Geoff's Miscellany

Miscellaneous Musings

Thoughts

The Transfiguration

by Leave a Comment

One of the weirdest stories in the gospels is the transfiguration. Despite how strange it is though, its meaning is apparent. All three versions of the story contain God’s command to the bystanders:

  1. Mat 17:5  He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.”
  2. Mar 9:7  And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him.”
  3. Luk 9:35  And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him!”

In all of these gospels, the story happens shortly after Jesus’ revelation of his impending death to his friends.

In all of these gospels, Moses and Elijah (two of the biggest names in the Old Testament) are present.

In all of these gospels, of all the people who could have spoken, God spoke to the disciples and told them to listen to none other than Jesus.

I think the point is obvious. Our response to the gospel must be faith in Christ and they only kind of faith that will due is the kind that trusts Jesus as a man with something to say. Jesus had something to say about his death, his resurrection, about God, about life, about forgiveness, about sin, about history, and about you. The question the gospel authors leave us with is, “Will you listen to him?”

SciLab and Engineering

by Leave a Comment

Recently I’ve made a major change in my life direction.

I’ve mentioned it before. I am pursuing an engineering degree. One of my favorite things in the whole world is open source software. Not just because its free. But ever since I was in high school, the notional of editable software has really intrigued me. I’ve never done much with it other than use it. But, there is a mathematical programming suite called Scilab that functions similarly to a very useful, but very expensive program called Matlab.

As a student I’ve already become very acquainted with Matlab, but Scilab has intrigued me greatly. The big critique of it that I’ve heard from several people is “it doesn’t have the horsepower necessary to do serious projects.” Nevertheless, I’ve used it to teach basic programming skills to the computer club at the high school where I work. But then, last week I heard about this:

Scilab Enterprises is proud to announce that Scilab, open source software for numerical computation, has been used during Philae’s comet landing mission.

Anyway, this forced me to redouble my efforts to master this platform. In the meantime, I’m still learning C++, Fortran, and Matlab. But, don’t let anybody tell you that open-source software cannot be used in a serious fashion. Heck, I wrote all of my papers my first time through college in open-office. Anyhow, don’t fear open source soft-ware.

John Wesley on the Christian Life

by Leave a Comment

Toward the beginning of John Wesley’s journal, he goes through a series of questions that he asks people who are critical of what he and the early Methodists are doing. They are pretty intense, but most Christians, even now, would approve of them. I wonder why we don’t do this kind of thing.

  1.  Whether it does not concern all men of all conditions to imitate Him, as much as they can, ‘who went about doing good’?

    Whether all Christians are not concerned in that command, ‘While we have time, let us do good to all men’?

    Whether we shall not be more happy hereafter, the more good we do now?

    Whether we can be happy at all hereafter, unless we have, according to our power, ‘fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited those that are sick, and in prison’; and made all these actions subservient to a higher purpose, even the saving of souls from death?

    Whether it be not our bounden duty always to remember that He did more for us than we can do for Him, who assures us, ‘Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me’?

  2. Whether, upon these considerations, we may not try to do good to our acquaintance? Particularly, whether we may not try to convince them of the necessity of being Christians?

    Whether of the consequent necessity of being scholars?

    Whether of the necessity of method and industry, in order to either learning or virtue?

    Whether we may not try to persuade them to confirm and increase their industry, by communicating as often as they can?

    Whether we may not mention to them the authors whom we conceive to have wrote the best on those subjects?

    Whether we may not assist them, as we are able, from time to time, to form resolutions upon what they read in those authors, and to execute them with steadiness and perseverance?

  3. Whether, upon the considerations above-mentioned, we may not try to do good to those that are hungry, naked, or sick? In particular, whether, if we know any necessitous family, we may not give them a little food, clothes, or physic, as they want?
    Whether we may not give them, if they can read, a Bible, Common-Prayer Book, or Whole Duty of Man?

    Whether we may not, now and then, inquire how they have used them; explain what they do not understand, and enforce what they do?

    Whether we may not enforce upon them, more especially, the necessity of private prayer, and of frequenting the church and Sacrament?

    Whether we may not contribute what little we are able toward having their children clothed and taught to read?

    Whether we may not take care that they be taught their catechism andshort prayers for morning and evening?

  4. Lastly: Whether, upon the considerations above-mentioned, we may not try to do good to those that are in prison? In particular, Whether we may not release such well-disposed persons as remain in prison for small sums?

    Whether we may not lend smaller sums to those that are of any trade, that they may procure themselves tools and materials to work with?

    Whether we may not give to them who appear to want it most a little money, or clothes, or physic?

    Whether we may not supply as many as are serious enough to read, with a Bible and Whole Duty of Man?

    Whether we may not, as we have opportunity, explain and enforce these upon them, especially with respect to public and private prayer and the blessed Sacrament?

It would appear that Wesley’s understanding of Christianity is both active and contemplative. Note what is bold above. Wesley made an effort to convince people to be Christians, to become scholarly persons as a Christian duty, and to work to increase both industry and virtue. I would suspect that though deep down, most Christians would say, “studying the Bible is good,” very few would say that being as scholarly as ones vocation and constitution allows is a consequent duty of being a Christian. I might say the same with Wesley’s attempt to persuade people to be industrious and virtuous. The New Testament is filled, obviously with commands and encouragements to virtue. But it also contains commands to be industrious and productive:

” ὁ κλέπτων μηκέτι κλεπτέτω, μᾶλλον δὲ κοπιάτω ἐργαζόμενος ταῖς [ἰδίαις] χερσὶν τὸ ἀγαθόν, ἵνα ἔχῃ μεταδιδόναι τῷ χρείαν ἔχοντι. Ephesians 4:27″

Let those who steal no longer steal, but all the more let them labor well with their own hands so that they might have with which to give to those who have need. Ephesians 4:27

The efforts Wesley made to help people, as their Christian duty, care for their families, do good work in their trades, know their Bibles, and be busy about the commands of Jesus are certainly worthy of emulation today.

Two ways to store grain

by Leave a Comment

Luk 12:16-21 ESV  And he told them a parable, saying, “The land of a rich man produced plentifully, (17)  and he thought to himself, ‘What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’ (18)  And he said, ‘I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. (19)  And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.”‘ (20)  But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ (21)  So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God.”

Pro 11:25 A generous person will prosper, and anyone who gives water will receive a flood in return.

Pro 11:26  People will curse whoever withholds grain, but blessing will come to whoever is selling.

Pro 19:17  Whoever is kind to the poor is lending to the LORD—the benefit of his gift will return to him in abundance.

Jesus, in Luke 12, tells the above parable about selfishly storing grain. There is clearly a point about the Pharisees vision of Israel in there, but the main point concerns how one manages the wealth of his household. But it can be very easy to mistake what Jesus says here for something else. Is Jesus saying that it is wrong to save or to store up grain? Or is he saying that it is wrong to store up grain without being rich toward God?

The reason I do not think that Jesus is opposing saving money is because the man is clearly portrayed storing up treasures without generosity. Elsewhere in Luke’s gospel and its sequel, fairly rich patrons and matrons are praised for their generosity or for their literal selling of everything. So it isn’t the wealth or poverty per se that Luke or even Jesus sees as virtuous or vicious. It seems to be ones use of wealth. To illustrate this I’ve quoted three Proverbs. This might provide some helpful context for Jesus remarks about the man who stores up wealth. He never lends to God by caring for the poor (being rich toward God). He builds wealth without being generous as he builds larger storehouses for himself. And, he seems to be a loner, he talks to himself about the issue, not to his family or his servants. In this respect, the conclusion of Jesus’ parable of the clever manager comes to mind: “And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings. (Luke 16:9)” Thus the man seems to not be particularly revered for his generosity amongst his countrymen.

Not coincidentally, the Old Testament has very clear laws for ancient Israelites concerning what they do with their grain:

Lev 19:9-10  “When you reap the harvest of your land, you are not to completely finish harvesting the corners of the field, that is, you are not to pick what remains after you have reaped your harvest.  (10)  You are not to gather your vineyard or pick up the fallen grapes of your vineyard. Leave something for the poor and the resident alien who lives among you. I am the LORD your God.”

So the Old Testament background here indicates is that this rich man is not being properly rich. He is not generous, he stores up so much grain that there is nothing left over, and it will go to nobody when he dies alone, cursed by the people, and without friends.

Jesus also seems to have another famous Israelite in mind when he tells this story. Joseph, during his stay in Egypt, stored up enough grain to feed the Israelites, Egyptians, and several other people groups during a brutal famine:

Gen 41:47-57  During the seven plentiful years the earth produced abundantly,  (48)  and he gathered up all the food of these seven years, which occurred in the land of Egypt, and put the food in the cities. He put in every city the food from the fields around it.  (49)  And Joseph stored up grain in great abundance, like the sand of the sea, until he ceased to measure it, for it could not be measured.  (50)  Before the year of famine came, two sons were born to Joseph. Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On, bore them to him.  (51)  Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh. “For,” he said, “God has made me forget all my hardship and all my father’s house.”  (52)  The name of the second he called Ephraim, “For God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction.”  (53)  The seven years of plenty that occurred in the land of Egypt came to an end,  (54)  and the seven years of famine began to come, as Joseph had said. There was famine in all lands, but in all the land of Egypt there was bread.  (55)  When all the land of Egypt was famished, the people cried to Pharaoh for bread. Pharaoh said to all the Egyptians, “Go to Joseph. What he says to you, do.”  (56)  So when the famine had spread over all the land, Joseph opened all the storehouses and sold to the Egyptians, for the famine was severe in the land of Egypt.  (57)  Moreover, all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth.

Conclusion:

There is a right and wrong way to save up your resources. If you save up during times of plenty like the fable of the ant, then you will be able to live without anxiety and with generosity during times of famine. But the trick is to save up without being miserly. One must develop the habit of generosity even during times of plenty if one wishes to have unself-ish habits during times of want. At least, that’s my take on Jesus’ parable here.

Dates and Biblical Studies: When were the New Testament books written?

by Leave a Comment

Pro 18:17  The first to put forth his case seems right, until someone else steps forward and cross-examines him.

Attempting to discern the dates of the literature in New Testament is in many ways a fools errand.

It has some value, but not a great deal. For instance, if James Crossley or David Alan Black are right about how early the earliest gospel is (they disagree about which it is), then many of the arguments against the reliability of the general outline of Jesus’ life in the gospels are pretty much false. At least if they are of this form, “The gospels are late, therefore the gospels are fictional.”

Dating the texts can help to understand some of them slightly more accurately. For instance, the order of the Thessalonian letters might help us see if and in which direction Paul’s thought changed over time.

Over all, the evidence available is the same for everybody and the syllogisms and arrangements of that evidence as well as comparisons with all of the important historical analogs seems to have been accomplished. I’m not saying there isn’t a truth about these topics out there. I’m saying that one or several scholars may have discovered it, but since the evidence is incomplete, the arguments are not compelling. Thus, as the Proverb reads, “The first to put forth his case seems right, until someone else steps forward and cross-examines him.”

This does not mean people should give up. Seriously, I have my own, perhaps unpopular view of the dating of the New Testament. I just mean that until new evidence presents itself or a truly creative argument arranges the evidence in a probative way, we’re basically stuck with enough certainties to make a broad outline that has tremendous plasticity within its borders.

Ancient Approaches to Adversity

by Leave a Comment

In this post I hope to compare the book of Proverbs to Stoic thought in a way that challenges you to gain self-mastery.

Proverbs:

Pro 16:32  Whoever controls his temper is better than a warrior, and anyone who has control of his spirit is better than someone who captures a city.
Pro 24:5  A wise man is strong, and a knowledgeable man grows in strength.
Pro 24:10-12  If you grow weary when times are troubled, your strength is limited.  (11)  Rescue those who are being led away to death, and save those who stumble toward slaughter.  (12)  If you say, “Look here, we didn’t know about this,” doesn’t God, who examines motives, discern it? Doesn’t the one who guards your soul know about it? Won’t he repay each person according to what he has done?
Pro 24:15-19  Don’t lie in wait like an outlaw to attack where the righteous live;  (16)  for though a righteous man falls seven times, he will rise again, but the wicked stumble into calamity.  (17)  Don’t rejoice when your enemy falls; don’t let yourself be glad when he stumbles.  (18)  Otherwise the LORD will observe and disapprove, and he will turn his anger away from him.  (19)  Don’t be anxious about those who practice evil, and don’t be envious of the wicked.

Marcus Aurelius:

In one respect man is the nearest thing to me, so far as I must do good to men and endure them. But so far as some men make themselves obstacles to my proper acts, man becomes to me one of the things which are indifferent, no less than the sun or wind or a wild beast. Now it is true that these may impede my action, but they are no impediments to my affects and disposition, which have the power of acting conditionally and changing: for the mind converts and changes every hindrance to its activity into an aid; and so that which is a hindrance is made a furtherance to an act; and that which is an obstacle on the road helps us on this road.  –Meditations Book 5

Note the similarities:

  1. A certain frame of mind is considered strength in both schools of thought versus the immediately visible external situation. That frame of mind, in both contexts, is a certain attitude and series of mental habits toward life: “anyone who has control of his spirit is better than someone who captures a city.”
  2. The righteous man (who in Proverbs is always the wise man) gets up when he falls (either morally or in terms of success), just as Aurelius notes, “the obstacle on the road helps us on this road.”
  3. Adversity is seen in both thought schools as an opportunity to show or gain strength.
  4. Both schools of thought relate endurance through trials to being ill-treated by the wicked. Many times other people mess with your life. Aurelius and Solomon both say (whether they lived this or not doesn’t matter) that treating such people with contempt will do no good, but rather when they oppose you, you should simply move on and improve yourself.
  5. Finally, both authors note that doing good to others is part of the motivation for having strength (read: a wise mindset toward adversity) and the purpose for using it.

These authors were both kings but neither of them had the internet, electricity, or an automobile. Setbacks often meant death for people in their respective eras. Yet, both make these claims about adversity.

So, how will you respond to adversity? Will you respond with good-will toward others, a desire to improve, endurance through difficulty, and a non-hater attitude toward those who mess you up? Or will you do the same things that make old people complain about young people in every generation: quit, whine, blame other people, watch t.v., and play on the internet?

Not Quite Academic Appendix/Postscript:
In early Christianity, there is no doubt that the ideas with the highest moral capital came from the teachings of Jesus’ friends and associates (the apostles), Jesus himself, and the Old Testament. This can be verified by a quick perusal of a document called the Didache. But, as time went on Christian teachers made a concerted effort to create or perhaps express a moral system that could accommodate both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christianity (Meeks 68-69).

Stoicism and Platonism worked very well for the providing the needed ethical language. This is not because the teachings of Jesus weren’t good enough. It is that the teachings of Jesus were intentionally recorded as the paradigmatic statement of the paradigmatic human, but nevertheless in a very specific cultural form. This is not a bad thing. The early Christians saw Jesus as the Messiah of the Jewish people. So of course his teachings would be highly particular. Stoicism and Platonism did not provide the ethical ideal or framework, but perhaps the ethical language and practical method of early Christian moral formation. This makes sense, because looking back the conflicts about Jewish ceremonies and the effectiveness of enforcing them upon non-Jewish Christians was a hot-button issue (1 Corinthians 8-10, Romans 14, Galatians, Colossians 2, etc). Thus, the language of Plato and the Stoics (despite their Philosophical differences with the Christians) became fairly standard.

Christians today could learn a lot not only from Proverbs, but also from the Stoics. Just because the early Christians did does not obligate anybody to do so, but their habits may have been wise and worthy of emulation.

Meeks, Wayne A, The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993)