Friday, July 21, 2017

It's getting ugly out there

I don’t know where I am on the political spectrum—I don’t fit anywhere on the traditional 1D left-to-right line. In the last election, I didn’t vote (Thank you God, that Trump lost Virginia anyway)—there was no major or third party candidate that could inspire me enough to walk (I’m that close) to the polling location. In fact, politics no longer interests me—and primarily I blame the misadventures of the Religious Right and their takeover of the Republican Party. Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, John Agee, Rick Warren—I literally blame everything wrong with politics on the likes of you—terrible developments that are either a direct result of your shenanigans or were unwelcome gifts born as reactions to your follies. You abdicated your duty, which was to preach the gospel, in a lust for power. It backfired and caused systemic damage. Shame on all of you.

But recently I have been paying attention to something interesting. The latest vicious take-no-prisoners internecine war is not between (nearly if not totally extinct) secular Republicans (where is the next Goldwater?) and the Religious Right, but between liberals/atheists and some hideous postmodern illiberal mutation available in several overlapping flavors: social justice warriors, third wave feminists, antifa, etc.

The now suddenly “how quaint” liberals/atheists, such As Dawkins, Harris, Coyne et. al.  are in a soul-war with slovenly, violent, authoritarian know-nothings. And the old-school liberals appear to be losing. And the amazing thing is that they share 99.43% of their political DNA with the group that is cannibalizing them.

Among liberals, it is really some kind of Clockwork Orange dystopian future where complete dumbasses are taking command and imposing dogma and speech patterns. Those traditional liberals disagreeing with the tiniest aspect of their orthodoxy—or of misusing terminology (the stress of making sure you know the right pronoun to use in all circumstances must be, for some, overwhelming) are Nazis, fascists, rape apologists, racists, bigots, Islamophopes, homophobes, transphobes, etc. Even though they bear no resemblance to actual Nazis, fascists, ... whatever. And,  but the way, it is considered quite acceptable to punch them, literally, because they are Nazis and who wouldn't punch a Nazi?

1984 style double-speak is the lingua franca of this group.

For example, one of the respected illiberal leaders is Linda Sarsour. She is supposedly a feminist. However, she is also a bully and an apologist for radical Islam. A feminist who argues that “it’s not so bad for women in the Islamic world”. Who argues that women (ex-Moslems!) who disagree and have the audacity to discuss misogyny in the Islamic world don’t deserve to be women and should have their vaginas taken away.

Who is this Ayaan Hirsi Ali whose vagina Sarsour wants to remove? From wikipedia:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Somali-born Dutch-American activist, feminist, author, and former Dutch politician. She actively opposes honor violence, child marriage and female genital mutilation.
That's right, she's obviously an Islamophobe for opposing child marriage, honor violence, and female genital mutilation.

I don’t fully appreciate the dynamic. I think it is close to this: people like Sarsour (being gracious and stipulating for argument's sake that she is not a garden-variety charlatan milking a niche notoriety) cannot integrate ideas that, at times, are in tension. They lack this ability, crucial for critical thinking, so they simply avoid the tension by going into denial about one of the ideas. They react to an increased anti-immigration sentiment (which is certainly reasonable to oppose) by becoming apologists for the characteristics of Islam (such as misogyny) that they should also be opposing—presumably because they cannot simultaneously favor increased immigration while acknowledging negative features of Islam. They are incapable of what their smarter relatives (the traditional liberals) can handle easily—or at least successfully.

They (the illiberal mutations) claim to support free speech (which they certainly do not) while shutting down those who are guilty of hate-speech (which they get to define.) For some of us (strong free speech supporters) that would be wrong even if there was actual hate speech involved. But “hate speech” to this nascent species is, as you probably know, “speech we disagree with, or speech from anyone who has ever said, wrote, blogged, or tweeted something that is offensive to any of the in-crowd who says it is offensive.”

Case in point, Richard Dawkins. (For a fuller treatment, see Coyne's blog.)

Richard Dawkins has been disinvited from a talk he was to deliver at Berkeley. Berkeley, which birthed the free speech movement, has committed infanticide. Dawkins’ unpardonable sin: some tweets are, to someone who matters, offensive to Islam. (Dawkins is equal opportunity in his anti-religion writings. He goes after all the major religions. But only his criticism of Islam is offensive. If he had only limited his attacks to Christianity and Judaism all would be good.) 

Here is what the illiberal cowards at radio station KPFA, sponsors of the Dawkins event, wrote:
We regret to inform you that KPFA has canceled our event with Richard Dawkins. We had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science, when we didn’t know he had offended and hurt – in his tweets and other comments on Islam, so many people. KPFA does not endorse hurtful speech. While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive speech. 
 Doublespeak emphasis added.

This is not isolated. Across the country free speech is under attack by regressive illiberal thugs. 

Conservatives: do not treat this as a popcorn event—let’s watch the left eat its own! Instead you should be afraid. Very afraid.

Thursday, July 20, 2017

The New Community (Modified)

The New Community 
The Church up to ~45 AD 
Primary Source: F.F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame 

(GOAL: Do not view this as merely an exposition on the timeline, but as prima facie evidence of God’s providence.)

After the resurrection, the new community of Jesus’ followers was viewed as a new party within Judaism. The party was known as the Nazarenes, which is still the ordinary name for "Christians" in Hebrew. The name "Nazarenes" is probably due to Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth, in Galilee, but that’s not certain. The root of the word means to observe, and some believe the early community may have been know as the observers.

The Nazarenes were not a mainstream party, like the Sadducees who dominated the Sanhedrin (Supreme Court), or the Pharisees. They were a fringe party. In some ways like the Zealots, who also sought the kingdom of God, although the means were very different: The Zealots looked for a violent overthrow of Rome, while the Nazarenes believed that the return of Christ would inaugurate the kingdom. In ways they resembled the Essenes; both placed great value on personal purity (the Essenes , extreme separatists, a subgroup of which is probably responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls, even eschewed temple sacrifice for fear of being defiled) and both practiced, in the early days, a form of communism.

There were, however, substantive differences. The Essenes were extremely diligent about the Sabbath and ceremonial adherence. The also rose daily to practice what appears to some to be borderline idolatrous worship of the sun, rather than the Son. They also practiced soothsaying and magic.

There was some intersection between the Nazarenes and the Zealots. One apostle was a Zealot. And Barabbas, whom the mob before Pilate chose for release over Jesus, was probably a Zealot, part of a failed insurrection that arose at the time of the crucifixion. A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. (Mark 15:7)

Although Nazarenes was the party name, the early believers called their movement the Way, and referred to themselves as saints, brothers, and the poor. When Paul writes: They only asked us to remember the poor-- the very thing I also was eager to do. (Gal. 2:10) "The poor" probably refers to the entire nascent community of believers, not (literally) the financially strapped, although no doubt the early community was heavily biased toward the destitute.

The Nazarenes grew quickly, having tremendous appeal to the common man. The Sadducees and the great priestly families were politely disliked. The Pharisees set up standards of behavior that common men could never achieve, and at least some of the Pharisaic schools equated ignorance with accursedness, a sentiment that we find in John’s gospel when they complain: No! But this mob [followers of Jesus] that knows nothing of the law--there is a curse on them. (John 7:49) The Nazarenes, on the other hand, taught that the work of their salvation was already accomplished by Jesus and His redeeming death, to be claimed by those who acknowledge his deity and the resurrection.

As the apostles began preaching their good news, they soon numbered more than five thousand: But many who heard the message believed, and the number of men grew to about five thousand. (Acts 4:4) The Sadducees tried, in vain, to suppress the Nazarenes.

Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. (Acts 5:17-18) 

Yet among some the Pharisees, even some in the Sanhedrin, there developed a tolerance toward the Nazarenes, and some of their number (including Paul) were even destined to join the movement. After all, the Nazarenes, like the Pharisees, tried to obey the law as best they could, and like the Pharisees, but unlike the Sadducees, they believed in bodily resurrection. True, from the point of view of the Pharisees, they were misguided in their insistence that Jesus fulfilled the biblical prophesies and had himself been resurrected, but the Nazarenes (the assumed) were mostly harmless—quite unlike the Zealots would could bring the wrath of Rome upon the entire citizenry. The Sadducees did believe in an after-life, but they did not anticipate bodily resurrection, arguing that the first mention of it comes in Daniel which, not having been penned by Moses, was non-authoritative. In a classic Perry Mason move, Paul later uses the stark differences in their views to save himself in a touchy situation when on trial in the Sanhedrin:

Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead." When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. (Acts 23:6-7) 

In particular, one revered Pharisee named Gamaliel pushed for restraint in oppressing the Nazarenes, arguing with inescapable logic that if the movement is not of God it would die in spite of their tolerance, and if it is from God it would thrive in spite of their suppression. (see Acts 5:33-38). Gamaliel is quoted in the Talmud (a collection of rabbinical writings) as discussing an unnamed “impudent student.” Some have speculated that the student is Saul of Tarsus. It is easy to imagine: Saul (Paul) must never have been a very rewarding student, for contrary to Gamaliel’s teaching Saul oppressed the Nazarenes far more effectively than the Sadducees, only to then cross over in an instant to become their greatest teacher and evangelist. On one day Gamaliel may have been upset at Paul's severe tactics, and on the next day appalled by his total conversion.

The Nazarenes met in homes where they remembered Jesus’ death through a simple meal of bread and wine. Those who had been with Jesus taught the others what they had learned first-hand. New members were baptized in the name of Jesus. Considering themselves Jews, they kept the Sabbath and still kept to appointed hours of prayer at the temple. The new meal of bread and wine was partaken on the day after the Sabbath, i.e., the first day of the week, Sunday.

The importance of the Nazarenes living as good Jews cannot be overemphasized. It marked them as relatively harmless by the Pharisees, saving them from swift and sure persecution had they had no friends in the Sanhedrin. This early group of Nazarenes, in Jerusalem, is what we often call the Jerusalem church.

The Hellinists 

Although there were no Gentiles at first, there was more than just Aramaic speaking Palestinian Jews. There were the “Hellenists”. Hellenists were Jews whose roots were outside Palestine as a result of the diaspora-- the dispersion of Jews from Palestine, beginning with the Babylonian captivity. So vast was this scattering that in the first century there were a dozen synagogues in Rome. 1 Hellenists adopted Greek language and culture, which put them at odds with the Palestinian Jews. Often overlooked is the critical role played by the Hellenists in spreading the gospel beyond Jerusalem. And the very man who persecutes them, and whom they then seek to kill, takes up their cause as his life’s work.

The first need for administration and the first internal problem in the church is traceable to the tension between “Hebrews” and Hellinists. One early logistical problem was the distribution of food to the poor. Problems arose: Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food. (Acts 6:1) The twelve apostles (Judas having been replaced by Matthias) appointed seven deacons to attend to lower-level duties. Probably all were Hellenists (all had Greek names, see Acts 6:5), and at least one, Nicolas of Antioch was not even a Jew. (He was, however, a proselyte, meaning he had previously converted to Judaism, was circumcised, and then became a Nazarene—as contrasted with the as yet nonexistent Gentile converts, who did not convert to Judaism but directly to Christianity.)

No doubt the selection of the seven was made in part to placate the Hellenists. Two of the seven, Stephen and Philip, surpassed expectations and became great teachers. In his amazing speech to the Sanhedrin (Acts 7), prior to being martyred, Stephen said:

But it was Solomon who built the house for him. "However, the Most High does not live in houses made by men. (Acts 7:47-48) 

This bold swipe at the temple, which enraged the Sanhedrin, may have been impossible for any of the Hebrews to make. Some charges against Stephen, although brought by false witnesses, may have accurately reflected his teachings:

They produced false witnesses, who testified, "This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us." (Acts 6:13-14) 

Stephen's martyrdom hints at Jewish bigotry toward the Hellenists: the Hebrews of the council had Stephen executed, while Peter and John, native Hebrews, were treated more leniently (Acts 5:40). Naming of Hellenists to positions of authority did not result in their complete assimilation into the Jerusalem church (anti-Hellenist bigotry). When the Sanhedrin initiated the first persecution of Christians, it seems to have been directed at the Hellenists:

On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison. Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went. Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ there. When the crowds heard Philip and saw the miraculous signs he did, they all paid close attention to what he said (Acts 8:2-6) 


This does not mean that every Christian except the twelve was flushed out of Jerusalem, but most of the Hellenists were forced out. Philip, for example, escaped to Samaria. In the persecution one can perhaps glimpse the will of God: Hellenists, who would have been more familiar to the Gentiles than Hebrews, began spreading the gospel. Later, (Acts 12) we see the persecution turn toward the Hebrew Christians, resulting in the martyrdom of James, the brother of John.2 That persecution arose from King Herod Agrippa. Further evidence regarding bigotry toward the Hellenists is that the great persecutor Saul of Tarsus left Jerusalem to go after the fleeing Hellenists, while not lifting a hand against the apostles, who remained in the city.

Saul of Tarsus

In the late twenties AD, Gamaliel, the revered Pharisee, accepted a young student from Tarsus, in modern day Turkey, named Saul. He came from a distinguished Jewish family, and Saul's father was a Roman citizen, an honor which he inherited and valued. Interestingly, Saul’s family did not consider themselves to be Hellenists, as you might expect, Tarsus being a great Greek city at that time, but Hebrews, which is why He went by the Hebrew name Saul. Paul affirms this in his own writing, when speaking of himself he writes "circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee" (Phil 3:5). He also shows great civic pride in his hometown, writing: Paul answered, "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people." (Acts 21:39)

Saul comes into his own around A.D. 30-33, as the Nazarene movement is flourishing. In the debate over the danger of the Christians, Saul crosses party lines, agreeing with the Sadducees, rather than his Pharisaical mentor, Gamaliel. It was precisely because the Pharisees were somewhat taken by the Nazarenes that concerned Saul. Indeed, not just uneducated Galileans (the learned held little respect of the Galileans, see John 7:52) were being duped, quite a few of his own party had joined the movement.

Saul did not see the Nazarenes as an amusing yet harmless fringe group, but as a blasphemous cult who claimed the Messiah had died a death designated for the accursed, not the favored by God. He (correctly) worried that this movement would ultimate split Judaism, and so with passion he sought to destroy it.

It is interesting that Saul used "because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse" (Deut. 21:23) to point out the blasphemy of the Nazarenes. It wasn’t until he himself joined the movement that Paul saw the incredible redemptive significance of the passage, later using it like this:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree (Gal. 3:13) 

Saul believed the two religions were incompatible. An opportunity for action arose when he encountered a stout member of the Nazarenes who, ironically, agreed him. Not one the apostles; they surely viewed “the Way” as the next stage of Judaism, and continued with their temple worship. It was the Hellenist Stephen, who saw Jesus “not only” as the risen savior, but also as the terminus for the existing age. The temple and its system would be replaced. Judaism wasn’t being upgraded, it was being supplanted. Stephen epitomized what concerned Saul: a radical, and, far from an uneducated Galilean bumpkin, he was an eloquent and persuasive Hellenist. He presided at Stephen’s execution, showing his approval by guarding the clothes of the witnesses as they stoned the saint (Acts 7:57).

Stephen’s stoning emboldened Saul and the Sanhedrin, who began systematic persecution, especially of the Hellenistic Christians. The Hellenists fled, and Saul, with official backing of the Sanhedrin (letters from the High Priest Caiaphas, whose authority was respected by the Roman overseers), set out for the outlying synagogues to capture the Nazarenes and return them to the Sanhedrin for trial. Note the bigotry at work here: the Hebrew Nazarenes, especially the apostles, were in Jerusalem, but Paul did not raise a hand toward them. He went after the Hellenists.

Saul left for Damascus, and as he neared the city he saw a blinding light, and the risen Lord stood before him. In a conversion that Calvinists can only view as the archetype of all conversions, we read:

He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." (Acts 9:4-6) 

Paul, blinded, was assisted by his companions into Damascus. Meanwhile, instructed through visions, a disciple in Damascus named Ananias, who had been at risk from Saul’s aborted mission, served as the Lord’s messenger. On Paul's third day in Damascus, Ananias found him, Paul’s sight was restored, and he was baptized. Then Paul’s amazing journey began.

Using his reputation and official letters of travel and access, he toured the very synagogues he had intended to purge. Those in attendance would not have heard what they expected. Instead, Paul boldly proclaimed what just a short time before he had held as dangerous blasphemy: Jesus, the very one who died on a tree, was the Messiah. Those who had seen the resurrected Lord had been proven correct. Paul himself had seen him. He had been so very wrong about the tree.

It is not clear how quickly he arrived at a true understanding, but he did: The Messiah was accursed, Deut. 21:23, was not contradicted. The radical insight was that the Messiah had to become a curse in order to redeem those who couldn’t keep the law from suffering their just curse (Gal 3:13).

Paul’s preaching of Christ in Damascus and the surrounding area eventually incurred the wrath of the local Jewish authorities, who conspired to kill him. (Now many of different stripes wanted to kill Paul!) Paul escaped by being lowered to safety in a basket, through a window in the city wall. In the third year since he left for Damascus, Paul returned to Jerusalem, trying to contact the disciples. But they avoided him, afraid that his conversion was in reality a trick. Eventually Barnabas interceded on his behalf, testifying to the truthfulness of Paul’s encounter with the risen Lord, and finally Paul came face-to-face with the apostles.

God had other, bigger plans for Paul, and in a vision he told Paul to leave Jerusalem. No doubt this was in part for his safety, but in the larger scheme of God’s sovereignty we see that Paul’s real mission is about to commence. In Paul’s own words, recounting the episode:

"When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance and saw the Lord speaking. 'Quick!' he said to me. 'Leave Jerusalem immediately, because they will not accept your testimony about me.' " 'Lord,' I replied, 'these men know that I went from one synagogue to another to imprison and beat those who believe in you. And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.' "Then the Lord said to me, 'Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.' " (Acts 22:17-21) 

Paul’s friends spirited him away, first to Caesarea and ultimately to Tarsus. His few years in Tarsus are a mystery. Some believe that Paul’s statement: What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ (Phil. 3:8) indicates disinheritance. The timelines suggest that some of his “forty stripes save one” lashings (2 Cor., 11:24) occurred at the hands of the Jews in Tarsus. Toward the end of this obscure period, he has a mysterious experience:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows. And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows-- was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. (2 Cor. 12:2-4)

This experience left him with an undisclosed lifelong physical ailment, a “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor 12:7), which was apparently for his spiritual benefit.

Whether Paul thought he was wasting in obscurity is unknown. It is clear in hindsight that the Lord was strengthening him for his life’s work. And it commenced sometime in A.D. 45, when his friend Barnabas, who had commended him to the apostles, arrived like a bolt out of the blue. It seemed that the Lord had work to be done in Antioch, and Paul was the man for the job.

(And that would be the next class, if there were a next class!!)

1 Consider the amazing encounter of Paul, in Corinth, with the Romans Priscilla and Aquila described in Acts 18. There had been no mission trip to Rome, yet Paul encounters two exiles from Rome who are mature in their Christian faith. It must have been astounding.  

2 Not to be confused with Jesus’s brother James who was not one of the apostles, and was not a follower of his brother while Jesus lived (John 7:5). But James did have a Damascus road experience himself, for Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 15:7 that the risen Christ appeared to his brother James. James then rose to lead the Jerusalem church and was martyred later, in A.D. 62.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

One of my favorite elementary physics problems

A yo-yo is on a horizontal surface. It is pulled with a force F, as shown. It rolls without slipping. Does it roll left or right, and why?

Eagles or Vultures?

In response to a question regarding the second coming (and by extension, the final judgment) Jesus responds, in Matthew: 28

Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. (Matt 24:28, ESV)

Hmm. Or is it:  

28 For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together. (Matt 24:28, NKJV)

and in Luke this response is recorded:  

37 And they said to him, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.” (Luke 17:37, ESV)

Or is it:  

37 So He said to them, “Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together.” (Luke 17:37, NKJV)

Vultures or eagles? Corpse or body? As for the latter, the Greek word translated as carcass or corpse in Matthew indeed refers to a dead body—while the word used by Luke can refer to either a live or dead body. The easiest way to resolve this is to assume that Luke was also referring to a dead body, but chose the more general word. Because reasons.

But what about eagles v. vultures? It gets confusing here. The Hebrew word in the Old Testament is sometimes used for both. The Septuagint then used the Greek eagle or vulture for the Hebrew word, as it was deemed appropriate, so there was already some precedent, in the Greek, for using eagle where one might also use vulture. Maybe that’s all there is to it.

There is also the theory that this was a proverbial saying, and that vulture was the word used proverbially, but eagle was substituted because a) it could be, as discussed above, or perhaps b) it made reference to the material cause of the appearance of the corpse (figuratively, Jerusalem) which was the Roman legions with their eagle standard.

Interesting speculation—no way to prove it.

Monday, July 17, 2017

I'll take "Lack of self-awareness" for $2000, Alex!

I don't know what to say.

Here is a video of Dr. Georgia Purdom and Dr. Danny Faulkner of Answers in Genesis discussing the pseudo-scientific theory of a flat earth. The AIG "scientists" are not pleased that some fundamentalists, due to their overly literal exegesis, believe the earth is flat. In fact, to the AIG crowd it's downright embarrassing that, in this era of modern science, a Christian could hold such a obviously incorrect view.

And this bears no resemblance to fundamentalists, due to their overly literal exegesis, who believe the earth is less that 10,000 years old. No sir, no resemblance at all. Completely different.

Back from Foreign Travels

I returned last week from our biennial Math-Physics study-abroad. We (two faculty,  12 students) once again took up the divisive religious question: Who invented calculus? Was in Leibniz as the mathematicians claim, or was it Newton as championed by the physicists?

Our three week class started in Prague where we studied the history and work of Brahe and Kepler--as inspirations for Newton. (And not because The Czech Republic is the birthplace of the best beer in the world.)

We then journeyed to Leipzig and after that, Paris, to concentrate on Leibniz--who called both places home. (What other reason would there be to go to Paris?)

Finally we chunnel-hopped to London and then on to Cambridge to bask in the afterglow of Sir Isaac.

Along the way we visited (and in some cases received lectures) the Czech Astronomical Institute, the Kepler Museum, The Prague Technical Museum, two different libraries at Leipzig University including a presentation of some of their rare books, the French Academy of Sciences, and the Wren Library at Trinity College in Cambridge. (And we punted on the Cam. And partook of Fish 'N Chips and Guinness.)

Oh--our hotel in Paris is haunted. Or so we have been told.

Monday, June 19, 2017

Was it time to fight? (Answer: no)

35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” (Luke 22:35-38)
This is a very strange passage. For many reasons. It is sometimes used by those who are anti-Christian to argue that Christians are called to violence. What else can Jesus mean? The plain reading suggest that Jesus is saying: We tried the non-violent way, taking no money or provisions and relying on the good will of the people (Luke 10:4-7). Well the time for that approach has passed. We can expect no help. Now we take a different tact. 

Despite what it says, it cannot be taken literally. For just a few hours later, when Jesus is arrested, and one of the swords actually is used for its intended purpose, Jesus is adamant that the sword should be put away, and he healed the injured party (Luke 22:49-51). So when it would be the most natural to realize the call to arms, Jesus instead takes the pacifist approach.

The best that this passage can be understood is this way: There was about to be a great transition in the milieu in which the disciples lived. Up to now, for the most part, they were a popular group of Jews with a beloved rabbi who traveled about drawing crowds of admirers. No need for money, provisions, or self-protection. All was readily supplied. However, soon they would become, at best, a headless sect whose leader died in an ignominious way that completely discredited them in the eyes of their countrymen. The donations would dry up. The good will would evaporate. Their lives would be at risk. Jesus’ message is not a literal call to arms. It is a prophecy regarding their changing fates in terms of acceptance and safety.

Saturday, June 10, 2017

Few, Many, Most?

For many are called, but few are chosen. (Matthew 22:14) 

This is hard.1 I really don’t like this verse. I have found no satisfying interpretation that is entirely based on the timeless prescription,2  “use scripture to interpret scripture.” There simply isn’t, it seems to me, enough relevant scripture to construct a critical mass for either of the common interpretations.

There is, however, enough for that favorite pastime of cherry-picking support for your bias. I know, because I’m, I'd hate to think, very good at that game. But honestly—it’s either that or throw up your hands, which may in fact be the better part of valor.

Jesus himself was somewhat coy about this—inasmuch as we can use coy to refer to whatever corresponding holy virtue he possessed that could at times resemble coyness to finite chowderheads (i.e., all mankind.) You see Jesus was asked specifically to give a numerical estimate, but instead he gave an answer with the same interpretive difficulties:
22 Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. 23 Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?” He said to them, 24 “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. (Luke 13:22-24)
What does many mean? Is it a majority? It’s impossible to say. In modern usage many often implies a minority. For example, in most presidential elections (but not the last dreadful one) you say that many people voted for the loser, but most people voted for the winner. In short, the answer is entirely unhelpful if we are attempting to quantify with any precision. Except we can agree that "many" does not mean "few."

So, to the two interpretations. The first is:

For all time, the number of people saved will be a small minority. 

People have even tried to estimate the ratio. William Fisher, elder of a Scottish parish in the late 18th century, and apparently a frozen-chosen type Calvinist, estimated only one in ten are saved. For this (and his perceived hypocrisy) he was mocked as “Holy Willy” by no less that Robert Burns:

O Thou, who in the heavens does dwell, 
[And] As it pleases best Thyself, 
Sends one to Heaven and ten to Hell
All for Thy glory, And not for any good or bad 
They've done during their lifetime! 
-- Robert Burns, Holy Willy, Stanza 1, translated.

Ouch. No fiver-pointer, Robert Burns.

The second interpretation:

Matthew 22:14 refers only to the time of Jesus’ ministry. 

Why? In part because, as we know, just after his ministry ended, the number added to the church exploded. And today there are about 2.2 billion people self-identifying as Christians. You’d have to be a cynic’s cynic to assume that enough of them are not True Christians™ to reduce that number down to something that is sensible to refer to as a “few.”

Oh, how embarassing, I didn’t realize my bias was showing. And it is not based on eschatology. (If anything, it’s the other way around, my eschatology is heavily influenced by the way I interpret this verse, i.e. via option 2.)

Sorry, no proof to be found. You see, I simply deem it unseemly when someone tells me they believe only a few are saved, and (it is typically implied but not stated) that they’re one of the elite. It’s a dark side of my beloved Calvinism that sometimes rears its ugly head. But it might be right. I would just rather think it wasn't.

Now for my cherry picking. First, Paul:
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! (Rom 5:15)  
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (Rom 5:19) 
Here Paul uses the many, and pits Adam's many against Jesus'. Yes, as I argued earlier, many doesn’t imply a majority. But, again, it is certainly not “few.”

Then there is John Calvin, commenting on Paul’s words:
If Adam's fall had the effect of producing the ruin of many, the grace of God is much more efficacious in benefiting many, since admittedly Christ is much more powerful to save than Adam was to ruin.
Now I don't want to read too much in Calvin's (or Paul's) argument, or put words in his mouth, but of course that's just a prelude to doing exactly that:

P1) Adam's fall resulted in the ruin of many (the reprobate)
P2) Jesus' work resulted in the the benefit of many (the saved)
P3) Jesus is more efficacious in saving than Adam is in ruining
C) Therefore Jesus' many exceeds Adam's many. A majority of mankind will be saved.

It makes sense to me. But I can't prove it. I can't demonstrate that heaven will be heavily populated. But I sure hope it is.

1 So hard, in fact, that for a more scholarly treatment, see See F. F. Bruce, Hard Sayings of Jesus

 The best possible algorithm, yet mathematically problematic, see Gödel's incompleteness theorems, vis-à-vis presuppositional-lite apologetics. (Only mostly kidding.)