When examining the reactions of the Black Death in Europe, we must remember the amount of death involved. Europe’s population was reduced by over 70 million people in the space of five years. Reactions to this onslaught were varied and unpredictable. There was no enemy to fight against. There was no one to take vengeance upon for the disease. Europe was completely helpless in the face of this faceless killer that had no respect for class, station, birth, or religion. In light of this, it should not surprise us to find that reactions included explanations from religious experience, a denial of traditional mores and social customs, and scapegoating.
“See how England mourns, drenched in tears. The people stained by sin, quake with grief. Plague is killing men and beasts. Why? Because vices rule unchallenged here.”[1] Reactions like this were fueled by traditional understandings of God and the universe; medieval understandings. The people of the medieval world, more so than we, tended to think of every event as part of God’s unfolding plan for His universe. Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic theology of the High and Later Middle Ages caused them to see themselves as perpetually under the divine wrath of God and that He was just looking for a good excuse to pour that wrath out on humanity. Religious interpretation of the plagues cause also sparked reactions like the flagellants: people who went about with whips (flagella) with which they “beat and whipped their bare skin until their bodies were bruised and swollen and blood rained down, spattering their walls nearby.”[2] They did this as an act of public penance for the sins that brought about the plague. As can be imagined, the amount of death present in Europe brought concerns about the end of the world. There was no lack of millennialism to account for the events surrounding the bubonic plague. There were rumors in 1349 that Antichrist had appeared and was even then a boy about ten years old.[3]
Many abandoned the traditional religious interpretation and the social structure established by Christianity in light of the plague. Looking around at the death around them and the powerlessness of established authority (ecclesiastical or secular) to control the plague, many began living for the moment, considering they could die at any moment. They completely gave themselves over to hedonism, forgetting that the trials of this life are used to purify the soul. They indulged in alcohol and sexual immorality.
Scientific reactions ranged from astrological explanations concerning the positions of all the planets at the time the plague broke out to theories about the content of the air being poisonous. Germ theory and basic sanitation to avoid infectious disease were a long way off at this point. We must admire these people for attempting an explanation even as we snicker at the absurd things they came up with.
Other reactions included flight from the heavily populated cities. The fourteenth-century writer Giovanni Boccacio captured much of this in his great work the Decameron. The Decameron is a frame narrative, like the Canterbury Tales, where a situation gives rise to the setting of the story. In Boccacio’s tale, ten people flee from Floerence to escape the ravages of the plague and tell stories to each other to pass the time. Once again, the reaction of flight is the setting of Edgar Allen Poe’s short story, The Masque of the Red Death.
There were a host of social reactions as well. One of the most hateful was that of scapegoating. As already noted, there was no enemy with the plague. There was no person responsible for the death that each and every town in Europe felt. Mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, husbands, wives, sins, daughters; all were affected by the death rampant between 1347 and 1351 ad. Human nature desires to blame someone or something for our misfortunes. We see this from the beginning of our sorry state, the Garden of Eden. As soon as God called Adam’s attention to his sin, Adam pointed to his scapegoat to avoid punishment himself. The medieval world was no different. They looked for any possible scapegoat to deliver them from their pain. Oftentimes the Jews were made the scapegoat of the anger flowing out of Europe. Pogroms, organized massacres of Jews, were frequent in towns and cities with Jewish populations. Many Christians still held Jews responsible for the death of Christ and the Jewish populations of Europe were often persecuted in various ways. At the time of the Black Death, they were made the scapegoat; beaten and killed as a way of venting anger or placing blame. Many Jews fled western Europe to eastern Europe and Russia at this time. This made for a large Jewish population in Russia, Poland, Prussia, and other developing countries there. An increase in witchcraft accusations and trials also seems to be due to the sense of helplessness many people felt in the face of the Black Death.
[1] From “On the Pestilence” anonymous English poem in Rosemary Horrox, The Black Death (New York: Manchester University Press, 1994), 126.
[2] From “Chronicon Henrici de Hervordia” The Black Death, 150.
[3] Robert E. Lerner, “The Black Death and Western European Eschatological Mentalities, ” American Historical Review LXXXVI, 1981: 552.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The Black Death
The Bubonic plague, better known as the Black Death, broke out in Europe around 1347 in the port cities of Sicily and Merseilles. It came from Asia. It is thought that Mongol warriors brought it out of central China during their occupation of the region. The disease spread through rats and the fleas on them. It spread quickly to the port cities of Asia. Since trade was stronger now than it had been it easily spread to Europe. Once in Europe it spread quickly, devastating the population in European countries.
The Bubonic plague was a version of the bacterium Yersinia pestis and was carried by fleas and rats into the ships of merchants bound for European port cities. Its spread in Europe was vast and with amazing speed. The traditional dates of the Black Death, the name given to the plague by Europeans, are from 1347 – 1351 AD. It is often said that the Black Death wiped out one to two-thirds of the European population, or 70 million people. Such a massive reduction in the population of Europe cannot but have had radical consequences as we will see later.
The plague first arrived in Europe through the ports of Sicily and later Marseilles in 1347. The new trade networks that had been established since the end of the crusading period guaranteed that goods were being traded between Asia and Europe. The plague spread like wildfire. In the five years of the plagues main activity it spread throughout most of Europe. By June of 1348 the plague had penetrated deep into France and had consumed Italy and the Balkans. Spain was also affected on its Mediterranean coast. By December of 1348 the plague had spread to portions of England and had almost completely engulfed most of southern Europe. In the next six months it spread further into England and began to infiltrate Germany and Russia. By December of 1349 almost all of England was affected as well as the North Sea region. Throughout 1350 and 1351 the plague continued to spread into Russia and other northern lands. As we can see in the map, very little of Europe was spared the devastation of the plague. There are a few places that seemed little touched by the disease and death of the plague. It is unknown why this is the case, except that they were low population areas and had less contact with the broader European community than most other areas.
The Black Death is of three varieties. The bubonic plague, the pneumonic plague, and the septicemic plague, but all have the same bacteria and initial transmission. Distinctions are made to acknowledge the different ways the plague was spread from carrier to host. The bubonic plague was spread through the fleas on black rats from Asia. The bacteria multiplied in the fleas’ stomach, making it ravenous. It ate constantly, trying to satisfy its hunger, but eventually died of starvation because the bacteria consumed everything. Its eating, however, allowed the bacteria to transmit to new hosts: rats, cats, and humans. From there pneumonic and septicemic plague took over to transmit the bacteria among the human population of Europe. Pneumonic plague was spread through saliva coughed out of infected hosts. Septicemic plague was spread through contact with the infected blood of a host.
The close living conditions of medieval cities made the plague spread all the faster and the limited knowledge of physicians at the time did not help anything. Physicians knew nothing about the scientific causes of the spread of infectious disease. The field of medicine was still dominated by the Greek physicians Galen and Hippocrates. Hippocrates, often called the father of modern medicine, thought that disease was caused by an imbalance in one of the four fluids, or humours, of the body. When this imbalance took place the humors must be brought back into balance. This was often done by bleeding or resting and waiting. Both of these methods of dealing with the plague in Europe proved disastrous. Bleeding brought others in contact with infected blood and waiting simply gave the disease more time to develop.
The symptoms of the black plague were obvious and quick. An infected person would develop large red blotches of infected blood and these would ooze pus and blood. The red blotches gave rise to the term Red Death in some literature dealing with the plague, notably the short story Masque of the Red Death by American writer Edgar Allen Poe.
The death rates for Europe during this period changed everything about society at the time. Most cities could not keep up with the death rate and mass graves were inaugurated to deal with the great amount of death. In the next section we will see how individual people and institutions dealt with the pandemic on social, ethical, and psychological levels.
The Bubonic plague was a version of the bacterium Yersinia pestis and was carried by fleas and rats into the ships of merchants bound for European port cities. Its spread in Europe was vast and with amazing speed. The traditional dates of the Black Death, the name given to the plague by Europeans, are from 1347 – 1351 AD. It is often said that the Black Death wiped out one to two-thirds of the European population, or 70 million people. Such a massive reduction in the population of Europe cannot but have had radical consequences as we will see later.
The plague first arrived in Europe through the ports of Sicily and later Marseilles in 1347. The new trade networks that had been established since the end of the crusading period guaranteed that goods were being traded between Asia and Europe. The plague spread like wildfire. In the five years of the plagues main activity it spread throughout most of Europe. By June of 1348 the plague had penetrated deep into France and had consumed Italy and the Balkans. Spain was also affected on its Mediterranean coast. By December of 1348 the plague had spread to portions of England and had almost completely engulfed most of southern Europe. In the next six months it spread further into England and began to infiltrate Germany and Russia. By December of 1349 almost all of England was affected as well as the North Sea region. Throughout 1350 and 1351 the plague continued to spread into Russia and other northern lands. As we can see in the map, very little of Europe was spared the devastation of the plague. There are a few places that seemed little touched by the disease and death of the plague. It is unknown why this is the case, except that they were low population areas and had less contact with the broader European community than most other areas.
The Black Death is of three varieties. The bubonic plague, the pneumonic plague, and the septicemic plague, but all have the same bacteria and initial transmission. Distinctions are made to acknowledge the different ways the plague was spread from carrier to host. The bubonic plague was spread through the fleas on black rats from Asia. The bacteria multiplied in the fleas’ stomach, making it ravenous. It ate constantly, trying to satisfy its hunger, but eventually died of starvation because the bacteria consumed everything. Its eating, however, allowed the bacteria to transmit to new hosts: rats, cats, and humans. From there pneumonic and septicemic plague took over to transmit the bacteria among the human population of Europe. Pneumonic plague was spread through saliva coughed out of infected hosts. Septicemic plague was spread through contact with the infected blood of a host.
The close living conditions of medieval cities made the plague spread all the faster and the limited knowledge of physicians at the time did not help anything. Physicians knew nothing about the scientific causes of the spread of infectious disease. The field of medicine was still dominated by the Greek physicians Galen and Hippocrates. Hippocrates, often called the father of modern medicine, thought that disease was caused by an imbalance in one of the four fluids, or humours, of the body. When this imbalance took place the humors must be brought back into balance. This was often done by bleeding or resting and waiting. Both of these methods of dealing with the plague in Europe proved disastrous. Bleeding brought others in contact with infected blood and waiting simply gave the disease more time to develop.
The symptoms of the black plague were obvious and quick. An infected person would develop large red blotches of infected blood and these would ooze pus and blood. The red blotches gave rise to the term Red Death in some literature dealing with the plague, notably the short story Masque of the Red Death by American writer Edgar Allen Poe.
The death rates for Europe during this period changed everything about society at the time. Most cities could not keep up with the death rate and mass graves were inaugurated to deal with the great amount of death. In the next section we will see how individual people and institutions dealt with the pandemic on social, ethical, and psychological levels.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Famine and Population
Many historians have commented that one of the most important factors in the history of any civilization is population. This would seem obvious once stated, but is often overlooked in historical accounts. When we say population is important, we mean the fact that there are people, not the more social issues of whether those people are of a particular class or not. Every civilization has to deal with the problem of either having too many people or not having enough. Sometimes God, in His providence, handles the issue for us. Beginning in 1347 ad, a plague ripped across Europe and devastated the population. We will take the story of that particular event up in a moment. There are other ways that population can be affected without reference to an apocalyptic plague.
The Bible tells us that life is a vapor, and that we are like flowers in a field. These images are meant to remind us of the fragility of life. As we consider the forces of history; the wars, the social changes, and the theology of various periods, we must remember that we are dealing with actual people, like you and I, not abstract characters in a play or novel. Population is nothing but a fancy word for thinking about how many people are in a given place at a given time. The reason population is so important is that, as we mentioned already, without it, there is no civilization.
The fragility of life is affected by weather and food. Weather can be too hot or too cold. Food can be plentiful or in low supply. These two broad factors are often influenced by each other or influence each other. Good weather may produce an abundant supply of food. An abundance of food means people eat better, are stronger, and are more productive. There is also more food to go around. Poor weather can have the opposite effect. A lack of food, often called a famine, will tend to be evidenced by falling population figures for a given time period or region.
Around the end of the thirteenth century (the 1200’s) Europe entered what historians and other scholars call a “little ice age.” A small shift in temperature patterns caused the growing season to be shorter, thus affecting food production. This “little ice age” also affected other weather conditions, causing storms and heavy rain for many areas. These events precipitated what has been called the Great Famine of 1315. It lasted for two years in northern Europe and killed as much as ten percent of the population there. Ten percent doesn’t sound like a high figure. However, prior to this change in conditions, Europe had been experiencing a growth in population. Population figures in countries are often expressed in millions. If there were one million people in Europe, we are talking about the death of 100,000 individuals. The population figures are actually much higher than that. Sometimes individual cities reported deaths of that magnitude. The pattern established in northern Europe continued in southern Europe. The 1330’s and 1340’s saw hunger become a real problem for many cities.
One reason why the change in harvest levels had such a dramatic effect in Europe was that by the 1300’s Europe had reached what some scholars refer to as “the upper limit of its population.”[1] This meant that given the agricultural and technological factors, no more people could be supported. Unless some factor changed, such as an increase in productive land or an advance in technology, the maximum population had been reached. With the changes in temperature that this “little ice age” brought about, the same amount of land was being farmed, but the production level had declined. This meant there was less food for a level population.
A common reaction to this was migration. Many cities grew in size about this time as people moved from the rural areas to the more urban areas. This took place on a grand scale and often accompanies a shift of this magnitude. All across history, severe changes resulting in famine have caused migrations to more populated areas. While this seems counterproductive to us, the idea was that a city has more opportunities to succeed than a small town. We see this paradigm played out in the classical and biblical world over and over again (cf. Ruth) and in more modern times as well. The American novelist, John Steinbeck, based The Grapes of Wrath, on the migration of people from Oklahoma to California during the Great Depression of the 19930’s. This reaction to famine is not new, nor has it been replaced in our history.
Many cities saw increases of up to 18% in the years of the famines. This obviously meant that the rural areas saw a marked decrease in their population. Nonetheless, all this marks an overall decrease in population throughout Europe during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Famine was a major contributor to this population decline. Famine led to malnutrition which caused higher infant death rates and lower births in general. However famine was not the only factor. The other major factor in the population decline on the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was the bubonic plague, otherwise known as the Black Death.
[1] Jackson Spielvogel. Western Civilization, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1999), 297.
The Bible tells us that life is a vapor, and that we are like flowers in a field. These images are meant to remind us of the fragility of life. As we consider the forces of history; the wars, the social changes, and the theology of various periods, we must remember that we are dealing with actual people, like you and I, not abstract characters in a play or novel. Population is nothing but a fancy word for thinking about how many people are in a given place at a given time. The reason population is so important is that, as we mentioned already, without it, there is no civilization.
The fragility of life is affected by weather and food. Weather can be too hot or too cold. Food can be plentiful or in low supply. These two broad factors are often influenced by each other or influence each other. Good weather may produce an abundant supply of food. An abundance of food means people eat better, are stronger, and are more productive. There is also more food to go around. Poor weather can have the opposite effect. A lack of food, often called a famine, will tend to be evidenced by falling population figures for a given time period or region.
Around the end of the thirteenth century (the 1200’s) Europe entered what historians and other scholars call a “little ice age.” A small shift in temperature patterns caused the growing season to be shorter, thus affecting food production. This “little ice age” also affected other weather conditions, causing storms and heavy rain for many areas. These events precipitated what has been called the Great Famine of 1315. It lasted for two years in northern Europe and killed as much as ten percent of the population there. Ten percent doesn’t sound like a high figure. However, prior to this change in conditions, Europe had been experiencing a growth in population. Population figures in countries are often expressed in millions. If there were one million people in Europe, we are talking about the death of 100,000 individuals. The population figures are actually much higher than that. Sometimes individual cities reported deaths of that magnitude. The pattern established in northern Europe continued in southern Europe. The 1330’s and 1340’s saw hunger become a real problem for many cities.
One reason why the change in harvest levels had such a dramatic effect in Europe was that by the 1300’s Europe had reached what some scholars refer to as “the upper limit of its population.”[1] This meant that given the agricultural and technological factors, no more people could be supported. Unless some factor changed, such as an increase in productive land or an advance in technology, the maximum population had been reached. With the changes in temperature that this “little ice age” brought about, the same amount of land was being farmed, but the production level had declined. This meant there was less food for a level population.
A common reaction to this was migration. Many cities grew in size about this time as people moved from the rural areas to the more urban areas. This took place on a grand scale and often accompanies a shift of this magnitude. All across history, severe changes resulting in famine have caused migrations to more populated areas. While this seems counterproductive to us, the idea was that a city has more opportunities to succeed than a small town. We see this paradigm played out in the classical and biblical world over and over again (cf. Ruth) and in more modern times as well. The American novelist, John Steinbeck, based The Grapes of Wrath, on the migration of people from Oklahoma to California during the Great Depression of the 19930’s. This reaction to famine is not new, nor has it been replaced in our history.
Many cities saw increases of up to 18% in the years of the famines. This obviously meant that the rural areas saw a marked decrease in their population. Nonetheless, all this marks an overall decrease in population throughout Europe during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Famine was a major contributor to this population decline. Famine led to malnutrition which caused higher infant death rates and lower births in general. However famine was not the only factor. The other major factor in the population decline on the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was the bubonic plague, otherwise known as the Black Death.
[1] Jackson Spielvogel. Western Civilization, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1999), 297.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Uzzah and the Ark
The saga of Uzzah and the ark is often cited as evidence of the capricious nature of the God of Scripture, or maybe just of the God of the Old Covenant. This would presumably be in favor of the more rational, loving God of the New Covenant, or some other squishy substitute. Let's review. David is occupying his new home at Jerusalem. He decides it is a good idea to bring the ark of the Covenant up to the new capital and so he orders it be done. The ark is set on an ox cart and begins its long trip up to the city. While on its way, it begins to slip off of the cart and poor Uzzah sticks his hand out to steady the ark. BLAM!! God strikes Uzzah dead and nobody has any idea why Uzzah died.
Well, not quite. Let's back up. God tells Moses to build an ark of testimony for the people. This ark is to be made of acacia wood and overlaid with gold. It is to have a solid gold top called the Mercy Seat on which are placed two golden Cherubim with outstretched wings over the seat. This Mercy Seat is the top of the ark of testimony. The ark also has gold rings on its sides through which poles are placed so that that the Levites can carry the ark wherever it needs to go. The tablets of the covenant are to be placed in the ark as well as manna (showing God's provision and providential care) and Aaron's staff which budded showing who was to lead the people. This ark is to go wherever the tabernacle goes and is the very heart of the worship of Old Covenant Israel. It is, of course, a copy of something in the heavenly places (see Hebrews 9 and 10).
But this is where things get tricky. David put the ark on an ox cart. It was not being carried by Levites as was commanded. But it was faster or easier, you might say. Great! Was this the way God commanded His seat to be carried? Was this the way He indicated He wanted to be worshipped? Any old way we want to?
When Uzzah reached out and touched the ark with his hand, he was in direct disobedience to the command of God concerning the ark. Only the Levites were to carry it and then only using poles through golden rings aside the ark itself. It was not in David's or anyone's prerogative to transport the ark however they wished. Uzzah did not follow directions, and like Nadab and Abihu, he paid the penalty for disobedience.
But surely God overreacted, right? Not even slightly. Read the passages in the latter part of Exodus about what the priests had to wear to go into God's presence. They wore garments that essentially made them look as close to the tabernacle as they could. Think of this a camouflage. The priests of the Old Covenant had to be clothed in the garments of the tabernacle much as we in the New Covenant are clothed in the righteousness of Christ.
Uzzah did wrong and we need to understand that God cares how He is worshiped. We are not free to do whatever we want. We must worship Him as He comands. Uzzah is a prime example of this priciple laid down clearly or us to see.
Well, not quite. Let's back up. God tells Moses to build an ark of testimony for the people. This ark is to be made of acacia wood and overlaid with gold. It is to have a solid gold top called the Mercy Seat on which are placed two golden Cherubim with outstretched wings over the seat. This Mercy Seat is the top of the ark of testimony. The ark also has gold rings on its sides through which poles are placed so that that the Levites can carry the ark wherever it needs to go. The tablets of the covenant are to be placed in the ark as well as manna (showing God's provision and providential care) and Aaron's staff which budded showing who was to lead the people. This ark is to go wherever the tabernacle goes and is the very heart of the worship of Old Covenant Israel. It is, of course, a copy of something in the heavenly places (see Hebrews 9 and 10).
But this is where things get tricky. David put the ark on an ox cart. It was not being carried by Levites as was commanded. But it was faster or easier, you might say. Great! Was this the way God commanded His seat to be carried? Was this the way He indicated He wanted to be worshipped? Any old way we want to?
When Uzzah reached out and touched the ark with his hand, he was in direct disobedience to the command of God concerning the ark. Only the Levites were to carry it and then only using poles through golden rings aside the ark itself. It was not in David's or anyone's prerogative to transport the ark however they wished. Uzzah did not follow directions, and like Nadab and Abihu, he paid the penalty for disobedience.
But surely God overreacted, right? Not even slightly. Read the passages in the latter part of Exodus about what the priests had to wear to go into God's presence. They wore garments that essentially made them look as close to the tabernacle as they could. Think of this a camouflage. The priests of the Old Covenant had to be clothed in the garments of the tabernacle much as we in the New Covenant are clothed in the righteousness of Christ.
Uzzah did wrong and we need to understand that God cares how He is worshiped. We are not free to do whatever we want. We must worship Him as He comands. Uzzah is a prime example of this priciple laid down clearly or us to see.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Angels in the Architecture "The Font of Laughter"
How important is laughter to the Christian life? According to Wilson and Jones, it is central. Why, then, are so many Christians found to be dour, stern looking folks? Wilson and Jones suggest it may be because they do not understand Christianity.
We must state at the outset that Wilson and Jones are, as I am, reformed in their soteriology and therefore in their view of the Christian worldview. Much of this essay derives its chief argument from a reformed understanding of the doctrines of predestination and total depravity.
As Christians, we often think our total depravity or predestination are difficult things to be resigned to. You mean, I am really that bad? Huh. You mean to say I can't do anything to save myself? Huh. What a drag.
On the contrary, argue Wilson and Jones. What a cause for rejoicing. "Congratulations Mr. Sisk, you just survived a fall of three hundred feet because someone put this inflated thing-a-ma-bob under you." "I was that high up! Man, I'll spend the rest of my life being downcast about how high up I was and what would have happened to me."
Wrong! Spend the rest of your life rejoicing that the inflated thing-a-ma-bob was put under you for your salvation. Laugh about it for heaven's sake.
Laughter is the proper response to our salvation because of predestination and total depravity, not in spite of those things.
We must state at the outset that Wilson and Jones are, as I am, reformed in their soteriology and therefore in their view of the Christian worldview. Much of this essay derives its chief argument from a reformed understanding of the doctrines of predestination and total depravity.
As Christians, we often think our total depravity or predestination are difficult things to be resigned to. You mean, I am really that bad? Huh. You mean to say I can't do anything to save myself? Huh. What a drag.
On the contrary, argue Wilson and Jones. What a cause for rejoicing. "Congratulations Mr. Sisk, you just survived a fall of three hundred feet because someone put this inflated thing-a-ma-bob under you." "I was that high up! Man, I'll spend the rest of my life being downcast about how high up I was and what would have happened to me."
Wrong! Spend the rest of your life rejoicing that the inflated thing-a-ma-bob was put under you for your salvation. Laugh about it for heaven's sake.
Laughter is the proper response to our salvation because of predestination and total depravity, not in spite of those things.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Why Israel demanded a king
There are two reasons Israel demanded a king mentioned in 1 Samuel 8. The first reason is one we can hardly have cause to disagree with and gives us much room to discuss and think pastorally about our own parenting (or the way we hope to parent when the time comes). The second is generally given the greater attention in most sermons and discourses about this topic.
In 1 Samuel 8:4 the elders of the people gather and say to Samuel "Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways." This is a massive indictment against the parenting of Samuel. We wonder, how can such a godly man like Samuel bring up rotten sons? The answer lies closer than we may think, or want to think. 1 Sam. 2:12 says that the children of Eli were corrupt. It even goes further and says that they did not know the Lord. Eli's sons were apostate. Who raised Samuel? Eli. Where did Samuel learn how to parent? Eli. How did Samuel's sons turn out? Not much better than Eli's. The Scriptures presume upon covenant faithfulness from generation to generation. It is to be assumed (Deut. 6:6-25) that our children will not depart from the teachings we place in front of them (cf. Prov. 22:6 ). Thus when elders of the Old Covenant or the New are chosen, one of the major requirements is that his household be in order, especially concerning the faithfulness of his children (cf. 1 Tim. 3:4-5; Titus 1:6). The old saying, an apple doesn't fall far from the tree, is appropriate when considering this narrative. Our children's faithfulness is our responsibility. If our children depart from the faith, it is on us. We live in a far too individualistic age to take these issues seriously, it seems. We seem to believe that once we have done our 18 years (or less) of parenting, the choices our children make are totally theirs and on their heads. God does not think like this at all. God thinks covenantally and generationally.
The rest of 1 Sam. 8:4 continues by saying that the children of Israel desire a king like the other nations. Like the other nations. It was for keeping separate that so many of the God's diverse laws were given in the first place. He even says specifically not to walk in the ways of the nations in the land (cf. Lev. 18:3, 24; 20:23). And yet, now the children of Israel are demanding a king like the other nations. It is right, therefore, when God declares that they have rejected His government, not Samuel's (1 Sam. 8:7). It would seem like we would like having the Lord as our king, but sinful people continue to insist that the Lord's commandments exclude fun and enjoyment, rather than considering that ther eis only joy in obedience to God and His commands.
Poor Israel.
In 1 Samuel 8:4 the elders of the people gather and say to Samuel "Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways." This is a massive indictment against the parenting of Samuel. We wonder, how can such a godly man like Samuel bring up rotten sons? The answer lies closer than we may think, or want to think. 1 Sam. 2:12 says that the children of Eli were corrupt. It even goes further and says that they did not know the Lord. Eli's sons were apostate. Who raised Samuel? Eli. Where did Samuel learn how to parent? Eli. How did Samuel's sons turn out? Not much better than Eli's. The Scriptures presume upon covenant faithfulness from generation to generation. It is to be assumed (Deut. 6:6-25) that our children will not depart from the teachings we place in front of them (cf. Prov. 22:6 ). Thus when elders of the Old Covenant or the New are chosen, one of the major requirements is that his household be in order, especially concerning the faithfulness of his children (cf. 1 Tim. 3:4-5; Titus 1:6). The old saying, an apple doesn't fall far from the tree, is appropriate when considering this narrative. Our children's faithfulness is our responsibility. If our children depart from the faith, it is on us. We live in a far too individualistic age to take these issues seriously, it seems. We seem to believe that once we have done our 18 years (or less) of parenting, the choices our children make are totally theirs and on their heads. God does not think like this at all. God thinks covenantally and generationally.
The rest of 1 Sam. 8:4 continues by saying that the children of Israel desire a king like the other nations. Like the other nations. It was for keeping separate that so many of the God's diverse laws were given in the first place. He even says specifically not to walk in the ways of the nations in the land (cf. Lev. 18:3, 24; 20:23). And yet, now the children of Israel are demanding a king like the other nations. It is right, therefore, when God declares that they have rejected His government, not Samuel's (1 Sam. 8:7). It would seem like we would like having the Lord as our king, but sinful people continue to insist that the Lord's commandments exclude fun and enjoyment, rather than considering that ther eis only joy in obedience to God and His commands.
Poor Israel.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Angels in the Architecture "Where Righteousness and Mercy Kiss"
It has been awhile since I blogged a essay in Angels in the Architecture, but I'm going to try to get back into this. I am teaching through the book in my Humanities class right now, so I'm having to read the essays again.
In this essay, Doug Jones discusses the doctrine of Justification. No real shock there, since when do Protestants not talk about Justification? But Jones comes at this from a slightly different angle. Jones rehashes the issues separating Protestant Justification from Roman catholic Justification. He argues, however, that Roman Catholic Justification, aside from being Scripturally wrong, is philosophically wrong as well. Only the Protestant vision of Justification keeps God's attributes of Righteousness (Justice) and Mercy from warring against each other. Any system that elevates either of these two over the other makes for a lop-sided Justification and fails to do God justice, so-to-speak.
To simply forgive sin without punishment would indeed be merciful, but would leave justice unsatisfied. To punish sin wholly and immediately would be just, but would lack mercy. Roman Catholicism keeps these two at odds while the Protestant doctrine of Substitionary Atonement and Vicarious Sacrifice leading to Justification by Faith satisfies both requirements.
Why must God be just, you may ask? Because it is a self-proclaimed attribute of His holiness (cf. Neh. 9:32-33). Why must God then be merciful? God, Himself, declares this to be an attribute as well (cf. Ex. 34:6-7). Righteousness and Mercy must kiss for true Justification to happen. Only the Protestant vision of this Justification satisfies the demands of a holy and merciful God.
In this essay, Doug Jones discusses the doctrine of Justification. No real shock there, since when do Protestants not talk about Justification? But Jones comes at this from a slightly different angle. Jones rehashes the issues separating Protestant Justification from Roman catholic Justification. He argues, however, that Roman Catholic Justification, aside from being Scripturally wrong, is philosophically wrong as well. Only the Protestant vision of Justification keeps God's attributes of Righteousness (Justice) and Mercy from warring against each other. Any system that elevates either of these two over the other makes for a lop-sided Justification and fails to do God justice, so-to-speak.
To simply forgive sin without punishment would indeed be merciful, but would leave justice unsatisfied. To punish sin wholly and immediately would be just, but would lack mercy. Roman Catholicism keeps these two at odds while the Protestant doctrine of Substitionary Atonement and Vicarious Sacrifice leading to Justification by Faith satisfies both requirements.
Why must God be just, you may ask? Because it is a self-proclaimed attribute of His holiness (cf. Neh. 9:32-33). Why must God then be merciful? God, Himself, declares this to be an attribute as well (cf. Ex. 34:6-7). Righteousness and Mercy must kiss for true Justification to happen. Only the Protestant vision of this Justification satisfies the demands of a holy and merciful God.
Monday, January 19, 2009
YouTube and visiting other blogs
Sometimes I feel like I have no original thoughts or content for this blog, but it does serve as a dumping ground for other stuff. I tend to watch YouTube and post videos I find there. I also tend to visit a group of other blogs (seen to the right) and occasionally just say what they have said (with due credit, of course). That is the case today. I just visited Andrew Kern's blog (Quiddity) and found a hilarious math video he mentioned. It is all the funnier because I have a student this year who, in jest, tried to get me with this same Math gag.
Enjoy.
Enjoy.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Who's on first - Elizabethan-style
I found this a little while ago and linked it to my Facebook account, but never thought to put it up here. This is hilarious. It actually made me go find the original and watch it too. I used it in Rhetoric class to illustrate the concept of word play and how it can be humorous and confusing at the same time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)