In other words, ana to xeno

• anadiplosis, noun. Rhetorical repetition at the beginning of a phrase using the word or words with which the previous phrase ended.
• brinkmanship, noun. The art or practice of pushing a dangerous situation or confrontation to the limit of safety. especially to force a desired outcome.
• claustrophobic, adjective. Relating to or suffering from claustrophobia, a fear of narrow or confined spaces.
• dispositive, adjective. Relating to or determining the outcome of a case or decision.
• froyo (also fro-yo), noun. (Informal) Short for frozen yogurt.
• imbroglio, noun. A difficult or intricate situation; an entanglement; a confused heap.
• ignominy, noun. Disgrace; dishonor; public contempt.
• infamy, noun. Extremely bad reputation, public reproach, or strong condemnation as the result of a shameful, criminal, or outrageous act.
• interlocutor, noun. A person who takes part in a conversation or dialogue.
• inveigh, verb. Speak against in an impassioned manner; complain bitterly.
• jaggery, noun. A coarse, dark sugar, especially that which is made from the sap of East Indian palm trees.
• janiform, adjective. Two-faced; resembling the god Janus, having two faces looking in opposite directions (also Janus-faced).
• mellifluous, adjective. Sweetly or smoothly flowing; sweet-sounding; flowing with honey.
• osmosis, noun. A subtle or gradual absorption or mingling; (Science) the diffusion of fluids through membranes or porous partitions.
• palaver, noun. A conference or discussion; a parley or conference between persons of different cultures; idle chatter.
• repatriate, verb. To restore or return to the country of origin, allegiance, or citizenship.
• superfluous, adjective. Being more than is sufficient or required; excessive; overflowing; unnecessary.
• tamalada, noun. A tamale-making get together or party.
• xenophobic, adjective. Suffering from xenophobia, a fear of strangers or foreigners.

Parallels between Adam and Noah

Interesting commentary.

Parallels between Adam and the Original Creation and Noah and the Re-Creation.

The Flood defaces the original creation headed by Adam and cleanses the earth for its re-creation headed by Noah. Warren Gage notes striking parallels between the prediluvian and postdiluvian worlds, making Adam the father of all humanity and Noah its father in the postdiluvian world. (1) Both ‘worlds’ are created out of a watery chaos in closely parallel acts (see phases of re-creation below). (2) Both Adam and Noah are uniquely associated with the ‘image of God,’ ‘in the Adam narrative as the basis of man’s identity and in the Noah narrative as the basis of man’s protection’ (Gen. 1:27; 5:1-3). (3) Both ‘walk with God’  (3:8; 6:9). (4) Both rule the animals: Adam by naming (2:19), Noah by preserving (7:15). (5) God repeats almost verbatim his commission to be fruitful, to multiply, and to rule the earth (1:28-30, 9:1-7). (6) Both work the ‘ground’ (cf. 3:17-19; 9:20). (7) Both follow a similar pattern of sinning, the former by eating and the latter by drinking (3:6; 9:21). (8) The immediate result of their sin is shameful nakedness (3:7; 9:21), connected with ‘knowing’ (3:5; 9:24) and being clothed by another (3:21; 9:23). (9) Both have three named sons (4:1-2, 25; 6:10). (10) As a remote result from Adam's sin, judgment falls on all; from Noah’s, a curse on Canaan. (11) Among their three sons is judgment and hope, division into elect and nonelect. The conflict between the seed of the Serpent (i.e., the curse-laden Cainites) and the seed of the woman (i.e., the Yahweh-worshiping Sethites), is now carried on between the cursed seed of Canaan and the seed of Shem, whose God is the Lord. In addition, in both halves of the Prehistory (books 1-3 and 4-6), human disobedience impinges on the heavenly sphere and God responds using the first-person plural (‘like one of us’; ‘let us’; 3:22; 11:7), and alienation is part of his judicial sentence (from the Garden of Eden and from Shinar; 3:24; 11:9; cf. 4:12).”

Bruce K. Waltke, Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: a Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001, pp. 127-128.

[Note: Waltke’s commentary says that his parallel list is a modification and supplementing of Gage’s parallels, p. 127).]

Seven progressive phases of renewing creation in Noah’s day parallel the first week of creation.

Precreation

• 1:2 earth, deep, Spirit, waters
• 8:1b-2 wind, earth, waters, deep

Day 2

• 1:6-8 waters, firmament (sky)
• 8:2b heaven (sky)

Day 3

• 1:9 water, dry land, appear
• 8:3-5 water, tops of the mountains, seen (appear)

Day 5

• 1:20-23 fowl, above the earth (in the open firmament, sky)
• 8:6-12 raven, dove, off the earth (no need to renew water creatures)

Day 6

• 1:24-25 living creatures, cattle, creeping thing, (wild) beasts
• 8:17-19 every living thing, fowl, cattle, creeping thing

“the appearance/reappearance of the nuclear family”

• 1:26-28 man, image of God, male and female
• 8:16, 18 Noah and his wife
• 9:6 man, image of God

The blessing of God on his family/creation

• 1:28 blessed, be fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth, subdue it (rule…every living thing)
• 9:1-2 blessed, be fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth, fear and dread on every living thing

Waltke, pp. 128-129

Acts 26:30-32

30-32 the verdict rendered

Verses 30-31: After Paul expresses his desire that Agrippa and all under the sound of his voice were in the same position as he, except for being in custody. Agrippa, Bernice, Festus, and the others present went aside and conferred about Paul’s case. The conclusion is the same as it has been: “This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.” Not only has he done nothing to deserve a death sentence, he should not even have been in custody.

Verse 32: Agrippa’s verdict is the same as the rest. Since it is specifically Agrippa who was hearing the case, Luke specifically records the words of Agrippa: “This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Cæsar.” In one sense, Agrippa’s words condemn the entire process from Felix forward. Paul should have been released. However, once he appealed to Cæsar, it became necessary to allow that appeal.

As with the Richard Longenecker doubts on Acts 25:13, Darrell Bock notes about this:

“Some scholars challenge this part of the passage and its credibility. How could this conversation be known?”[1]

Bock concludes that “the results of the hearing would have made the view of the governor, Agrippa, and Bernice evident” and that the explanation could have been communicated to Paul (who could have then communicated it to Luke, who then included it in his communication to Theophilus). While those means may be used by God, they seem to be necessary explanations for those who do not receive and rest in the inspiration of the Bible. For the Bible-believer, “God revealed it to him” is a simple and satisfactory answer to the question, “How could this conversation be known?” Do not discount divine inspiration.

---

[1] Bock, Acts, p. 724.

Danbury Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson

The letter of Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association – with the phrase “separation between church & state” – is oft-mention in both historical and political discussions. The letter from the Danbury Baptists is not as well known. A transcription of it can be read at the National Archives online.

Danbury Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, [after 7 October 1801]

“…though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.”

Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, 1 January 1802

“The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction.”

Interestingly, there is also a Draft Reply to the Danbury Baptist Association, showing how Jefferson started and then edited the letter to be more concise.

“I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.”

Give me that Book!

God himself has condescended to teach the way; for this very end he came from heaven. He hath written it down in a book! O give me that book! At any price, give me the Book of God! I have it: here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be homo unius libri.*

*A man of one book.

John Wesley, “Preface,” Sermons on Several Occasions, Volume 1, Thomas Jackson, editor. London: J. Kershaw, 1825, p. vii

Salvation, O the joyful sound

Below is Hymn 88 from Hymns and Spiritual Songs In Three Books, by Isaac Watts, which he titled simply “Salvation.”

To the believer, the word “salvation” is pleasing music to our ears, healing ointment for our wounds, and stimulating medicine for our fears. May we who have arisen by and appreciate grace divine echo its sound around the earth. In The Sacred Harp (47a) we sing this hymn with the wonderful old tune Primrose, by Amzi Chapin.

1. Salvation! O the joyful sound!
’Tis music to our ears;*
A sov’reign balm for ev’ry wound,
A cordial for our fears.

2. Buried in sorrow and in sin,
At hell’s dark door we lay,
But we arise by grace divine
To see a heav’nly day.

3. Salvation! let the echo fly
The spacious earth around,
While all the armies of the sky
Conspire to raise the sound.

* “pleasure” in The Sacred Harp

The author of the hymn, Isaac Watts, is called the “Father of English hymnody,” so accorded for his vast production of good and great hymns, which solidified their places in English language churches.

Amzi Chapin, the composer of Primrose, was born March 2, 1768 in Springfield, Massachusetts. He was the son of Edward Chapin and Eunice Colton. By trade he was a cabinetmaker, but he was also an itinerant singing master and composer, teaching singing schools in Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. By denomination he was a Presbyterian. He married Hannah Power in 1800, and they had at least seven children. Amzi Chapin died in Northfield, Ohio, February 19, 1835. He and Hannah are buried at the Northfield Macedonia Cemetery in Northfield, Summit County, Ohio.

---

Note: a cordial is a food, drink, or medicine that stimulates and invigorates the heart and circulation – either literally or figuratively.

Cordial (adjective and noun)

c. 1400, “of or pertaining to the heart,” from Medieval Latin cordialis “of or for the heart,” from Latin cor “heart,” from PIE root *kerd- “heart.” Meaning “heartfelt, proceeding from the heart as the supposed seat of kindly feelings” is from mid-15c.

The noun meaning “something that invigorates” is from late 14c., originally “medicine, food, or drink that stimulates the heart.” Meaning “sweet or aromatic liquor” is from 1610s.

It is my profound conviction, and other quotes

The posting of quotes of human authors does not constitute agreement with either the quotes or their sources. (I try to confirm the sources that I give, but may miss on occasion; please verify if possible.)

“It is my profound conviction that all of us [preachers] are in danger of fussing around speaking against the fruits of sin and never touching the roots.” -- Richard Owen Roberts

“The difference between teaching and preaching – teaching is aimed at the mind and preaching is aimed at the heart. The teacher prepares by discovering the mind of God in Scripture; the preacher prepares by discovering the heart of God in his prayer closet.” -- Richard Owen Roberts

“Love has grown out of control when pleasing children is more important than leading children.” -- Adam Griffin

“Every Christian has a ‘used-to-be’ story.” -- Larry Wade, Jr.

“Your boos mean nothing, I’ve seen what makes you cheer.” -- Used in a cartoon; sometimes attributed to Kelly Hynam 

“If you want to conduct the orchestra, you have to turn your back on the audience.” -- Attributed to Aristotle, Max Lucado, James Crook, et al.

“There are people out there who are committed to misunderstanding you, and misrepresenting your position.” -- Allie Beth Stuckey

“Discipleship is not about information; it’s about imitation.” -- Dallas Willard

“We’re afraid of the dark because we were made to live in the light.” -- R. C. Sproul

“The Ephesian church in Revelation 2:1–7 crossed all their doctrinal t’s and dotted all their ecclesiological i’s—but they lost their first love.” -- Juan Sanchez

“The Lord has established for salvation to precede identification through baptism into membership and then for those identifying markers to precede the ongoing celebratory act of the Lord’s Supper.” -- Nate Akin

“It’s not enough to be fans of Jesus. We should be followers of Jesus.” -- Kevin Lake

“When God has done something for you, let him do something with you.” -- Johnnie Johnson

“If God is pleased, it doesn’t matter who isn’t.” -- Unknown

Debaptism; who knew?

Debaptism, noun. The (so-called) practice of “reversing” a baptism.

I guess on this I’ve been living under a rock, ignorant in my bliss. Who knew “debaptism” was a thing? You probably did. I didn’t. I read about some nuts going through a blow dryer ceremony. I would suggest that if they were immersed they need to get in an oven!

To me there is some irony here, in a person thinking they need to be debaptized. Part of the craziness of modern society, perhaps? It seems that the folks who are being debaptized are in effect saying that de baptism dat dey had actually did something dat dey must undo. But their other testimony is that God and Christianity is nothing. If it is nothing, why undo nothing?

Finally. Do the debaptized join De’Baptist Unchurch?

Acts 26:24-29

Acts 26:24-29 Paul’s dialogue with Festus and Agrippa

Verses 24-25: thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad. But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus Even when Festus called him “beside thyself” and “mad” (crazy), Paul responded with respect – “most noble Festus.” He then reminded Festus that his words were not the ravings of a madman, but he spoke “words of truth and soberness.”

Verses 28-29: Of this Henry Smith states:

“In Agrippa, you shall hear what we are; in Paul, you shall see what we should be; for the king shews that he is almost a Christian, and the apostle shews that he should be altogether a Christian.”

He points to three acknowledgements Paul makes in addressing Agrippa:

A reverent title, King Agrippa.

A profitable question, Dost thou believe the prophets?

A favourable prevention, I know that thou believest.

“…almost standeth in the way before we can come to altogether…Is this altogether, like Paul, or like Festus, not at all? Now if we be almost Christians, let us see what it is to be almost a Christian. Almost a son, is a bastard; almost sweet, is unsavoury; almost hot, is lukewarm, which God spueth out of his mouth, Rev. iii. 16; so almost a Christian is not a Christian…Almost a Christian is like Jeroboam, which said, ‘It is too far to go to Jerusalem to worship,’ and therefore chose rather to worship calves at home. Almost a Christian is like Micah, which thought himself religious enough because he had gotten a priest into his house. Almost a Christian is like the Ephraimites, which could not pronounce Shibboleth, but Sibboleth.”[1] 

In this exchange of Paul with the king and the governor, one finds “almost Agrippa” and “not at all Festus.” Right preaching is about the message, not its results.

---

[1] “The Dialogue Between Paul and King Agrippa,” in The Works of Henry Smith: including Sermons, Treatises, Prayers, and Poems. With Life of the Author, Vol. I, Thomas Fuller, editor, pp. 435-436, 443-444. On “Shibboleth” and “Sibboleth,” see Judges 12:5-6.

Toward a biblical definition of “prophet”

Prophet, noun. According to Merriam-Webster, may be (1) one who utters divinely inspired revelations; (2) one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; (3) one who foretells future events. The third definition is probably that which comes most readily to mind to modern English speakers. What is a prophet, biblically defined?

The meaning of the word.

As we notice in the introduction, the English word “prophet” includes several different shades of meaning (e.g., 5 at Merriam-Webster, 7 at Dictionary.com). What about the Bible?

The primary Hebrew word for prophet is (נָבִיא nāḇî'). The word “seer” (הָרֹאֶה rō'ê/rā'â) is synonymous for prophet, according to 1 Samuel 9:9. The Hebrew word (הַחֹזֶה ḥōzêh) is also translated “seer.” In 1 Chronicles 29:29 all three of these Hebrew words are used (נָבִיא nāḇî') (הָרֹאֶה rō'ê) (הַחֹזֶה ḥōzêh).[i]

The primary Greek for prophet is (προφήτης prophētēs). Greek also has the word (ψευδοπροφήτης pseudoprophētēs) for a false prophet. Hebrew adds descriptors about prophets prophesying falsely rather than having a word “false prophet.”[ii]

The biblical use of the word.

The first use of the word “prophet” in the Bible is found in Genesis 20:7, where God calls Abraham a prophet. There it seems to primarily mean that Abraham is God’s spokesman or representative. The last use of the word “prophets” is found in Revelation 22, which seems to connect both the ideas of God’s spokesmen (v. 9) and the references to future events (v. 6).

God told Moses, “Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet” (Exodus 7:1). This also seems to emphasize the nature of the prophet as a spokesman (e.g. Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well…and Aaron spake all the words which the Lord had spoken unto Moses, Exodus 4:14, 30). In Exodus 15:20, where Moses’s sister Miriam is referred to as a prophetess, she took a timbrel in her hand and led the women in singing to the LORD – emphasizing the nature of forthtelling. Notice also that the musicians for the tabernacle and temple were considered prophets (1 Chronicles 25:1-3).

The Old Testament prophets spoke for God. In connection with this, some of them also dreamed dreams, saw visions, and foretold the future (Numbers 12:6; Isaiah 1:11; Jeremiah 28:9; Ezekiel 33:33). The word and its related work included “forthtelling” and “foretelling.” The commonality in all of this seems to be that of accurately presenting and representing God’s truth. Those who wrote the Old Testament Scripture, or at least many of them, were considered prophets.

Many times in the New Testament, the word “prophet” refers back to the Old Testament prophet (Matthew 1:22; 2:17; Acts 2;16). “The prophets” may also mean the Scriptures of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17; Luke 16:29; 24:27, 44: John 1:45).

However, prophets are also current/active in the New Testament. John the Baptist was a prophet (Luke 7:28), a spokesman for God who came before and announced the coming of the Christ.[iii] Those called prophets in the New Testament include Jesus; Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10); Barnabas, Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Saul (Acts 13:1); Judas and Silas (Acts 15:32).[iv] Though prophets and apostles were different – that is, all prophets were not apostles – it seems that by default the Bible considers all the apostles to be prophets, even while not specifically naming each of them them thusly (Acts 4:33; 1 Corinthians 13:2; Revelation 1:3; 18:20: 22:6).

Paul refers to those who speak in the Corinthian assembly as prophets, who could speak in a way to edify, exhort, and comfort (1 Corinthians 14:3-5). Though prophecy is a gift (Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 14:32), the prophets are not out of control. They can contain themselves from all speaking at once (1 Corinthians 14:26, 29, 40), and must speak so as to acknowledge that the inspired words of the apostles are the commandments of the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37). (Therefore, they cannot claim a the Spirit made me do it excuse for bad behavior.)

In Titus 1:12, Paul applies the word “prophet” in a “non-biblical” or “non-Christian” sense, calling a spokesman for the Cretians “a prophet.”

Prophecy is a spiritual gift, as we see from Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 12:8-10; 28-31; 13:2; and 14:1-6. Those who prophesy, prophesy according to the proportion of faith with which they are gifted, within the place in the body the Spirit has placed them.

The rhetorical question of 1 Corinthians 12:29 indicates that all of God’s people are not prophets (cf. Numbers 11:29). Everyone should be a representative of God in witnessing to and sharing his truths. However, some are gifted to do so in a more official way.

Paul indicates that supernatural tongues, prophecy, and knowledge will cease with the close of the biblical revelation (canon), 1 Corinthians 13:8. “Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.”

Concluding thoughts on the words and its meaning.

In the Bible, a prophet was a spokesman for God – one who conveyed a message from God to the people. The calling or work included foretelling (proclaiming God’s events and plan for the future) and forthtelling (publishing God’s will and truth in the present). Often this role of prophet combined these two features, for example, using warning of future judgment as a call to present repentance. Prophets guided the people concerning truth, faith, morality, and judgment (cf. Acts 24:25). His duty was not solely about predicting the future – and often not even primarily.

• The Bible reader should not just think “predicter of the future” when encountering the word “prophet.” A full picture is needed.
• The Bible reader should think of “spiritual gift” when encountering the word prophet, especially in the New Testament.

It seems difficult for the average modern English Bible student to think “prophet” and not think of someone who foretold the future. Yet, the common thread of all prophets is not that fact, primarily, but rather of being God’s sent spokesman. Perhaps these thoughts will help. What have I forgotten to consider? If something, please add in the comments.

---

[i] I have put these words in parentheses due to the tendency of the embedded “backward spelling” of Hebrew to go haywire in Microsoft Word, ending up at times in various crazy fashions.
[ii] The Old Testament calls five women prophetesses – Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Noadiah, and the wife of Isaiah (Isaiah 8:3). The latter may simply mean the wife of a prophet, and Noadiah (Nehemiah 6:14) seems to be a false one, opposing the work of Nehemiah. The New Testament calls two women prophetesses – Anna (Luke 2:36) and Jezebel (Revelation 2:20). The first one is on God’s side, and the latter seems to only be one falsely so-called. Compare also Acts 21:9.
[iii] John the Baptist is evidence that a prophet did not necessarily perform miracles. “And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true” (John 10:41).
[iv] The emphasis of Judas and Silas as prophets was that they “exhorted the brethren with many words.”

Confessionalism

“Confessionalism [is] a commitment to defining, adhering to, and defending clearly stated truths that are sincerely believed.” While there is a certain sense in which all Christianity is necessarily confessional in a de facto sort of way, what I am arguing for is a sturdy kind of confessionalism: one that conscientiously and unashamedly and very carefully declares what is believed and what is to be taught…Christianity is inherently confessional. To be a Christian is to confess. Every Christian, every church, has a creed or a confession. ‘Credo’ simply means ‘I believe.’ Christians are believers; hence all Christians have a creed or a confession.”

Tom Ascol, in “Recovering a Robust Confessionalism” (Ascol granted all Christians and churches, though, might not have a “well-thought-out” creed or confession.)