on the day of the Jewish passover, but always after the fourteenth of Nisan, on the Sunday after the first vernal full moon. The leading motive for this regulation was opposition to Judaism, which had dishonored the passover by the crucifixion of the Lord.” We would,” says the circular letter of Constantine in reference to the council of Nice, “we would have nothing in common with that most hostile people, the Jews; for we have received from the Redeemer another way of honoring God, and harmoniously adopting this method, we would withdraw ourselves from the evil fellowship of the Jews. For what they pompously assert, is really utterly absurd: that we cannot keep this feast at all without their instruction .... It is our duty to have nothing in common with the murderers of our Lord.” This bitter tone against Judaism runs through the whole letter.'
(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church Vol. III, pg 405)

Noah's Flood: Man-Made?

Nikola Tesla was the greatest inventor in recorded history. A strong statement; I know. But it's true.

On several occasions he caused earthquakes when testing some of his theories on geo-resonance. Eventually, he claimed to have developed a simple machine that could split the world in two, and I have no good reason to doubt him. (If you're curious, Google "Tesla Telegeodynamics." And take care to ignore the silly conspiracy theory websites.)

Which brings us to the Flood. The Hydro-Plate Theory, proposed by Dr. Walt Brown, gives a plausible explanation for the mechanism of Noah's Flood. I find his theory satisfying. Basically, he says "plates" floating on "fountains of the deep" ruptured, resulting in the division of the continents, oceanic trenches, massive earthquakes, limestone and coal deposits, frozen mammoths, comets, and many other unusual natural phenomenon. (This video summarizes his theory nicely.) But the question still remains, what caused those plates to rupture?

Perhaps God Himself ruptured the fountains of the deep. Or perhaps it happened "by itself," caused by pressure-buildup or something like that. Or--most interestingly of all--perhaps some antediluvian inventor discovered resonance technology and accidentally triggered Noah's Flood! The symptoms seem to match. We know the Flood was divine judgment ordained by God, but why couldn't it also have been man-made? I mean, why not?

Heavy of Tongue

The Hebrew word c'vad literally means "heavy." The idea is weightiness, usually implying glory of some kind. In fact, "glorious" is usually a good translation (from my limited experience, anyway). Our God is c'vad, heavy.

But in some contexts, weightiness is bad. Isaac's eyes were c'vad; weighted down.

Which brings me to Moses. In Exodus 4:10, Moses told God, "I am slow of speech and slow of tongue." But to be a bit more precise, Moses used the word c'vad: "I am heavy of mouth and heavy of tongue." At the time, Moses meant this in a bad way; my tongue is weighed down and slow! But in retrospect, I believe it can take on an ironic double-meaning. Moses became the man of the glorious tongue, speaking personally before God and writing the Pentateuch. A heavy tongue, indeed.

Mamre the Amorite

Upon translating Genesis 14, I discovered the following:

Verse 13, "...v'heym bah'ley berit Abram."
Verse 13, "...and they were owners/partners of the covenant of Abram."

Perhaps Mamre and his brothers had converted to worshipping the true god!

Compare this interpretation with Genesis 15:16, "...for the sin of the Amorite is not yet complete." Why did God specifically mention the Amorites? Was He using them as a rhetorical representative of the Canaanites, or was there actually something special about the Amorites? In either case, why wasn't the party in question sinful enough yet? Answer: our god is a merciful god, sparing a city if even 10 righteous men live there. And some of the Amorites were righteous.

Q.E.D. (perhaps)