I guess it would be irresponsible of me to give my view of Ezekiel 37 without first saying that a lot of people who are far more qualified than I am disagree with me. N.T. Wright’s view is completely different.
In verses 1-10, Ezekiel receives the vision of the valley of dry bones. Ezekiel stood in front of a valley full of bones, and they all took on flesh and came back to life. In verses 11-14, God explained the vision. He said, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel.” Then he says, “Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, my people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel.” N.T. Wright argues that the reference to resurrection (coming out of your graves) is a metaphor indicating return from exile. The whole motif of the passage, he argues, is about eschatological restoration.
I think Wright is partially correct. The passage certainly is about eschatological restoration. In fact, it is about the complete restoration of Israel, including the return of the lost 10 tribes Israel who had not been a nation since 722 BCE when they were destroyed and dispersed by the Assyrians, and their reunion with Judah. In verses 15-22, God says the two kingdoms will become one, and there will be one king over them. In verse 24ff, it reveals that the king will be David, and that David would be their prince forever—an obvious reference to the eschatological messiah. So the whole passage is unmistakably about eschatological restoration.
But I disagree with Wright that the reference to resurrection is metaphorical. I think the eschatological restoration refers to the whole nation of Israel, both living and dead. Resurrection is part of the restoration. The reason I take resurrection literally in this passage is because there are two parts. The first part is a vision, and the second part is an interpretation of the vision. The vision included bones coming to life. The interpretation involved God opening graves and bringing people back to life. If the interpretation of the vision is itself only a metaphor, then God hasn’t really given any interpretation at all. He would only be interpreting a metaphor with another metaphor, which is really no interpretation at all. If the interpretation is really meant to signify the meaning of the vision, then the interpretation must be literal. Wright doesn’t dispute that the reunion of Judah and Israel or the return from exile is literal. Why, then, does he dispute that the resurrection is literal? The resurrection is part of the return from exile and the restoration.
Apparently, Wright isn’t alone in his interpretation. A lot of other commentators say basically the same thing. I remain unconvinced.
Tomorrow, I’m going to talk about non-canonical Jewish references to resurrection.
Part 4
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Resurrection, part 2
Not all Jews in Jesus’ day believed in the resurrection. The Sadducees rejected the resurrection on the basis that it could not be demonstrated from the Torah. It’s interesting to see how Jesus debates with the Sadducees in Matthew 22:23-32. When he makes his argument, he doesn’t appeal to explicit references to the resurrection like Daniel 12:2. Instead, he argues from a passage that is far more ambiguous. The reason is because Jesus wanted to make an argument from a passage the Sadducees would accept as authoritative. They didn't accept Daniel, but they did accept the Torah. Jesus quoted from the Torah to make his argument for resurrection.
Most ordinary Jews shared the Pharisaic understanding of resurrection. The popular Jewish understanding can be discovered by looking at both canonical and non-canonical Jewish literature because their views were shaped by and reflect in those writings. First, let’s look at canonical references, and then tomorrow we’ll look at non-canonical references.
There are only three explicit Old Testament passages about resurrection. From these three references, five things can be inferred. Resurrection was (1) a general resurrection of all the dead, (2) on the last day, (3) ushered in by the Messiah, (4) for the purpose of eschatological restoration, (5) that involved their bodies exiting their graves.
In Daniel 12, Daniel is told to “go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age” (Daniel 12:13). His resurrection, then, would be at the end of the age. Earlier in the chapter, he was told that “many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2). We can see from these passages that the resurrection is general. That means it’s a resurrection of all the dead. We can also see that it happens at the end of the age. I want to draw attention also to the fact that the object of the resurrection is “those who sleep in the dust of the ground.” It is those who are in the ground who awake to everlasting life or contempt. It’s clear, then, that it refers to a bodily resurrection. Contrary to the Jehovah’s Witness view, it does involved people exiting their graves.
In Isaiah 26, we are told about God’s final vindication of Israel and punishment of God’s enemies. In verse 19, it says, “Your dead will live; their corpses will rise. You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy. For your dew is as the dew of the dawn, and the earth will give birth to the departed spirits.” The references to corpses rises makes it pretty unmistakable that the author means a bodily resurrection of the same bodies that died. The earth giving birth reinforces the same point since the dead return to the earth through burial and/or decay. Not as obvious, though, is that the resurrection here appears to be general. The people of God are being addressed and told to “awake and shout for joy.” They will be raised together in one general resurrection.
The next passage is Ezekiel 37. I’m going to say a little more about this one, so I’ll save it till tomorrow.
to be continued... Part 3
Most ordinary Jews shared the Pharisaic understanding of resurrection. The popular Jewish understanding can be discovered by looking at both canonical and non-canonical Jewish literature because their views were shaped by and reflect in those writings. First, let’s look at canonical references, and then tomorrow we’ll look at non-canonical references.
There are only three explicit Old Testament passages about resurrection. From these three references, five things can be inferred. Resurrection was (1) a general resurrection of all the dead, (2) on the last day, (3) ushered in by the Messiah, (4) for the purpose of eschatological restoration, (5) that involved their bodies exiting their graves.
In Daniel 12, Daniel is told to “go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age” (Daniel 12:13). His resurrection, then, would be at the end of the age. Earlier in the chapter, he was told that “many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2). We can see from these passages that the resurrection is general. That means it’s a resurrection of all the dead. We can also see that it happens at the end of the age. I want to draw attention also to the fact that the object of the resurrection is “those who sleep in the dust of the ground.” It is those who are in the ground who awake to everlasting life or contempt. It’s clear, then, that it refers to a bodily resurrection. Contrary to the Jehovah’s Witness view, it does involved people exiting their graves.
In Isaiah 26, we are told about God’s final vindication of Israel and punishment of God’s enemies. In verse 19, it says, “Your dead will live; their corpses will rise. You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy. For your dew is as the dew of the dawn, and the earth will give birth to the departed spirits.” The references to corpses rises makes it pretty unmistakable that the author means a bodily resurrection of the same bodies that died. The earth giving birth reinforces the same point since the dead return to the earth through burial and/or decay. Not as obvious, though, is that the resurrection here appears to be general. The people of God are being addressed and told to “awake and shout for joy.” They will be raised together in one general resurrection.
The next passage is Ezekiel 37. I’m going to say a little more about this one, so I’ll save it till tomorrow.
to be continued... Part 3
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Resurrection, part 1
We’re going to start a new series today. It should be jolly good fun. Resurrection is my favourite topic alongside the Trinity. I did a two or three week Sunday school thing on it a few years ago with an outline and everything. I’m going to be using that outline to write this series.
There’s only two problems with it. First, I have read N.T. Wright’s book, The Resurrection of the Son of God, and it has caused me to want to update my study. I’m too lazy to go back through it, though. Second, it’s been a long time since I studied up on this subject, and I’m a bit rusty. But you’ll bear with me, right?
There are really two main points I meant to make in this study. The study is meant to explain the meaning and nature of the general resurrection of the dead and its significance for Christianity, and it is meant to defend the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I did this study with Jehovah’s Witnesses in mind. In another study on another day, I may defend the historicity of the resurrection, but not in this study.
First, I want to say a little something about various views of “resurrection.” First, I want to talk about ancient non-Jewish religions. In the original outline, I wrote, “Ancient religions (e.g. Egyptian, Syrian, Babylonian, Greek, mystery cults, etc.): Resurrections were novel events that happened to individuals (usually gods) with no particular religious significance. Resurrections usually became symbols of the crop cycle (dying in winter, and rising or being reborn in the spring).” In light of N.T. Wright’s book, that seriously needs revising. I’m not going to go through the details, but I want to give Wright’s conclusion. Wright showed that everybody, whether Jew or not, all meant the same thing by “resurrection.” They took it to refer to a physical body coming back to life. Also, the only time most of these other people talked about resurrection was to deny it. Nobody other than Jews actually believed resurrections happened. The resurrection stories were strictly symbolic. You have to keep in mind, though, that I read Wright’s book when it first came out a couple of years ago, so don’t quote me or anything.
Next, there’s the liberal Christian understanding. I’m painting liberals with a broad brush here, you understand. Some people (e.g. Marcus Borg) think that Jesus did not literally rise from the dead. “Resurrection” is a metaphor indicating Jesus’ continued presence or indicating that “Jesus is Lord,” (whatever that means). In their view, there is no continuity between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. The Jesus of history is the real guy who walked the earth and was crucified. The Christ of faith is the myth developed by the church later on.
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe Jesus rose bodily from the dead. In their view, he was recreated as a spirit creature (Michael the Archangel), and Jehovah disposed of the body somehow. Each appearance of the risen Jesus involved a temporarily manifested body for the sake of display which was then destroyed when the appearance was over. They divide the general resurrection into two categories—the heavenly class and the earthly class. The resurrection of the heavenly class began in 1914. Since that time, whenever a member of the heavenly class dies, they are immediately transformed into spirits. This view differs from survival of the soul after death. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe we have an immaterial soul that survives the death of the body. The heavenly class are transformed into spirits after they die, and this transformation is what they call “resurrection.” The earthly class will receive a physical resurrection when Jesus begins his 1000 year rule on earth. The body they receive at the resurrection is not the same body they had when they died, so resurrection has nothing to do with anybody’s grave. A completely new body is constructed leaving the old body alone.
Tomorrow, I’m going to talk about the Jewish understanding of resurrection in and around the time of Jesus.
to be continued... Part 2
There’s only two problems with it. First, I have read N.T. Wright’s book, The Resurrection of the Son of God, and it has caused me to want to update my study. I’m too lazy to go back through it, though. Second, it’s been a long time since I studied up on this subject, and I’m a bit rusty. But you’ll bear with me, right?
There are really two main points I meant to make in this study. The study is meant to explain the meaning and nature of the general resurrection of the dead and its significance for Christianity, and it is meant to defend the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I did this study with Jehovah’s Witnesses in mind. In another study on another day, I may defend the historicity of the resurrection, but not in this study.
First, I want to say a little something about various views of “resurrection.” First, I want to talk about ancient non-Jewish religions. In the original outline, I wrote, “Ancient religions (e.g. Egyptian, Syrian, Babylonian, Greek, mystery cults, etc.): Resurrections were novel events that happened to individuals (usually gods) with no particular religious significance. Resurrections usually became symbols of the crop cycle (dying in winter, and rising or being reborn in the spring).” In light of N.T. Wright’s book, that seriously needs revising. I’m not going to go through the details, but I want to give Wright’s conclusion. Wright showed that everybody, whether Jew or not, all meant the same thing by “resurrection.” They took it to refer to a physical body coming back to life. Also, the only time most of these other people talked about resurrection was to deny it. Nobody other than Jews actually believed resurrections happened. The resurrection stories were strictly symbolic. You have to keep in mind, though, that I read Wright’s book when it first came out a couple of years ago, so don’t quote me or anything.
Next, there’s the liberal Christian understanding. I’m painting liberals with a broad brush here, you understand. Some people (e.g. Marcus Borg) think that Jesus did not literally rise from the dead. “Resurrection” is a metaphor indicating Jesus’ continued presence or indicating that “Jesus is Lord,” (whatever that means). In their view, there is no continuity between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. The Jesus of history is the real guy who walked the earth and was crucified. The Christ of faith is the myth developed by the church later on.
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe Jesus rose bodily from the dead. In their view, he was recreated as a spirit creature (Michael the Archangel), and Jehovah disposed of the body somehow. Each appearance of the risen Jesus involved a temporarily manifested body for the sake of display which was then destroyed when the appearance was over. They divide the general resurrection into two categories—the heavenly class and the earthly class. The resurrection of the heavenly class began in 1914. Since that time, whenever a member of the heavenly class dies, they are immediately transformed into spirits. This view differs from survival of the soul after death. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe we have an immaterial soul that survives the death of the body. The heavenly class are transformed into spirits after they die, and this transformation is what they call “resurrection.” The earthly class will receive a physical resurrection when Jesus begins his 1000 year rule on earth. The body they receive at the resurrection is not the same body they had when they died, so resurrection has nothing to do with anybody’s grave. A completely new body is constructed leaving the old body alone.
Tomorrow, I’m going to talk about the Jewish understanding of resurrection in and around the time of Jesus.
to be continued... Part 2
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Is self-interest incompatible with Christianity?
Today, I want to talk about three points of view that I disagree with.
First, I want to talk about my philosophy teacher. Back when I was taking philosophy classes, my teacher always made this dichotomy between self-interested morality (egoism) and other-focused morality. He thought other-focused morality was part of the whole western philosophical point of view, especially Judeo-Christian morality. He was, after all, a big fan of Nietzsche who heavily criticized Christian morality. He was both a philosophical and a psychological egoist. He thought that in Christian morality, self-interest was a sin.
Second, I want to talk about something Steve made me think of. A lot of people criticize Christianity, because it seems to advocate self-interest. Specifically, it tries to get people into the kingdom by either promising them bliss or threatening them with punishment.
Third, I want to talk about the fact that a lot of Christians think there’s something wrong with converting out of fear of hell or desire for bliss. They agree with the first group above that Christianity should be only focused on others, and they also agree with the second group above that we shouldn’t embrace the gospel just to save ourselves from hell or to ensure our eternal happiness.
I find myself disagreeing with all three groups. First, I deny the dichotomy of the first group. While it is true that Christian morality is other-focused it is not only other-focused. And self-interest is not a sin in Christianity. Christian morality is concerned with the interests of both the self and of others. For example, Paul said, “Do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.” (Philippians 2:4). In discussing Christ’s love for the church, his body, he says, “no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it” (Ephesians 5:29).
There is nothing wrong with being motivated to repentance by self-interest either. Throughout the New Testament, the writers are constantly appealing to self-interest as a motivator. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus uses the promise of rewards, punishments, and consequences to motivate moral behavior. For example, Jesus said, “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 6:1). Many of Jesus’ parables also appeal to self-interest (e.g. the parable of the 10 virgins).
There is nothing wrong with self-interest. Self-interest is not the same as selfishness. Self-interest is a concern about the self. Selfishness is a concern about the self at the expense of others. Christians are supposed to be concerned about both themselves and about others. Self-interest is a necessary part of life. We eat so we won’t get hungry. We put on clothes so we won’t be cold. We get jobs so we’ll have money and can support ourselves. Most of what we do is out of self-interest. If self-interest were a sin, then we’d be in an impossible situation. We couldn’t breathe without sinning. It cannot be wrong, then, to embrace the gospel out of self-interest. That is not selfish.
First, I want to talk about my philosophy teacher. Back when I was taking philosophy classes, my teacher always made this dichotomy between self-interested morality (egoism) and other-focused morality. He thought other-focused morality was part of the whole western philosophical point of view, especially Judeo-Christian morality. He was, after all, a big fan of Nietzsche who heavily criticized Christian morality. He was both a philosophical and a psychological egoist. He thought that in Christian morality, self-interest was a sin.
Second, I want to talk about something Steve made me think of. A lot of people criticize Christianity, because it seems to advocate self-interest. Specifically, it tries to get people into the kingdom by either promising them bliss or threatening them with punishment.
Third, I want to talk about the fact that a lot of Christians think there’s something wrong with converting out of fear of hell or desire for bliss. They agree with the first group above that Christianity should be only focused on others, and they also agree with the second group above that we shouldn’t embrace the gospel just to save ourselves from hell or to ensure our eternal happiness.
I find myself disagreeing with all three groups. First, I deny the dichotomy of the first group. While it is true that Christian morality is other-focused it is not only other-focused. And self-interest is not a sin in Christianity. Christian morality is concerned with the interests of both the self and of others. For example, Paul said, “Do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.” (Philippians 2:4). In discussing Christ’s love for the church, his body, he says, “no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it” (Ephesians 5:29).
There is nothing wrong with being motivated to repentance by self-interest either. Throughout the New Testament, the writers are constantly appealing to self-interest as a motivator. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus uses the promise of rewards, punishments, and consequences to motivate moral behavior. For example, Jesus said, “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 6:1). Many of Jesus’ parables also appeal to self-interest (e.g. the parable of the 10 virgins).
There is nothing wrong with self-interest. Self-interest is not the same as selfishness. Self-interest is a concern about the self. Selfishness is a concern about the self at the expense of others. Christians are supposed to be concerned about both themselves and about others. Self-interest is a necessary part of life. We eat so we won’t get hungry. We put on clothes so we won’t be cold. We get jobs so we’ll have money and can support ourselves. Most of what we do is out of self-interest. If self-interest were a sin, then we’d be in an impossible situation. We couldn’t breathe without sinning. It cannot be wrong, then, to embrace the gospel out of self-interest. That is not selfish.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Epistemological and ontological assurance of salvation
I just finished Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography by Iain H. Murray. Edwards got booted out of his church in Northampton over the issue of the Lord ’s Supper. He thought there ought to be good evidence of a person’s conversion and regeneration before they should be allowed to participate. His congregation apparently disagreed, and he was voted out.
The whole thing got me to thinking about a related issue. How can we be sure that another person is truly converted? Or even more interesting, how can we be sure that we are converted?
I think the fifth point of Calvinism (preservation of the saints) is sometimes misunderstood. The misunderstanding usually comes in confusing ontology and epistemology. Ontology has to do with being and what is. Epistemology has to do with our state of knowledge or beliefs. The fifth point of Calvinism does not address the epistemological issue of salvation; rather, it addresses the ontological issue of salvation. In Calvinism, God ultimate decides who will be saved. Since the decision is up to him, our salvation is assured. God cannot fail. He saves whoever he intends to save. If somebody is elected to salvation by God, then that person will be saved.
But how do we know whether we or somebody else is one of the elect? That’s the epistemological question, and the fifth point doesn’t address that. According to Jesus, nobody can come to him unless the Father draws him (John 6:44). So you might say that anybody who comes to Jesus was drawn by the Father, and if they were drawn by the Father, then they must be one of the elect. Anybody, then, who really professes to be a Christian, really believes it and all, is one of the elect.
But there are a couple of problems with that. First, there’s the parable of the farmer who sews seeds on different kinds of ground. Some people embraced the gospel with enthusiasm at first, but they later fall away. Obviously, those people were never elect or they wouldn’t have fallen away. We see this in our own experience, too. Some people can profess to be Christians for many years before later rejecting it. What are we to make of that? If they eventually reject Christianity, then they could never have been elect in the first place.
Second, Jesus said that not everybody who calls him Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. These people will be surprised on the judgment day when Jesus says, “I never knew you” (Matthew 7:21-23). So there are a lot of people who think they are elect, but they really aren’t. How do you know you’re not one of them?
Is it even possible to know? I think it is. 1 John 5:13 says, “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” It must be possible, then, to have epistemological assurance of our salvation. How is it possible, though?
If John wrote to them so that they might know, then we can look at what he wrote. Let’s just look at a few things he says:
The rest of the New Testament seems to agree with this point. In the Matthew passage I mentioned earlier, Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter” (Matthew 7:21).
And this is another point of confusion between epistemology and ontology. These passages about the necessity of holy living for salvation are not ontological; they are epistemological. That is, doing good isn’t what causes us to be saved. Rather, it’s how we know we are saved.
Take, for example, Peter says, “Be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall” (2 Peter 1:10). The “things” he’s talking about are mentioned in the previous verses. He’s talking about having goodness, kindness, brotherly love, godliness, etc. Practicing those things is how we become sure of our election.
Likewise, Paul said, “So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Philippians 2:12-13). God works in his elect to cause them to want to do his will. The fact that we have this desire to please him shows that we are his elect. That’s why we should work out or live out our salvation, not just sit back and assume we’re good to go.
The whole thing got me to thinking about a related issue. How can we be sure that another person is truly converted? Or even more interesting, how can we be sure that we are converted?
I think the fifth point of Calvinism (preservation of the saints) is sometimes misunderstood. The misunderstanding usually comes in confusing ontology and epistemology. Ontology has to do with being and what is. Epistemology has to do with our state of knowledge or beliefs. The fifth point of Calvinism does not address the epistemological issue of salvation; rather, it addresses the ontological issue of salvation. In Calvinism, God ultimate decides who will be saved. Since the decision is up to him, our salvation is assured. God cannot fail. He saves whoever he intends to save. If somebody is elected to salvation by God, then that person will be saved.
But how do we know whether we or somebody else is one of the elect? That’s the epistemological question, and the fifth point doesn’t address that. According to Jesus, nobody can come to him unless the Father draws him (John 6:44). So you might say that anybody who comes to Jesus was drawn by the Father, and if they were drawn by the Father, then they must be one of the elect. Anybody, then, who really professes to be a Christian, really believes it and all, is one of the elect.
But there are a couple of problems with that. First, there’s the parable of the farmer who sews seeds on different kinds of ground. Some people embraced the gospel with enthusiasm at first, but they later fall away. Obviously, those people were never elect or they wouldn’t have fallen away. We see this in our own experience, too. Some people can profess to be Christians for many years before later rejecting it. What are we to make of that? If they eventually reject Christianity, then they could never have been elect in the first place.
Second, Jesus said that not everybody who calls him Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. These people will be surprised on the judgment day when Jesus says, “I never knew you” (Matthew 7:21-23). So there are a lot of people who think they are elect, but they really aren’t. How do you know you’re not one of them?
Is it even possible to know? I think it is. 1 John 5:13 says, “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” It must be possible, then, to have epistemological assurance of our salvation. How is it possible, though?
If John wrote to them so that they might know, then we can look at what he wrote. Let’s just look at a few things he says:
1 John 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.And the rest of the book just elaborates on these same points. Basically, we can know we are God’s children by whether we truly love God or not, and John says, “This is love for God, that we keep his commands” (1 John 5:3). Keeping his commandments, then, is how we know we are his children.
1 John 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
1 John 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.
1 John 4:20 If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.
The rest of the New Testament seems to agree with this point. In the Matthew passage I mentioned earlier, Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter” (Matthew 7:21).
And this is another point of confusion between epistemology and ontology. These passages about the necessity of holy living for salvation are not ontological; they are epistemological. That is, doing good isn’t what causes us to be saved. Rather, it’s how we know we are saved.
Take, for example, Peter says, “Be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall” (2 Peter 1:10). The “things” he’s talking about are mentioned in the previous verses. He’s talking about having goodness, kindness, brotherly love, godliness, etc. Practicing those things is how we become sure of our election.
Likewise, Paul said, “So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Philippians 2:12-13). God works in his elect to cause them to want to do his will. The fact that we have this desire to please him shows that we are his elect. That’s why we should work out or live out our salvation, not just sit back and assume we’re good to go.
Friday, November 18, 2005
How to make a flemish bowstring
Have you ever wondered how people make flemish twist strings for bows? I started making bows in May of 2004, and at first I always had to order bow strings from other people. I found a guy on ebay who would make them for $5. But I really wanted to learn how to make them myself. I read about a dozen tutorials on the internet and still couldn't get a clear understanding of it. Finally, I just decided to try it, even though it wasn't entirely clear to me. Once I tried it, it all started to make more sense. It seems completely easy to me now, and I wonder how it could've ever seemed so complicated.
Having had such a difficult time finding a tutorial that was idiot-proof, I decided recently to make a tutorial of my own. I wanted to make a tutorial that I wish I could've found when I was trying to learn how to make Flemish strings.
If you find yourself wanting to make a Flemish bowstring, check out my tutorial. I'd like to know if you find it easy to understand.
And don't forget that Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire comes out today. Wahoo! I hope to see it tomorrow.
Having had such a difficult time finding a tutorial that was idiot-proof, I decided recently to make a tutorial of my own. I wanted to make a tutorial that I wish I could've found when I was trying to learn how to make Flemish strings.
If you find yourself wanting to make a Flemish bowstring, check out my tutorial. I'd like to know if you find it easy to understand.
And don't forget that Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire comes out today. Wahoo! I hope to see it tomorrow.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
David, Jonathan, Churchill, and Roosevelt
I've been taking "Historical Methods and Research" this semester. The whole class basically centers around this big paper we each have to write. Each week, we review two students' rough drafts. Each of us gives a formal review of two other students' papers. Doing my paper is what has kept me from writing anything fresh for a while. I'm done with my paper now, so not only can I write a few fresh things, but I can also engage in my bow-making obsession.
Today, we reviewed a guy who wrote his paper on how Winston Churchill agressively courted the friendship of Franklin Roosevelt. There was something in his paper that reminded me of the friendship between David and Jonathan. There's a lot of people who think the relationship between David and Jonathan was homosexual. One proof text that always comes up is when David said to Jonathan, "Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."
In the paper we read today, the guy quoted Churchill who said, "No lover ever studied every whim of his mistress as I did those of President Roosevelt." I wonder if, 3000 years from now, some people will begin to argue that the relationship between Churchill and Roosevelt was also homosexual.
Today, we reviewed a guy who wrote his paper on how Winston Churchill agressively courted the friendship of Franklin Roosevelt. There was something in his paper that reminded me of the friendship between David and Jonathan. There's a lot of people who think the relationship between David and Jonathan was homosexual. One proof text that always comes up is when David said to Jonathan, "Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."
In the paper we read today, the guy quoted Churchill who said, "No lover ever studied every whim of his mistress as I did those of President Roosevelt." I wonder if, 3000 years from now, some people will begin to argue that the relationship between Churchill and Roosevelt was also homosexual.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)