Author Archives: memoirandremains

Book Review God in Our Midst, Daniel R. Hyde

04 Wednesday Dec 2019

Posted by in Book Review, Exodus, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

Length, 222 pages (including appendix). Published 2012, Reformation Trust.

In Exodus 35, Moses takes up an offering for property to be used in the building of the wilderness Tabernacle. In chapter 35, we begin the account of the building of the tabernacle. Earlier chapters discuss the lampstand, the bronze altar, the showbread, the courtyard. This description of curtain rings and animal skins and golden vessels can easily be bewildering; and at first seems like a great deal of detail for little purpose.

It is that purpose which Hyde seeks to explain.

In 17 chapters, Hyde methodically works through the details of the tabernacle. The chapters follow a basic plan and are structured like a series of short sermons. Each chapter begins with a quotation of the applicable text. There follows an introductory statement which demonstrates the importance of particular aspect of the tabernacle. In good sermonic fashion, there are three points concerning the item which are detailed, together with application.

By way of illustration, I will take one chapter from the middle of the book. Chapter 7 concerns the Bronze altar. The essential purpose of the altar is to teach us and remind us of our need to resolve our conflict with God on the basis of justice and mercy. Hyde develops this theme through three points: Satisfaction, Confession and Substitution.

 

Satisfaction: There is a conflict between us and God which must be resolved: there must be satisfaction for our sin. Hyde highlights the fire which is to be kept always burning on the altar. That fire was originally started by God.  That fire needed a constant satisfaction, “The fire of the altar needed to be satisfied constantly lest it be extinguished.” Hyde then draws in the observation from Hebrews, “Our God is a consuming fire.” Heb. 12:28.

From that, Hyde applies the doctrine by means of reference to the Heidelberg Catechism. Hyde makes frequent reference to Reformation Confessions and Catechisms.  This makes work constantly practical and applicable.

The reference to confessional documents anchors Hyde’s doctrine and protects against the fear that he is going too far or has become fanciful in his observations about the elements of the Tabernacle. Even if one were to think a particular observation as mistaken (Hyde is quite judicious in his reading; and I never found him outlandish, but some may feel strange thinking that the rim on the table for the bread is an illustration of perseverance by God’s sovereign act), there is never a fear that his doctrine has gone afield.

Next Hyde comes to Confession: When the sacrifice was presented, the one making the offering placed their hands upon the animal’s head. In Leviticus 16:21, we are told that when offering the animal the priest would confess the sins of the people. Wenham also notes that a prayer was offered with the sacrifice.

From this act, Hyde discusses the doctrine of repentance (with reference to the Westminster Larger Catechism and the Book of Common Prayer).

The final section speaks to the substitution of the sacrifice for the sinner offering the animal. At this point, Hyde makes an insightful application:

Do you ever get that nagging feeling that you are just not doing enough? To need to be better person, to be more generous with your time and money, to be more patient, more loving, more forgiving – and the list goes on. You have these feelings because you are guilty. But there is nothing you can do to take away that guilt; there is no point in trying harder. (111).

This gives a fair example of the structure and content of the book. The tone of the book overall is pastoral. It reads like a well-thought-out sermon. The book is not aimed at academics nor is it aimed at those who are seeking Christian pablum and entertainment. It is a serious book; but not a difficult book. It will demand attention, but it is not beyond the average reader.

It also fills a useful need. There are very few mediations nature: it does not seek to explain all of the ANE parallels, but rather seeks to draw out the spiritual lesson of the building. Indeed, I have only one other book in this vein (Soltau’s The Tabernacle, printed in 19th Century). It is ideally structured for personal devotion (indeed, the book should be digested, not merely referenced), small groups or even as a source book for a preacher (he has an appendix for those who may preach Moses’s books).

Recommended.

A consideration of Wayne Grudem’s Argument for Divorce on Grounds of Abuse

03 Tuesday Dec 2019

Posted by in 1 Corinthians, Biblical Counseling, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Wayne Grudem has recently made an argument that abuse is permissible basis for divorce in accordance with 1 Corinthians 7:15. The issues of divorce is fraught with peril; and so, my arguments here are quite tentative and based upon a brief consideration. I am merely thinking out loud. But I do believe that Grudem’s argument is plausible and could be strengthened significantly.

Here experience as an attorney helps to understand what is happening with Paul’s legislation.

The argument made by Dr. Grudem is quite similar to the sort of interpretation which is faced routinely in litigation: A particular statute will include both a definite statement of some category and a list of examples. The particular section of his presentation at issue concerns the phrase “in such cases” found in 1 Corinthians 7:15:

But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

(ESV). Grudem’s argument hinges upon the plural use in the original:

1 Corinthians 7:15 (SBLGNT)

15 εἰ δὲ ὁ ἄπιστος χωρίζεται, χωριζέσθω· οὐ δεδούλωται ὁ ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἡ ἀδελφὴ ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις, ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ κέκληκεν ἡμᾶς ὁ θεός.

The structure is similar to that faced by the courts. The difficulty here lies with the nature of translation, particular when dealing with a grammatical connective (as opposed to the translation of a noun or verb which have a clearer reference in the physical world). The translation runs to either “in such cases” or “in such circumstances”.

Grudem gives a number of examples from other extra-biblical Greek texts where the phrase is used to introduce an open-ended list (as opposed to giving a restricted list: these items and no more). However, Grudem’s examples from other texts is insufficient to make a solid conclusion.

The interpretative question is whether Paul intends for his example to be read as an exhaustive list: “in this circumstance only”; or is it to be read as an example, “in circumstances like this”.  The plural could mean either any time an unbeliever separates (and thus multiple unbelievers) or it could mean circumstances similar to an unbeliever separating.

The phrase “in such circumstances/cases” is not a common phrase in statutory construction. But there are other quite similar phrases which could inform our analysis.

Perhaps the most common introductory comment is “includes”. For example, a case in Nebraska of an employee seeking benefits sustained by an injury turned upon whether the phrases following “high risk duty includes:” were an exhaustive list or an exemplary list. The court found that use of the word “include” introduces an expansive list:

We recognize that some courts have concluded that the word “include,” standing alone, is ambiguous whether the contracting parties meant for the word to be expansive or restrictive. But we are not persuaded by these cases. Concluding that the parties’ intent regarding a list is ambiguous if a list is preceded only by the verb “include” is contrary to its plain and ordinary meaning. The word “include” means “1. to contain, embrace, or comprise, as a whole does parts or any part or element … 2. to place in an aggregate, class, category, or the like. 3. to contain as a subordinate element; involve as a factor.” Contrary to the county’s argument, these definitions support the conclusion that enumerated items in a list preceded by the word “include” are normally a part of the whole—not that the parts restrict the whole. Particularly in legal contexts, the “participle including typically indicates a partial list,” and this meaning holds true whether or not the drafter(s) added emphatic language such as “ including but not limited to.” Obviously, interpretative aids cannot override the parties’ clear intent when a contract is considered as a whole. But the word “include” preceding a list does not indicate an exclusive list absent other language showing a contrary intent.

Timberlake v. Douglas Cnty., 865 N.W.2d 788, 797 (Neb. 2015). Prodigy Svcs. v. Johnson, 125 S.W.3d 413, 417 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (A related phrase which is much easier to apply is “includes, but is not limited to:” “Following that line of argument the Commissioner finds expansive language in the statute, such as “transmission by or through any media” and “includes but is not limited to, all types of telecommunication transmissions.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(31)(BC)(Supp. 2002).”)  Thus, if we read Paul’s “in such cases” as “includes”, we have a basis for reading abandonment as one example, not a complete list.

A related phrase connecting a general to a specific reference is “such as” – which is perhaps more similar to Paul’s construction. A Michigan case involving the scope of the phrase “earth movement” provides some useful analysis:

Relying on the doctrine of ejusdem generis, Andriacchi argues that the term “earth movement” is constricted by the words of limitation “such as.” Because the exclusion only identifies natural events—”earthquake, landslide or earth sinking, rising or shifting”—Andriacchi argues that the term “earth movement” is limited to naturally occurring events. Reliance on this doctrine is misplaced. Under the ejusdem generis doctrine, “when a general word or phrase follows a list of specifics, the general word or phrase will be interpreted to include only items of the same class as those listed.” Black’s Law Dictionary(10th ed.). But as the trial court recognized, that doctrine (or, for that matter, any other canon of statutory interpretation) does not apply where the language of the contract is clear, see, e.g., Utica State Savings Bank v. Village of Oak Park, 279 Mich. 568, 573, 273 N.W. 271 (1937), as is the case here. Further, the phrase “such as” conveys that the cited examples are not all-inclusive or restrictive in nature, and thus does not serve to narrow the types of earth movement excluded under the policy. Moreover, the cited examples of earth movement are not only caused by natural phenomena. For example, landslides can occur naturally or be caused by man, as can the “sinking, rising or shifting” of the earth.

Home-Owners Ins. Co. v. Andriacchi, 903 N.W.2d 197, 203-4 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). Here we had a party arguing that “such as” acted as a limitation, and the court responding with the observation that here are examples where “such as” did not limit the general proposition. But something is important here: the canons of construction are not iron clad rules, they are helps to understanding: “But as the trial court recognized, that doctrine (or, for that matter, any other canon of statutory interpretation) does not apply where the language of the contract is clear”.

In a criminal case which hinged upon scope of the word “matter” in a jury instruction concerned the computer hardware or computer disk which held an image or the image itself.

The statute indicates that at a minimum, a “matter” must be capable of containing a visual depiction. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). Although both the disks and the GIF files could be viewed as “containing” the visual depiction, we conclude the “matter” is the physical medium that contains the visual depiction — in this case, the hard drive of Lacy’s computer and the disks found in his apartment. This interpretation is supported by two principles of statutory interpretation, noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis. “The first means that a word is understood by the associated words, the second, that a general term following more specific terms means that the things embraced in the general term are of the same kind as those denoted by the specific terms.” United States v. Baird, 85 F.3d 450, 453 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing 2A Norman J. Singer, Sutherland-Statutory Construction §§ 47.16, 47.17 (5th ed. 1992)). Although canons of construction do not mandate how a phrase is to be read, they “describe what we usually mean by a particular manner of expression.” Longview Fibre Co. v. Rasmussen, 980 F.2d 1307, 1313 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, the word “matter” appears at the end of the list “books, magazines, periodicals, films, [and] video tapes,” all of which are physical media capable of containing images. See Baird, 85 F.3d at 453 (looking to list’s “theme” to determine the meaning of a general term).

United States v. Lacy, 119 F.3d 742, 748 (9th Cir. 1997). There are two elements of this argument which are useful here: the purpose of a list of examples is to help understand a particular term. There is always a bit of ambiguity in language; at times a list of examples can help to diminish the ambiguity. The second observation is that no “rule” can absolutely answer the question; it only helps when it comes to interpretation.

So here with we have additional help. What do not have is a conclusive answer.

As noted above, Grudem makes much of the use of the phrase in other extra-biblical Greek texts. His examples demonstrate that it is possible to read the phrase as introducing one example, rather than a restrictive list. But that is all his argument proves.

I do not believe his argument as it stands is sufficient to make the case. He merely notes that the grammatical structure could permit a broad reading; not that it must permit a broad reading. The answer to that question does not hinge upon the use of the particular, but upon the structure of the argument.

To understand Paul’s argument correctly, we must do more than atomistically look at phrase and then compare that phrase to other not necessarily parallel uses. That is not how language works. It is true that the phrase at least sometimes has the force of  “includes but not limited to”. But does it here?

If one looks at verse 15 alone, it is difficult to see how one could construct such an argument for the use of phrase. The plural could just mean “every time an unbeliever leaves a marriage”: or every unbeliever who leaves: “15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.”

To construct an “includes but is not limited to” argument, would have to first define a general category in which abandonment (“separates”) is a common not though exhaustive example.  The trouble is the verse does not provide us with any general category. In fact, looked at alone, the preceding reference for “in such cases” is the sole instance of an unbelieving spouse abandoning the marriage.

However, if we back up to verse 13 (verse 14 is merely explains the principle underlying the rule) we can see the following argument running from verse 13 through 15:

13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.  …. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

General rule: if an unbeliever “consents to live with”. The clause “consents to live with” is uncertain. What does it mean to “consent to live with”?

Verse 15 introduces an example: “If the unbelieving partner separates”.  Thus, abandoning the marriage would not be the sole instance of not consenting to live with but merely an example of one who does not consent to live with.

The counter argument would be that “pleased to dwell with” has only one opposite term, abandonment. But again, looked at from this angle, Grudem’s argument based upon the Greek seems more plausible: Is the only opposite of “pleased to dwell with” abandonment? Certainly, abandonment is one opposite term, but it does not seem to be the only opposite term.

Conclusion: I think Grudem has presented the beginning of a good argument. His argument would actually be much stronger if it were anchored in the structure of Paul’s argument and not in a narrow reading of the phrase.

Moreover, anchoring the argument in the overall structure of the Paul’s argument has the additional advantage of not trying to contend that abuse is a form of abandonment, but rather that abuse is inconsistent with “pleased to dwell” (1 Cor. 7:13, KJV).

In addition, (I don’t have the cite available), I recall reading (in Baxter’s Christian Directory?) that to stay in a marriage where one’s life was in danger is a violation of the 6th Commandment, because we don’t have a right to let others kill us. I’m surprised that Baxter’s argument has not received more traction: I think it a good argument and far simpler to apply than looking for grounds for divorce. Now, Baxter’s argument may not sufficient to anchor a remarriage (I just don’t know), but it certainly provides for separation for safety.

Physical abuse is a sin and a crime. Congregations have serious obligations to protect the safety of their members, and to utilize both the process of church discipline and the legal protections available. Failure to do these things has resulted in many congregations sinning against those who were most in need of protection.

A final important caution: the introduction of an example, even if only one in a series of other possible example, does form a kind of restriction. Only things which are the opposite of “pleased to dwell with” and similar to “separates” are included within Paul’s list. If we read the scope of permissible divorce as broader than abandonment, we must have some limiting mechanism to distinguish those instances which are plainly outside of Paul’s injunction.

 

Kuyper, Common Grace, 1.9

26 Tuesday Nov 2019

Posted by in Abraham Kuyper, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

The prior post may be found here.

In this chapter, Kuyper considers the issue of whether Genesis 9:6 provides the basis for imposition of civil government:

Genesis 9:6 (AV)

6Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

The argument is essentially this: The primary (and ultimate) act of the civil government is the enforcement of law, by the (ultimate) act of capital punishment. See, Romans 13:1, et seq.

It is the Reformed position that the right of capital punishment conveys the power of civil government. However, there are those who hold that this verse is not a command but rather a promise of punishment by God on the last day, or perhaps God in providence will provide for an untimely death of the miscreant. And while the Reformed position would agree that God will punish on the Last Day, and that providence may provide for the untimely death of the murderer, the quotation is in the form of an imperative: Thou shalt punish the murderer.

But is this the correct understanding? Are those who refuse the imperative more accurate?

Kuyper begins by assessing the structure of the proposition: He notes that the final clause is explanatory: “for in the image of God made he man.”

What conclusion should we draw from this: Does the taking of the murder’s life rest upon the dignity of the victim? Or does the right to impose capital punishment rest upon the dignity of man to be a judge of such things (in accord with God’s direction)?

We must realize that all created things belong to God, and human beings have no independent position to exercise any dominion over any creature – except as God ordains. This is inherent in the Genesis 1 creation account of human beings: to be created in God’s image & to exercise dominion over creation were two distinct propositions:

Genesis 1:26–28 (AV)

[First] 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

[Second] 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Thus, no one human being has the right to take another human being’s life without express direction from God.

When we consider this proposition it helps to decide between the two possible readings of the concluding clause of Genesis 9: being in the image of God could not give a human being the right to kill another human. But, killing a human being would give us a rationale for God’s ordinance of capital punishment: it is correct because a human being has been killed.

The ordinance rests ultimately upon God’s sovereignty. God alone has the right and power to impose such a rule. Anyone who kills without God’s mandate, makes himself liable to being executed by other men. The judicial motive of the act is the honor and sovereignty of God. This then makes sense of the whole.

Exodus 21:12 (AV)

He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

Kuyper makes an interesting observation about the sound of the first clause of Genesis 9:6. The sound “dam” means blood in Hebrew. The sound a-dam means human being, man. Thus, the clause sounds like this: dam ha’adam ba’adam damo. There is a fourfold repetition of the sound for blood.

He ends with an interesting observation about authority. Prior to this institution, there was authority within the family – but this included no authority to take a life. Here we have something new, and with that the post-flood world included the institution of a civil government.

 

 

 

 

 

John Keats, Analysis, When I Have Fear that I may Cease to be

23 Saturday Nov 2019

Posted by in Literature, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

WHEN I have fears that I may cease to be

Before my pen has glean’d my teeming brain,

Before high piled books, in charact’ry,

Hold like rich garners the full-ripen’d grain;

When I behold, upon the night’s starr’d face,         5

Huge cloudy symbols of a high romance,

And think that I may never live to trace

Their shadows, with the magic hand of chance;

And when I feel, fair creature of an hour!

That I shall never look upon thee more,               10

Never have relish in the faery power

Of unreflecting love!—then on the shore

Of the wide world I stand alone, and think

Till Love and Fame to nothingness do sink.

 

This is a Shakespearian sonnet of three quatrains and a couplet. It follows the typical development, of three major propositions and a conclusion based upon the whole. The overall theme is a meditation on death: First, he thinks of the work and fame which he will not obtain by his early death. Then he considers the greater loss, which is the loss of his love (Fanny Brawne). He in fact died at age 25 in 1821.

 

He concludes with the realization that neither art nor love will be sufficient to stop the loss of all. In the end, there will be only “nothingness.”

 

First Stanza:

 

WHEN I have fears that I may cease to be

Before my pen has glean’d my teeming brain,

Before high piled books, in charact’ry,

Hold like rich garners the full-ripen’d grain;

 

The first line introduces the theme: When I contemplate my death and what will be lost. Being an ambitious young man with prodigious talent, his first thought comes to his poetry. He uses the imagery of farming and harvest: His pen “gleans” from his brain. Books of his work are like barns filled with grain. There is a harvest of his imagination to be had.

 

There is an interesting meta-view of the whole: he is busy “gleaning” by writing this poem on gleaning. And so his fear of loss creates the gain.

 

Second Stanza:

 

When I behold, upon the night’s starr’d face,         5

Huge cloudy symbols of a high romance,

And think that I may never live to trace

Their shadows, with the magic hand of chance;

 

In this stanza he makes use of the Romantic epistemology: the world is both objective and subjective: the meaning of that world is produced in my imagination working on the raw materials of the creation. As Shelley has in Mont Blanc:

 

My own, my human mind, which passively 

Now renders and receives fast influencings, 

Holding an unremitting interchange 

With the clear universe of things around; 

One legion of wild thoughts, whose wandering wings 

Now float above thy darkness, and now rest 

Where that or thou art no unbidden guest, 

In the still cave of the witch Poesy, 

Seeking among the shadows that pass by 

Ghosts of all things that are, some shade of thee, 

Some phantom, some faint image; till the breast 

From which they fled recalls them, thou art there

 

The sky and clouds are filled with potential tales. But these things will never be revealed if he, the poet, does not live to

 

live to trace

Their shadows, with the magic hand of chance

 

 

Third Stanza:

 

And when I feel, fair creature of an hour!

That I shall never look upon thee more,               10

Never have relish in the faery power

Of unreflecting love!—then on the shore

 

He then looks upon his love. She also transient: “fair creature of an hour!” And he will never more have the joy of looking upon her.

 

But there is something different here. In his work of creating, he is making something from world about him. And, if he does not make it, it will not come to be. But this which comes from her is not some creation of his imagination. She radiates “the faery power/Of unreflecting love!”

 

A “faery power” would be something profound, preternatural. It is the sort of power that he seeks to lay hold of in his imaginative work, “cloudy symbols of a high romance.” His work only reaches toward those things. But, in this woman before him who loves, that which would seek to achieve is given to him.

 

This love given to him is more than the goal of all that he would desire.

 

Couplet

 

The couplet is interesting, because Keats does not make a clean break from the third stanza. It is as if the contemplation of the one he loves has not merely superseded his art, it has derailed his poem.

 

Of the wide world I stand alone, and think   

Till Love and Fame to nothingness do sink.

 

And then he ends with the conclusion of vanity. Neither his art nor even her love are sufficient to stand before death. The only fitting reference here is Ecclesiastes. Keats would have known the Bible merely by normal exposure in his age (and from references in his work). Thus, a concept from Ecclesiastes being behind his work would not be a stretch:

 

Ecclesiastes 1:1–8 (AV)

1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. 2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. 3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. 5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. 6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. 7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. 8 All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

Augustus Franck, Nicodemus, or a Treatise on the Fear of Man, Chapter IV

22 Friday Nov 2019

Posted by in Fear, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

The prior post in this series is found here. 

CHAPTER IV

Of the manifold mischiefs caused by the fear of man

Fear of man is one cause which causes one to reject coming to faith, “Many thousands of souls are thereby kept back from a true and thorough repentance and conversion; because they do not suffer the knowledge of the truth, the brightness whereof hath in some degree enlightened them, to shine forth in its full strength, but hold it, as it were, imprisoned by manifold hypocritical shifts and pretences.”

 

Fear of man also limits one’s growth in godliness, because one is afraid of what others may say or do. “Many know not what the reason is why they make such slow advances in their spiritual growth, when all this while the enemy, that is, the fear of man, secretly lurks within, and eats out, as it were, the very vigour and activity of the life of grace; though they take him for their best friend, supposing this fearfulness to be nothing else but wisdom and prudence.”

 

Fear of man and continual opposition may cause a minister to lose heart and thus perform their office. Fearfulness in one encourages fearfulness in others. And so two fearful ministers in one place, may cause a great deal of mischief. Those who are brought upon under such ministry will resemble their minister, as a child does a parent. Such ministers also rob others by distracting them away from ministers who could more profit their soul.

 

And those who are wicked take courage when they see the righteous fearful.

 

Fear of man causes many to refuse to be an open gospel witness to those who have power and position.

 

“The fear of man is always for maintaining old customs; and whilst every one is afraid of innovation, all abuses are thereby more and more authorized, so that all things proceed continually from bad to worse, because nothing is reformed or amended.”

 

A fearful man cannot act in faith on God, because, “a fearful man trusts God no further than his reason reaches and carries him.” He certainly will not trust God to protect him. By rejecting faith in God, we reject God’s blessing which is bestowed upon the faithful who receive them in faith. A fearful heart can receive no true communion or spiritual blessing from God; rather, such a fearful man is also plagued by a bad conscience.

 

“St. James saith, “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you,” ch. 4:7.: and the reverse of it is full as true; for the more we give way to the devil and his instruments out of fear, the more they pursue and press upon us. Men might rid themselves of many troubles, could they but resignedly rely upon the authority of their function, and boldly perform what God hath commanded them. If we neglect this, it is no wonder if the devil insult us.”

Aside

Trees, William Carlos William

20 Wednesday Nov 2019

Posted by in Literature, Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on Trees, William Carlos William

Tags

, , , ,

 

Crooked, black tree

on your little grey-black hillock,

ridiculously raised one step toward

the infinite summits of the night:

even you the few grey stars

draw upward into a vague melody

of harsh threads.

 

Bent as you are from straining

against the bitter horizontals of

a north wind – there below you

how easily the long yellow notes

of poplars flow upward in a descending

scale, each note secure in its own

posture – singularly woven.

 

all voices are blent willing

against the heaving contra-bass

of the dark but you alone

warp yourself passionately to one side

in your eagerness.

At one level this poem is silly: there is no music actually playing. The trees and flowers and stars are playing no melody. There is no blending of voices. A tree is certainly never passionate nor eager.

There is certainly something striking and picturesque about a tree bent against the wind. It is a common symbol of resolution before contrary forces.

Then what is the point of such a poem? What does Williams do with these words – if anything?

First, the poem permits us to see something of the world. We are so busy with our lives, that we easily fail to take notice or thought of what is before us. We live with pre-digested entertainment, carefully constructed to make sure we know exactly how we are supposed to feel.  We use things for what they can do for us. We become the center of our world.

But this poem does nothing for us: it will not make anyone richer. There is no secret embedded within. But also it is not particularly easy. It is not digested for us: it makes some demands up the reader with his observations.

The poem re-presents a moment of observation: He saw a tree on a hill bent against the wind and standing beneath the stars. The moment must have been lovely.

The measure and harmony between the earth and sky is striking.

In fact, as he looked from the poplars below to the crooked black tree on the hill and up to the stars, he sees a harmony and proportion between the trees and stars and the darkness. All of it comes together into a whole.

Hence, there is a music between the parts. It is not just that the scene is aesthetically pleasing; it is that the scene is harmonious: there is a sympathy from the trees to the stars.

Look at how he notes the trees reach to the sky:

 

ridiculously raised one step toward

the infinite summits of the night

 

The phrase “ridiculously raised” is the key: Yes, there is an infinite space from the tree to the stars. The tree cannot possibly hope to reach the stars; it is “ridiculous,” and yet the tree reaches.

 

The tree on its hill has been shaped from the conflict here on earth:

 

Bent as you are from straining

against the bitter horizontals of

a north wind

 

The tree becomes even more comic and endearing. It reaches to the sky while it strains against its own conflict. And then below, there is a place of peace: the yellow poplars. How we know the poplars are yellow in the dark and starlight is not explained. In fact, it is the music, not the trees which are yellow: long yellow notes.

 

The tree now occupies a place between heaven and earth: the earth comes to the tree; the tree reaches to the sky.

 

The objects are all singing a counter melody to the darkness; those things that are hang against what is not:

 

all voices are blent willing

against the heaving contra-bass

of the dark

 

But the tree occupies a unique space:

 

            but you alone

warp yourself passionately to one side

in your eagerness.

 

The tree again is comic: it is passionate and eager; it even warps itself in its straining so.

 

And so the poem brings us in a moment of Willams’ revery.  We can see a moment through his eyes from 100 years ago and look at this tree.

 

But is there is something more than just a quirky thought of a long dead physician? There is a way of seeing the world in harmony and sympathy. There is a pattern which runs through creation and engenders an affection for even a crooked black tree.

 

I remember being in college and trying to gain some important proposition out of a poem. But I now I understand something about poems like this which I did not understand then. Looking at the world as Williams did so long ago; imaging that moment of an evening by the trees, beneath the sky; has its own effect.

 

We often wonder and worry what effect this or that photograph or word or scene or videogame or movie or what not will do to someone. The world is stuffed full of wickedness and corruption and truly hateful things. And all such things have a corrosive effect upon us all.

 

But moments of beauty, the delight in the common grace which God has bestowed upon us all from his unending wealth and lavish care, have their own effect. I think we are better for such observations.

 

C.S. Lewis speaks of his salvation coming in through the idea of joy: why is there joy in a brutal meaningless world? Why is there beauty? How is that explained? Why is there harmony and sympathy through the creation?

 

 

Review: Christian Worldview by Herman Bavinck

19 Tuesday Nov 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

The Domain for Truth

Herman Bavinck. Christian Worldview.  Wheaton, IL: Crossway, October 21, 2019.  144 pp.

Purchase: Westminster | Amazon

5 out of 5

This is the much anticipated first time English translation of Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck’s Christian Worldview.  For those who are unfamiliar with Bavinck he was the chief systematic theologian of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century and whose contribution to theology has enjoyed greater appreciation today.  This book addresses the constant changing late modern world and also the disharmony that unbiblical worldviews were causing, namely a disharmony between our thinking and feeling, will and acting, religion and culture and science and life.  I found it amazing that the first and second edition of this work was written over a hundred years ago, in 1904 and 1913 respectively.  Yet some of the philosophical issues and competing worldview that Bavinck addressed in this work are still with…

View original post 649 more words

John Bunyan, A Treatise on the Fear of God.1

16 Saturday Nov 2019

Posted by in Fear, fear of God, Fear of the Lord, John Bunyan, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

A Treatise On The Fear Of God (summary)

 “Blessed Is Every One That Feareth The Lord.” — Psa. 128: 1

 “Fear God.” — Rev. 14: 7

Introduction: The Direction to Fear God is Found Throughout the Scripture.

A         The Scripture presents us with God the Creator and Sustainer

1          He is incomprehensible power.

2          He has knowledge of all as judge.

B         Thus, he will either be Savior or Judge

1          Thus, “we are in reason and duty bound to give the more earnest heed to the things that shall be spoken, and be the more careful to receive them, and put them in practice”

2          All our concern of him must be with godly fear.

Part One: What Does Fear Mean?

Bunyan proposes two basic propositions.

FIRST. Then by this word fear we are to understand even God himself, who is the object of our fear.
SECOND. By this word fear we are to understand the Word of God, the rule and director of our fear. Now to speak to this word fear, as it is thus taken.

This Word Fear As Taken For God Himself.

I          Of this word “fear,” AS IT RESPECTETH GOD HIMSELF, who is the object of our fear.

A         By this word fear, as I said, we are to understand God himself, who is the object of our fear:

1          Jacob swore by God as “the fear of Isaac” Gen. 31:42 & 53.

2          There are two aspects of God as “fear”

a          God may well be called the fear of his people, not only because they have by his grace made him the object of their fear,

b          but because of the dread and terrible majesty that is in him. “

c          He is a mighty God, a great and terrible, and with God is terrible majesty” (Dan. 7:28, 10:17; Neh. 1: 5, 4:14, 9:32; Job. 37:22). Who knows the power of his anger?

B         There are these things that make God to be the fear of his people.

1          First. His presence is dreadful,

a          When God comes to bring a soul news of mercy and salvation, even that visit, that presence of God, is fearful. E.g., Jacob at Beersheba Gen. 28:10-17; Gen. 32:30.

b          Man crumbles to dust at the presence of God; yea, though he shows himself to us in his robes of salvation. We have read how dreadful and how terrible even the presence of angels have been unto men, and that when they have brought them good tidings from heaven (Jud. 13:22; Mat. 28: 4; Mar. 16: 5, 6). [If Angels are fearful, how much more God.] Dan. 10:16-17

2          And there are three things that in an eminent manner make his presence dreadful to us.

a          The first is God’s own greatness and majesty; the discovery of this, or of himself thus, even as no poor mortals are able to conceive of him, is altogether unsupportable. Rev. 1:17; Job 13:21-22….The presence of a king is dreadful to the subject, yea, though he carries it never so condescendingly; if then there be so much glory and dread in the presence of the king, what fear and dread must there be, think you, in the presence of the eternal God?

b          By the presence of God, when we have it indeed, even our best things, our comeliness, our sanctity and righteousness, all do immediately turn to corruption and polluted rags. The brightness of his glory dims them as the clear light of the shining sun puts out the glory of the fire or candle, and covers them with the shadow of death. Is. 6:1-5

c          They “shall fear the Lord and his goodness” (Hos. 3: 5). The goodness as well as the greatness of God doth beget in the heart of his elect an awful reverence of his majesty. Jer. 5:22, 33:8-9; Job 42:5-6

Excursus:  Alas! there is a company of poor, light, frothy professors in the world, that carry it under that which they call the presence of God, more like to antics, than sober sensible Christians; yea, more like to a fool of a play, than those that have the presence of God. [They would never treat an important human being like that.]

[Such people would object] But would you not have us rejoice at the sight and sense of the forgiveness of our sins?

Answer:  Yes; but yet I would have you, and indeed you shall, when God shall tell you that your sins are pardoned indeed, “rejoice with trembling” (Psa. 2:11; Dt. 28:58)

2          Second. As the presence, so the name of God, is dreadful and fearful:

a          [A name refers to what a thing is]

b          And therefore it is that the name of God is the object of our fear, because by his name his nature is expressed: “Holy and reverend is his name” (Psa. 111: 9); Ex. 34:6-7; Ps. 86:11.

i           Indeed, the name of God is a fearful name, and should always be reverenced by his people: Ps. 102:15.

ii         Yea, when Christ comes to judge the world, he will give reward to his servants the prophets, and to his saints, “and to them that fear his name, small and great” (Rev. 11:18). Now, I say, since the name of God is that by which his nature is expressed, and since he naturally is so glorious and incomprehensible, his name must needs be the object of our fear, and we ought always to have a reverent awe of God upon our hearts at what time soever we think of, or hear his name, but most of all, [in worship and prayer]

3          Third. As the presence and name of God are dreadful and fearful in the church, so is his worship and service.

a          I say his worship, or the works of service to which we are by him enjoined while we are in this world, are dreadful and fearful things. Ps. 2:11, 5:7; Ex. 15:11; 2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 12.

i That which makes the worship of God so fearful a thing, is, for that it is the worship of GOD: all manner of service carries more or less dread and fear along with it, according as the quality or condition of the person is to whom the worship and service is done.

ii          Besides, this glorious Majesty is himself present to behold his worshippers in their worshipping him.

iii         Above all things, God is jealous of his worship and service.

iv         The judgments that sometimes God hath executed upon men for their want of godly fear, while they have been in his worship and service, put fear and dread upon his holy appointments.  

I          Nadab and Abihu were burned to death with fire from heaven, because they attempted to offer false fire upon God’s altar, and the reason rendered why they were so served, was, because God will be sanctified in them that come nigh him (Lev. 10: 1-3).

II         Eli’s sons, for want of this fear, when they ministered in the holy worship of God, were both slain in one day by the sword of the uncircumcised Philistines (see 1 Samuel 2).

III       Uzzah was smitten, and died before the Lord, for but an unadvised touching of the ark, when the men forsook it (1Ch. 13: 9, 10).

IV        Ananias and Sapphira his wife, for telling a lie in the church, when they were before God, were both stricken dead upon the place before them all, because they wanted the fear and dread of God’s majesty, name, and service, when they came before him (Acts 5).

V         This therefore should teach us to conclude, that, next to God’s nature and name, his service, his instituted worship, is the most dreadful thing under heaven. His name is upon his ordinances, his eye is upon the worshippers, and his wrath and judgment upon those that worship not in his fear. For this cause some of those at Corinth were by God himself cut off, and to others he has given the back, and will again be with them no more

Excursus: Three sorts of people rebuked.

  1. Such as regard not to worship God at all; be sure they have no reverence of his service, nor fear of his majesty before their eyes.
  2. This rebukes such as count it enough to present their body in the place where God is worshipped, not minding with what heart, or with what spirit they come thither.
  3. This also rebukes those that care not, so they worship, how they worship; how, where, or after what manner they worship God. Those, I mean, whose fear towards God “is taught by the precept of men.” They are hypocrites; their worship also is vain, and a stink in the nostrils of God.

Conclusion:

Thus I conclude this first thing, namely, that God is called our dread and fear.

 

Augustus Franck, Nicodemus; Or, a Treatise on the Fear of Man, Chapter III

13 Wednesday Nov 2019

Posted by in Fear, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

In chapter 3, Franck gives 75 observations on the effect of fear of man. Below, I have tried to organize and summarize his argument.

CHAPTER III

Of the signs and effects which discover the fear of man

1 “A fearful man knows to do good, but doth it not, for fear of incurring the hatred and enmity of others.” His who desire is to not be separated from the common opinion or the crowd. He will always be a “coward.”

a He will be reluctant to be “convinced of the truth,” for fear of consequences.

b If convinced,

i He will keep quiet among those who don’t approve.

ii He will only speak among those who do approve. He makes sure not to be seen which such people, when others who may disapprove are bout.

iii He will always be primarily concerned with those around him.

c In conflict, the fearful man will always seek to use arguments which will be acceptable to those who already disavow the Word of God. He will not trust the Word of God to be sufficient to defend him (and itself).

2 This fearfulness will make him reluctant to learn, because he doesn’t want to even consider things which might cause him trouble.

3 This fear also makes him restrain his judgments and match the culture: even when the culture is wrong. This leads him to be in places and positions which are not fitting.

a If he does address a wrong, he will only do so among those who cannot respond to him.

b It will also lead him to gossip and speaking behind another’s back.

c He trusts more in political power than in the power of God.

d He won’t address problems with other ministers who hold to popular if untruthful positions.

4 He will also seek to limit others to that which is safe.

5 If you put this man in a pulpit, he will be “like a fox” and always be looking for some sort of “escape” so that he cannot be caught in an unpleasant place.

a “Being got into the pulpit, he reproves and exclaims boldly; but he denies that in so doing he meant any particular person.”

b “He saith always with the slothful, “There is a lion in the way;” for he fears, should he alter anything of long received customs, he might bring himself into trouble.”

c So he is always hedging his position with this and that opinion. He must also avoid to clear an application, for fear it might give offense to someone.

d Being fearful, he can never set anything aright, because he has already compromised in so many places.

6 His fearfulness of words leads to fear in actions. He will not do things which might cause a stir – unless he has enough social backing to make it safe. He will complain or excuse that this is “not the right time.”

7 He uses a false concern for “peace” or “prudence” as an excuse to avoid the truth and its effects. This also makes him a false or inconstant friend.

8 “He is afraid of burning his fingers, and therefore rather employeth another to do it for him: he makes the arrows, but others must shoot them.”

9 “He is very apt to believe any false reports against the faithful children of God; and because his heart is tossed with fear, he is very forward in warning them to take heed to themselves, and by his imprudence damps and stifles the cheerfulness of their holy faith.”