I'm skeert, buckwheat [2 of 2]

OK – where were we? Oh yes – BDAG and the use of lexicons. Well, here’s where I left off in Antonio’s statement, keeping in mind that I have unformatted the text for easier handling:

Moulton and Milligan in their /Vocabulary of the Greek Testament/ (pg 620) under "sozo" give /only/ temporal usages of the verb, of course including saving of the physical life (they even give an example where "psyche" is the object of "sozo"). There is not even one occurrence of a spiritual (let alone soteriological) usage of the word in all their findings.

BAGD (2nd Edition, 1958, pg 893), the standard Greek lexicon, gives the entries "of life on earth in its external, physical aspects" and "earthly life itself" for psyche (soul/life).

And this is where I have to put on the breaks. Listen – it’s one thing to use an interpretive grid to reinterpret almost two-dozen passages of the NT away from their meaning in context, but it is another altogether to do what is being done here.

It would probably be fun to describe what has been done here because there are all kinds of adjectives which come to mind. But instead of resorting to that kind of argumentation, I’m going to link to two files:

A scan of the paper BDAG entry of “psuche”

The BibleWorks BDAG entry for “psuche”

These are both in PDF format, and an alert reader from Australia had the audacity to send them to me. They are provided here for reference sake.

Does what you find in those copies of the entry of “psuche” seems a little, um, different than what Antonio has here provided? For example, in the BibleWorks version, the main definition [1] says, “life on earth in its animating aspect making bodily function possible”; main [2] says, “seat and center of the inner human life in its many and varied aspects, soul”; main [3] says, “an entity w. personhood, person”. There’s no doubt section [1b] says, “the condition of being alive, earthly life, life itself”, but look at how that differs from what Antonio has provided.

How would you, the reader, describe that difference? How do you think Antonio would describe it if he believed someone else was doing it?

Of great interest in James is 1:21:

Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls NKJV

This is the first instance of "sozo" in his epistle, and can give an indication of the type of "saving" he has in mind in the remainder.

We need to pay special attention to the phrase "save your souls".

I would agree with all of that, and also with the admonition that we ought to pay special attention to how Antonio pays attention to this verse – for example, does he treat it as a part of the whole body of what James has said to this point, or does he treat it like a verse we learn in AWANA which is disconnected from a context? Let’s find out.

It remains for scholars of historical theology to discern how this phrase ever became connected with the idea of deliverance from hell. It is never used that way in the Bible, and such an idea would have been foreign to any Jewish reader of the New Testament.

Well, this assertion was dealt with last time, wasn’t it? You know: there are at least 3 fellows who, in the advent of the coming of Christ see the work of the Messiah as soteriological prior to Paul’s rantings and ravings about such things. And Jesus said, for example, that Abraham saw His day and was glad – so even Abraham had the soteriological view in sight.

The paper by Lopez is the one which history of theology scholars will have some fun with – because it represents such a broad, um, failure to perceive that one has to wonder how it got published in the first place. Something must be happening in some specific movement to cause it to promote such a view when there are historical facts which easily overturn the idea that the OT presses no soteriological value into the idea of God’s salvation.

Because the meaning is definitely established from other passages, there is no reason to abandon it in the Epistle of James, no reason except the interests of Perseverance theology. Here we have a case where the Traditionalist meaning "deliver from hell," is absolutely without parallel in biblical or extra-biblical literature, and yet it is accepted as the starting point for understanding the meaning in James.

You know, as I was thinking about what I was going to write in this second-half response, I was pondering the value of the term Antonio uses here – “Traditionalist”. What does that word mean? It is supposed to be a pejorative label which says that somehow the advocates of the position Antonio is abhorring here are slaves of Tradition – that we only believe what we have been told to believe.

But let’s think about something here: it seems obvious to me – and I think to anyone who has read the PDFs, above – that the intervention of “Tradition” has not blinded the “Traditionalist” view but has in fact placed a blinder on the GES view. BDAG is unquestionably the primary lexical source Antonio ought to be using to make his case – but to use it at all, he has to, um, handle the BDAG entry for “psuche” in such a way that a significant part of it falls off. Then, having handled BDAG roughly, he has to elevate a piece of “scholarship” above the BDAG entry to cause the reader to think, “wow – everything I know is wrong”.

It is extraordinarily unlikely that everything you know is wrong. Moreover, one has to wonder why this argument was not the foundational argument in the Reformation rather than the 5 solas which actually did cause all the problems.

I’ll wear the badge of “traditionalist” proudly in this discussion because it turns out to be a case where tradition has something to say which is not merely traditional but based on evidence.

This phrase, "sozo" with "psyche" as its object ("save [your] souls"), is found eleven times in the Septuagint (LXX), */and in each case it has the notion of preserving one’s physical life./*

It is unfortunate that most interpreters of James are either unaware of this data or dismiss it as irrelevant. Whenever linguistic evidence of this type is ignored, faulty interpretation is almost inevitable.

The astute reader of this response will ask, “cent, why didn’t you just lump that part in with your previous part? My lunch is only 60 minutes, bro!”

The answer is simple: this is really the high water mark of Antonio’s, um, scholarship – because this is where he puts all his blocks in one stack for the sake of making his point.

Let’s think about this: BDAG says something different than he does about “psuche”, and the context of James 1:21 has been deftly omitted. Then a source of at-best obscure value blankets the OT’s view of salvation as merely-temporal, and to back that up Antonio lays on his truncated lexical assertion.

That’s a lot to swallow.

In order to bring you back to this universe where the text exists, here’s what James 1:21 says in context:

12 Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. 18 Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.

19 So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; 20 for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God.

21 Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

To keep things simple, I have used the NKJV rather that the ESV as we normally do here. In this passage, James has already established that the one who “endures” temptation is “approved” and received the “crown of life” [v.12] – and that we who were brought forth by God’s word are a “firstfruits” [v.18].

In that, whatever is happening in the “save your souls” is happening in the context of a soteriological statement about who we are and what will happen to us. It has nothing to do with an alleged misunderstanding of the Old Testament; it has nothing to do with a less-than-robust use of BDAG. It has everything to do with the fact that James is talking about the eternal consequences of faith in which we can have confidence today because of the immediate consequences of faith.

You can read all of Antonio’s notation on this passage as you see fit. He does not deal with this problem, and he does not overcome this problem.

UPDATED: Oh brother -- this is what I get for working from two sets of notes on this thing -- I forget Antonio's biggest mistake! Remember the links to BDAG I made, above? In the BibleWorks version, you can find this:

d.as the seat and center of life that transcends the earthly (Pla., Phd. 28, 80ab; Paus. 4, 32,[greek text] Just., A I, 44, 9 [greek text] Ath. 27, 2 [greek text] Opp. Tat. 13, 1, who argues the state of the [text] before the final judgment
and states that it is not immortal per se but experiences the fate of the body [greek text]. As such it can receive divine salvation [greek text] be saved,
you and your soul Agr 5 (Unknown Sayings 61-64). [greek text] Js 1:21.

The underline there at the end I added -- but it turns out that BDAG says explicitly that James 1:21 is talking about a soul which transcends the Earthly. That's amazing, no? All that work, and BDAG simply says that James 1:21 is refering to a soul which is more than an Earthly thing which can therefore receive divine salvation. I am sure it's a problem with BDAG reading its theology into the text. Right, Antonio?

Let us now give consideration to this most important phrase:

*SOUL SALVATION – THE SAVING OF THE SOUL*

The following references are every occurrence of phrases consisting of the Greek verb "sozo" (= "to deliver, save") with the Greek noun "psyche" (= "life, soul") as its object found within the Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, called the Septuagint (LXX).

*Septuagint References (with any English Parallels)*

(1) Genesis 19:17 (2) Genesis 32:31 (= English Genesis 32:30) (3) 1 Kings 19:11 (= English 1 Samuel 19:11) (4) Amos 2:14 (5) Amos 2:15 (6) Job 33:28 (7) Psalms 71:13 (= English Psalms 72:13) (8) Jeremiah 31:6 (= English Jeremiah 48:6) (9) Psalms of Solomon 17:17 (= English Psalms of Solomon 17:19) (10) Judith 10:15 (11) 1 Maccabbees 9:9

*Word Study of Every Occurrence of "sozo" with "psyche" as its object in the LXX*

(1) Genesis 19:17 σωζε την σεαυτου ψυχην "Save (sozo) the life (psyche) of yourself!"

Genesis 19:17 So it came to pass, when they had brought them outside, that he said," Escape for your life! Do not look behind you nor stay anywhere in the plain. Escape to the mountains, lest you be destroyed." NKJV

The angels warned Lot and his family to flee from the temporal destruction of Sodom, so as to preserve their physical lives.

(2) Genesis 32:31 (= English Genesis 32:30) εσωθη μου η ψυχη "My life (psyche) was saved (sozo)."

Genesis 32:30 So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." NKJV

After wrestling with God, Jacob called the place of his pugilism with the Angel of the Lord (a theophany) Peniel (meaning face to face) for he had seen God face to face and yet he did not physically die.

(3) 1 Kings 19:11 (= English 1 Samuel 19:11) σωσης την ψυχην σαυτου "Save (sozo) your life (psyche)."

1 Samuel 19:11 Saul also sent messengers to David's house to watch him and to kill him in the morning. And Michal, David's wife, told him, saying, "If you do not save your life tonight, tomorrow you will be killed." NKJV

Michal, David’s wife, said he must flee or physically die in the morning, so she sent him out the window.

(4) Amos 2:14 σωση την ψυχην αυτου "…will save (sozo) his life (psyche)."

Amos 2:14 Therefore flight shall perish from the swift, The strong shall not strengthen his power, Nor shall the mighty deliver himself; NKJV

Discussing God’s coming temporal wrath on the Northern Tribes of Israel, the Lord, during the reign of Jereboam II, pronounces through Amos that not even the ‘strong’ or ‘mighty’ shall be able to deliver themselves from the coming temporal calamities due to their unrighteous activities (see Amos 2:6-8).

(5) Amos 2:15 σωση την ψυχην αυτου "…will save (sozo) his life (psyche)."

Amos 2:15 He shall not stand who handles the bow, The swift of foot shall not escape, Nor shall he who rides a horse deliver himself. NKJV

Continuing from verse 14, The Lord, through Amos, relates that not even the fighting men of valor shall escape His judgment. See also note on Amos 2:14.

(6) Job 33:28 σωσον ψυχην μου "He will save (sozo) my life (psyche)"

Job 33:28 'He has redeemed my soul from going to the pit, And my life shall see the light.' NASB

In Elihu’s poetic and spirited speech to Job, Elihu relates that the man who repents, saying, "I have sinned, and perverted what is right, and it did not profit me" (Job 33:27) will be saved from the destructive principles of his sin. In both Job 33:18 and 33:22, we see that one’s experience with the "pit" is paralleled (remember that this is poetic parallelism) with physical death: "perishing by the sword" (v 18) and "draw[ing] near to the executioners" (v 22). "Pit" is used here figuratively, a euphemism, for the "grave," implying one’s bodily death (see any Hebrew lexicon for "shachath," Strongs #7845). See Psalms 30:9 and 55:23 for more substantiation on the figurative use of "pit" describing physical death. "Going down to the pit", the result of unrighteousness, is also contrasted with "flesh" being like a "child’s" (Job 33:25a) and a man returning unto "the days of his youth" (Job 33:25b). Also, cross-reference "see[ing] the light" of Job 33:28 (the result of one’s life being saved from death, the grave) and "be[ing] enlightened with the light of life" of Job 33:30 (the result of one’s life being turned from death, the grave). This is the result of the man’s repentance! Whereas unrighteous activity will bring one to death (see Proverbial literature after this word study), repentance will avert death and bring a meaningful life: "the light of life". Elihu’s rich and prosaic language should not be misunderstood! He is speaking to Job who is in the middle of a temporal and physical tragedy. Job’s friends believe that his physical infirmities are a result of his sin, and that he needs to repent so as to avert his temporal/physical demise.

(7) Psalms 71:13 (= English Psalms 72:13) και ψυχας πενητων σωσει "…and He shall save (sozo) [the] lives (psyche) of [the] needy."

Psalms 72:13 He will have compassion on the poor and needy, And the lives of the needy [H]e will save. NASB

Speaking of the Messiah, Solomon states that in His earthly reign that He will save from death the lives of the needy. Speaking of the same group of needy people, Solomon continues, "He will rescue their life from oppression and violence; And their blood will be precious in his sight" (Psalms 72:14).

(8) Jeremiah 31:6 (= English Jeremiah 48:6) σωσατε τας ψυχας υμων "Save (sozo) your lives (psyche)!"

Jeremiah 48:6 "Flee, save your lives! And be like the juniper in the wilderness." NKJV

The Lord, speaking through the prophet Jeremiah, speaks of the coming judgment on Moab, telling them to save their lives by fleeing, becoming like the juniper that "ekes out its stunted growth in the wilderness, hiding in crevices of rock" (Notes in the Nelson Study Bible, pg 1305).

(9) Psalms of Solomon 17:17 (= English Psalms of Solomon 17:19) σωθηναι ψυχας αυτων "To save (sozo) their lives (psyche)"

Psalms of Solomon 17:19 They wandered in deserts that their lives might be saved from harm, And precious in the eyes of them that lived abroad was any that escaped alive from them. Gray Translation, 1913

The writer of this Apocryphal book is speaking of righteous Jews who escaped from the hands of idolatrous Jews and pagans.

(10) Judith 10:15 σεσωκας την ψυχην σου "You have saved (sozo) your life (psyche)."

Judith 10:15 Thou hast saved thy life, in that thou hast hasted to come down to the presence of our lord: now therefore come to his tent, and some of us shall conduct thee, until they have delivered thee to his hands. KJV

Assyrian soldiers confronted Judith and because of her beauty and message they did not kill her, her message saved her life: "Now when the men heard her words, and beheld her countenance, they wondered greatly at her beauty, and said unto her" (Judith 10:14).

(11) 1 Maccabees 9:9 σωζωμεν τας εαυτων ψυχας "We should save (sozo) our lives (psyche)."

1 Maccabees 9:9 But they dehorted him, saying, We shall never be able: let us now rather save our lives, and hereafter we will return with our brethren, and fight against them: for we are but few. KJV

Judas Maccabbee has just exhorted the remnant of his army to go out in battle. Their reply was that they needed to flee so as to preserve their lives, regroup with their comrades, and then go fight. ----------

Moulton and Milligan, furthermore, (op. cit. pg 698) show that in the papyrii evidence (the Koine literature of the time) that the phrase "save a soul" continues to mean "save the physical life" (see section I.(b)). And they give examples on how psyche (soul) can mean physical life as well.

I think that I can safely stipulate all of these OT passages. For the sake of argument, I stipulate that they all say what Antonio says. They are not relevant to the book of James or the use of the phrase in this passage.

Conclusion:

The sense of "saving the life" for ‘sozo’ and its object ‘psyche’ had become a bona-fide idiomatic expression in the Koine Greek. There are no biblical examples (and Moulton and Milligan, in their study of the existent papyrii evidence found no examples either) for the sense "deliverance from hell" for the aforementioned phrase.

Lordship Salvation and Reformed Soteriologists have not been careful to do the lexical research necessary to come to a solid interpretation, and have imported the present day understanding of "save the soul" into the text of James for support of their insupportable doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. They have imported their Perseverance theology into James destroying the practical and pastoral emphasis of the epistle.

Powerful evidence has been adduced to support the interpretation that James is discussing practical and temporal deliverance from calamitous trials, tribulations, and circumstances, including the physical death-dealing consequences of sin.

It is high time for a re-evaluation of the Epistle of James, and the linguistical study provided, should be a starting point.

Blessings and peace to all who endure in trials, being doers of the word, unto the preservation of their lives.

Antonio da Rosa

I leave it to the reader who has done lexical research and who has done something else. The relevant lexical data is available to review, above, and the context has also been reviewed, above. There’s no reason to qualify my rejection of his points with anything more than the firm assertion that he doesn’t even get the facts complete to make his point.

Thanks for reading, and we’ll get back to normal blogging as soon as the buzzing gets out of my ears ...

It's like an epidemic

I'm interrupting the interruption to point you at this which happened or is happening or will happen today as Kofi Annan finally ends his time at the U.N.

Listen: I'm not an expert at his level of corruption or exactly what he does in the first place. I don't understand the U.N. -- I admit it. What does it do? On what basis does it do it? Why would we want to listen to it? How does it advance either the interests of the United States or the interests of the Gospel -- which are not the same thing by any means.

I don't get the U.N. But I do understand this:

He said in the text that the U.S. has a special responsibility to the world because it continues to have extraordinary power.

Annan summed up five principles that he considers essential: collective responsibility, global solidarity, rule of law, mutual accountability and multilateralism.

He chose the Truman museum for his final major speech in part because it is dedicated to a president who was instrumental in the founding of the United Nations. His text repeatedly praised the Truman administration but never mentioned Bush by name.

"As President Truman said, 'The responsibility of the great states is to serve and not dominate the peoples of the world,'" Annan said.

"He believed strongly that henceforth security must be collective and indivisible. That was why, for instance, that he insisted when faced with aggression by North Korea against the South in 1950, on bringing the issue to the United Nations," Annan said.

"Against such threats as these, no nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over all others."

Let's be clear about something: what Annan is proposing is that men like Hugo Chavez and the demonstrably-insane Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be given the same right to determine the fate of the world as men like Tony Blair and George Bush.

If you think that's even a plausible way to run the world, think about something: Cindy Sheehan is not in jail, and she hasn't been denied her right to speak. Michael Moore isn't in jail or being tortured for objecting in the strongest terms to the policies of the president. And we just had a free election in which the minority party -- in a bloodless way which did not require the mobilization of any military force -- became the majority party, and the party which was overturned wasn't then lined up in front of the firing squad.

What Annan is on about here is a problem only in his collectivist mind -- because what ought to be happening in the world is that there ought to be fewer and fewer authoritarian and totalitarian governments, and the expansion of free markets and republican democracy ought to be bringing market forces to bear on problems like poverty, illiteracy, economic development and globalizing markets. But because quacks like Annan think that what it takes to run the world is a central home office where lunatics like, well, himself become "legit", free government, free markets and free ideas are simply put on-hold. "Sorry: you're the problem, not the solution even though we have to admit that you guys have extraordinary power. It must be because you have nuclear weapons and not because people have a right to life, liberty and property."

Guys like Annan want to grandstand on the AIDS epidemic, but what about the epidemic stupidity it takes to think that the U.N. is actually doing more for the world than, for example, WAL*MART is. And believe me: if there was a pill that WMT could sell which cures stupidity, it would sell it to everyone immediately -- but I am sure that Annan would find such a thing oppressive.

I'm skeert, buckwheat [1 of 2]

OK. We interrupt the normal business of this blog to respond in detail to Antonio da Rosa and his statements about what a completely “notorious” in “error” person I am. Normally, I take that as a compliment, but I think he means something less-than-flattering by it. The only other people ever to say something like that about me are Dave Armstrong and Kevin Johnson, so you can imagine how world-shaking it is for me.

I have imported his blog entry into OpenOffice, stripped it down to simple text for easy handling, and I'll be dealing with that version of what Antonio has posted. If he had links which he thought where a crisis of integrity in those posts, go to his blog and see the original work. I'm using the original version of the text, so if he makes any subsequent revisions or changes, we'll have to deal with those on the side.

Just as a favor, Antonio: since you got to have your 6-ish page accusation uninterrupted, and you have demanded a response in detail, let me respond before you start the organ up again.

Here we go.

Friday, December 08, 2006
Lordship Salvation's 'Notorious' Error : Lexical Study of "Save Your Souls" (James 1:21)
In an email correspondence, I brought Frank Turk to task for the huge lexical error he submitted in his debate against Jodie Sawyer. He replied by email:
----------
If your view of lexical errors is this high, you need to go and review the justification Jodie uses for substituting "life" for "soul" in James 1:21 for the word "psuche". Even /if/ it is technically correct, she then conflates the idea of "the substance of life" with the idea of "the days of my living" to reach her conclusion there. I'm sure you won't find what she has done "dishonorable" even if it is just as notorious an error as mine.
----------

Is the substituting of “life” for “soul” in James 1:21 for the Greek 'psyche' “just as notorious an error” as getting 50 occurrences wrong in his lexical assertions about the Greek verb ‘sozo’ in his debate with Jodie? Is the sense “days of my living” unsubstantiated (as his lexical assertions were)? Is the ‘substitution’ even in error at all? This post will answer that question. It will prove that the more attested rendering in James 1:21 is “… which is able to save your lives."

This is an easy place to start. The substitution is not the only issue with Jodie's work on James 1:21 – it's her conflation of the English word to impose a meaning not intended by James in this passage – an interpretation you cannot get unless you trade on the English meanings of “life”. It's not just an unresearched overstatement: it's a contradiction of every major translation into English for the sake of changing the meaning of the text.

In that, yes: there is a lexical problem of fairly significant weight. It's one statement just like my one statement. In that way, let's be honest about what kinds of statements are being tossed around here. One of us is willing to admit, “hey: I didn't do my homework.” The other one – and all who support her – are unwilling to admit that her work here is frankly unsupportable.

And before we go any further, I want to make something clear: I made my apology in good faith. I made it as an honest confession of error. In this response to Antonio, I am going to review the work he has made to call my statement “false”. If it can be determined that his work – as it is far more detailed than my statement, and clearly demanded a significant amount of premeditation to make – has anything clearly false in it, will he tender an apology for his error, or will he say that I am rescinding my apology or making excuses?

I am saying it clearly here: I stand by my apology because I was wrong in method and in scope. Let's hope Antonio has the same kind of response to correction.

By most evangelical scholorship, the Epistle of James was written very early, many claiming that it was the very first book written in the New Testament canon. A.D. 44-48 seems to be the range given by conservative Evangelical commentators. James’ intended audience were Jewish Christians (cf: James 1:1 with the evidence that his intended audience was a community of believers: 1:18; 2:1, 7; 5:7).

I stipulate these remarks. No reason not to.

The common language of the then-known world at that time was Koine Greek. The Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) were translated sometime between the 3rd and 1st centuries B.C. into Koine Greek, in what is now known as the Septuagint. Also, known as the LXX, the Septuagint is a rich resource for Koine Greek word studies, for it is roughly three times the size of the New Testament, and such studies net authoratative results because of wide and plentiful usage of words.

The Greek language changed over time. Thayer is probably a good-enough lexicon of LXX, but BDAG is the accepted lexicon for 1st-century AD Greek – which is the NT. It's a technical point, but LXX Greek is not identical to NT Greek – in the same way that King James English is hardly identical to 21st century English.

In language, common usage will determine the meaning of words, and also phrases; these phrases can become widely and popularly engrained into a language. Languages are full of rich idiomatic expressions that convey meaning to those who share a particular tongue.

I agree. The question is if idioms evolve and then somehow get locked in, or if they are themselves subject to the process which produced them in the first place.

When studying the Bible, it is wise to research words and phrases doing word studies so that the common meanings and senses can be gleaned. It is a mistake of high proportion to import into the words of the Bible current understandings. It is imperative to understand the words, phrases, and clauses of the Bible in the way that its 1st century readers/hearers would have.

Which is why, btw, it is important for people like me who cannot sight-read the original languages to rely on translators to render those languages for us.

Reading the Bible in English is almost exactly like driving a car: None of us could probably build one even from a blueprint, but if we are moderately informed about the care and use, we can handle the instrument as we receive it.

In the current debate on the Epistle of James, the verb “sozo” (= “to deliver, save”) is of particular interest. It is used 5 times in the epistle, and in a few hotly debated verses (James 1:21; 2:14; 5:20).

The author of this post has done a word study on the Greek word “sozo” in his last entry: New Testament Occurrences of ‘sozo’. He found that out of 108 occurrences of the word, 65 represented a temporal deliverance of some kind or another, and only 42 had a soteriological import (1 was found to have both senses present). Percentage wise, 61% were temporal and only 31% were soteriological.

OK. That's a great statement – and it has a very long document behind it. Let me stipulate a few things:

[1] I stipulate that Antonio did the work.
[2] I stipulate all his soteriological verses.

Here's the problem: I think Antonio's work is flawed. As I list my exceptions to his study, let me note that I have intentionally granted him all the places that “sozo” is applies to physical healing even though Jesus Himself equates the act of physical healing wityh the forgiveness of sin (the soteriological meaning of “save”) when he heals the paraplegic who was lowered through the roof in Mark 2. If we included all those passages – places where the variants of “your faith has saved you” are found – the math would be somewhat lopsided. As it is, I have 23 exceptions to his list, and here they are:

Matthew 10:22
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
(Temporal) – Set within the context of temporal calamity (10:21, 22a, 23), Jesus declares that the one who endures until the end in the Great Tribulation, the same shall be delivered, in other words, into the Millennial Kingdom.
**** Dispute #1: The assertion that this saving is Temporal is not very convincing – because the way they are told to escape physical danger in persecution is to flee the towns (10:23). The salvation of those who endure ought to be juxtaposed against the judgment coming to those who reject them (10:15) – which is the final judgment. They are saved in the final judgment, and that makes this a soteriological verse.

Matthew 16:25
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
(Temporal) – Jesus, in paradoxical fashion, states that the one whose desire it is to guard and retain his temporal and/or physical life shall lose his “life” in a metaphorical way.
**** Dispute #2: This passage is specifically about discipleship and what happens to someone when the Son of Man returns with His angels (16:27). Salvation in the final judgment is soteriological salvation.

Matthew 18:11
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
(Temporal) – Jesus’ primary ministry while on earth was to Israel. His desire was to call National Israel unto repentance, to turn back to God. Obviously this had a spiritual connotation, but eternal salvation is not in view. Christ’s purpose was to bring Israel back into favor with God by their national repentance with a view to instituting the Kingdom of God. The parallel in Luke 15 clearly shows this parable within the context of repentance, which restores harmony with God (in this case, God’s chosen people, Israel) and averts temporal wrath and judgement. This verse is set in the context of the parable of the lost sheep (Israel). To further solidify this interpretation, note: “But He answered and said, ‘I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’” (Matthew 15:24). Notice how Jesus states his ministry is to the “lost sheep” of Israel, God’s chosen people, calling them back to harmony with God.
**** Dispute #3: I actually have a few complaints about this one, but the first is that this is not Mt 18:11 but Luke 19:10. But even if we accept that as an honest typo, there is a larger problem: in Luke 19:10, Jesus is pronouncing salvation to the house of Zaccheus. The tax collector was not in any physical harm, and Jesus wasn't fishing him out of a well. The passage reads, “This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” Salvation to a son of Abraham cannot be construed as temporal salvation – because it is a covenant-keeping salvation, an upholding of God's promise.

Matthew 24:13
But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
(Temporal) – See note on Matthew 10:22. This verse is set in context of temporal calamaties and persecution in the Great Tribulation.
**** Dispute #4: Here's the text of Mt 24 --

Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

Listen: if you can construe being put to death as being saved temporally, you have abandoned reading as a skill. The salvation of the one who endures is soteriological – because he endures temporal trials even to death but is still said to be “saved”.

Mark 8:35
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.
(Temporal) – See note on Matthew 16:25).
(Temporal (in a metaphorical sense), not justification salvation!) – Jesus states that the one who gives up (loses) his temporal desires for his life in favor of following Christ in discipleship will save his life in the sense of truly experiencing the “abundant” life in the temporal present that has eternal ramifications (the significance of his temporal life will transect into eternity, in the aspect of a greater experience of life in the kingdom).
**** Dispute #5: see my dispute over Mt 16:25; this is a parallel passage.

Mark 13:13
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
(Temporal) – See note on Matthew 10:22; 24:13.
**** Dispute #6: See my dispute over Mt 10:22.

Luke 9:24
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
(Temporal x 2) – See note on Mark 8:35.
**** Dispute #7: See Mark 8:35

Luke 9:56
For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
(Temporal) – Jesus, in reponse to the sons of Thunder, says he did not come to destroy men’s physical lives (as was requested by James and John unto the Samaratans) but to save them, in the sense that he was calling Israel to repent, return to God, which would avert God’s judgement on Israel. Israel did not nationally repent, and God’s wrath was meted out, whereas in A.D. 70, Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed (see also 2 Peter 3:9).
**** Dispute #8: I actually like Antonio's attempt here to make this about saving men from physical harm, but here's my complaint in this case – the use of “sozo” here is dispuited in the same way that the use of “sozo” is disputed in the verse in revelation Antonio kicked out. That is, he should have kicked this one out, too, given his critical criteria.

Luke 19:10
For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
(Temporal) – See note on Matthew 18:11.
**** Dispute #9: since Antonio counted it twice, I will, too. See my complaint in Lk 18:11.

Acts 2:21
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
(Temporal) – Peter is discussing the temporal deliverance spoken of in Joel 2:28-32 at the “coming of the Great and Awesome Day of the Lord” (Joel 2:31).
**** Dispute 10: Yes, this is a citation of Joel. No: it is not a salvation from physical harm – because Peter is here talking about the Gospel of Christ. If Peter is citing Joel here to say that this is a temporal salvation, is the Gospel about a temporal salvation? The spirit has been poured out to declare that Jesus is Lord and Christ. That's soteriology.

Acts 2:40
And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
(Temporal) – Peter is exhorting his Jewish crowd to save themselves from God’s temporal wrath by repenting (see 2:38). Wrath was coming upon this “untoward generation” who had culpability in the crucifixion of Christ (see Acts 2:36)
**** Dispute 11: This is the proclamation of the Gospel. There's no way to say otherwise – unless the Gospel was not preached at Pentecost. How can 2:47 be soteriological (Antonio says it is) and this verse be temporal?

Romans 5:9
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
(Temporal) – Paul is discussing how those who are justified by faith in Jesus can be “saved by His life” (Romans 5:10). God’s wrath is a temporal and present possibility! See Romans 1:18 where God’s wrath is now being revealed against sin.
**** Dispute 12: See below.

Romans 5:10
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
(Temporal) – “Christians who avail themselves of the resurrection-power found in His life (= through Him that is resident in the gospel, [Rom] 1:16) will find deliverance from wrath (v 9), but only if they ‘walk in newness of life’ (6:4) which Paul explains in chapters 6-8” (Romans Unlocked: Power to Deliver, Rene A. Lopez, p 112)
**** Dispute 13: Here's the passage from Rom 5

1Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

6For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die-- 8but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

That's one of the great soteriological passages of the NT. It goes on to compare what we were in Adam and what we are in Christ. How can this be read as “temporal” salvation?

Romans 9:27
[Isaiah] also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
(Temporal) – Paul is quoting Isaiah, who is speaking concerning “God’s wrath coming through the Assyrian invasion in 722 B.C. that demolished Israel’s (northern tribes) national existence. The context in Isaiah 10:6 also mentions [temporal] wrath, ‘… the people of My wrath’ which refers to Israel. Yet, God, by His mercy, intervenes and says through Isaiah that a remnant will return (10:22)” (Ibid., Rene Lopez, p 201).
**** Dispute 14: Romans 9 is a great exposition on the covenant-keeping of God and the election unto salvation. To turn this into salvation only from danger is to ingore the larger argument Paul is making in Romans 9.

Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
(Temporal) – Discussing Israel (Romans 9-11), Paul is referring to their full-orbed salvation, which includes their justification (see Rom 10:10a) and their deliverance from God’s wrath (10:10b). Open confession of Christ and identification with Him are necessary for temporal deliverance from wrath and calamity.
**** Dispute 15: See Rom 9.

Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
(Temporal) – Calling upon the name of the Lord is an activity of those who are already related to God! A word study on the phrase and like phrases will report that calling on the name of the Lord is an appeal to God to deliver from temporal circumstances. One cannot even call upon the name of the Lord until they have believed on Him (Romans 10:14). See also note on Acts 2:21.
**** Dispute 16: See Rom 9.

Romans 11:26
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
(Temporal) – “All Israel means the whole nation of Israelites who remain alive during the tribulation period (who are justified) will be delivered at the end of the tribulation wrath to enter the millennium and fulfill all of God’s Old Testament promises” (Ibid., Lopez, p 233).
**** Dispute 16: There's no way to derive that this is merely a saving through the “tribulation” in the sense Antonio and his source mean. Paul says explicitly in Rom 11, “God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew”. The foreknowledge of God is the foreknowledge unto eternal salvation.

1 Timothy 4:16
Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
(Temporal) – Paul opens chapter 4 with discussions of ungodly false teachers. If Timothy takes heed and continues in doctrine, he will be able to save himself and his hearers/students from the consequences of false teaching.
**** Dispute 17: Even if I concede that Timothy will save those that listen from “false teachers”, they will be saved from falsehood and departing from the faith to what? To the truth of the Gospel, in which is eternal life.

James 1:21
Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
(Temporal) – James, speaking to those who are “brethren”, who are born again (James 1:18), and who have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (James 2:1), exhorts his readership to lay aside evil, and be doers of the word, which can save the physical life (see wisdom literature of Proverbs).
**** Dispute 19: I would agree that James is likely quoting Proverbs here – but he is doing it in the context where he has already established that faith in trial yields steadfastness, and steadfastness must have is completion, which is the crown of eternal life. The exhortation for Proverbs takes on its complete meaning in faith in Christ, and James lines that out here.

James 2:14
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
(Temporal) – James, in discussion of temporal matters including hunger and nakedness, discusses the inability of faith alone to save from temporal circumstances.
**** Dispute 20: I think Antonio better read this passage agian – because James is not saying, “can a man's faith save himself from nakedness”, but “can a faith which does not clothe the naked save the man who has this faith?”

James 4:12
There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?
(Temporal) – James, continuing with his practical and temporal exhortations to his saved intended audience, admonishes the brethren that they not judge each other for God alone is the lawgiver, able to save or destroy the physical life.
**** Dispute 21: The interpretation “the physical life” is not implied in this sentence. This passage more clearly echoes the words of Jesus, “do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell”. (Mt 10)

James 5:20
Let him know, that he which [turns a (NKJV)] sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
(Temporal) – In the context of a brother “among” “brethren” who has “strayed concerning the truth” (implying he was once in it), James states that one who turns this straying brother from his error will save him from physical death (which is the mature fruit of sin, see James 1:15).
**** Dispute 22: the equation that all who are in the brethren are soteriologically saved is a view Antonio holds, but it is not clear that James holds such a view – clearly, he thinks some people in the brethren do not do the works which faith will do, so there's no reason to think they are saved.

1 Peter 4:18
And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
(Temporal) – Taken from Proverbs 11:31 (“If the righteous will be recompensed on the earth, How much more the ungodly and the sinner.”), Peter is discussing the temporal recompense for both righteousness and ungodliness, in the context of temporal suffering.
**** Dispute 23: Sure, that's a reference to Proverbs – but here's the context:

17For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18And

"If the righteous is scarcely saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?"

19Therefore let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.

Peter is talking ultimate salvation, final salvation. That's soteriological salvation.

Doing some quick math, 65-23=42 temporals, and 42+23=65 soteriologicals. If we add the healings, well, I said we wouldn't, so forget that. Apparently the tables have turned – at least in theory. Is making 23 errors a "notorious" act? Does slanting this many verses in order to discredit an adversary amount to "falsehood"? Even if only half of these are supportable -- and I think they are all supportable -- will Antonio apologize or retratct or revise his statements? I look forward to Antonio's rebuttal to my objections.

In a word study of the Septuagint we find that the Greek word “soteria” and its cognate “sozo” (save) in their contexts, where they are found about 363 times, means “[to] deliver[ance] from temporal calamaties” – such as circumstances that cause death, from enemies, troubles, physical maladies, etc.; both individually and nationally - in the greatest majority of the times they are found, upwards of 98% of occurences. Only a relatively few passages have spiritual contexts to the salvation being discussed. Yet even in the instances that the terms "save" and "salvation" carry a sense of spiritual salvation in these minimally few OT passages, there is no explicit instance where the term appears solely with a spiritual nuance. In a study Rene Lopez of Dallas Seminary did of each occurrence of the words, he could not find even one instance where the words in their contexts had a justification-salvation-only meaning: Salvation in the Old Testament – From What.

What does this say about the Greek reader of the New Testament? That he obviously would not consider the meaning “salvation from hell” for the Greek words “soteria” and “sozo” (salvation and save, respecively) as the first, knee-jerk option when he read it. This would be especially true for the early Jewish Christian readers of James, absorbed as they would have been both in Koine Greek and the Septuagint (which was read in their synagogues).

Since Jodie entered Lopez's paper into the mix, I have enjoyed this idea that somehow the Greek reader of the NT has no expectation of salvation in the soteriological sense in the advent of the Messiah.

Here are three examples of people in that period who did which I think Antonio is going to have a hard time overturning:

[1] John the Baptizer, who, upon seeing Jesus, greeted Him with the well-known greeting, “Here is the Son of David, the King who is going to overturn the idols of Rome and establish David's throne!” Oh wait – John said, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” Sorry.

[2] Simeon, who saw the infant Jesus in the Temple, exalted the Lord, saying,
"Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace,
according to your word;
for my eyes have seen your salvation
that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and for glory to your people Israel."
It seems to me that if this Messiah was one who was going to do what Lopez says the expectation was, Simeon was a bit of a crack pot declaring that he is also “a light of revelation to the Gentiles”.

[3] My favorite, however, is Jesus who – without tossing out the Romans or Herod – came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."

Now, how is that Scripture fulfilled in a temporal way as these people heard what he read to them? It is actually fulfilled in the soteriological sense -- because Jesus didn't come back and sit on the throne of David, and He didn't end the exile of the Jews in the political or temporal sense.

And before we get sidetracked into “but these 3 men couldn't read Greek,” that matter is irrelevent. The question is “what expectation did those with the faith of Abraham have about the Messiah?” It was a soteriological expectation – an eternal expectation. If even these three men had that expectation, Lopez's thesis is simply untennable.

To finish the rest, I need a copy of BDAG next to me, and I don't own one. I know: it's shocking. Anyway, I will work on the rest of this over the weekend so you can all use it to put yourselves to sleep on Christmas eve when you're so geeked up about Santy that you can't hardly close your eyes.

To be continued. Don't lose any sleep over it -- I have already lost enough over it.

Friday Night Fights

Some people go home on Friday, and they have time with their families, or maybe they go out with friends.

So people e-mail threats, like so:

From:"Antonio da Rosa"
To:"Frank Turk" 
Subject: Head's Up
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 15:59:00 -0800

We wonder what you would do with such evidence against your 
Traditionalistic interpretation of James. The article refers to you
by name:

this one

I am sure that my post will not be thoroughly responded to,
and that the wish of the LS will be that it fades away into obscurity.

It is my desire that you come engage it. If not I will post the URL
all over blogdom to see if someone else will.

Antonio 

Just in case someone thinks I'm hiding something, my exact response to Antonio's e-mail was, "I'm skeert, buckwheat".

Go read Antonio's post, and then pack a lunch. I have one more question for Jodie, and then I can deal with this full-time -- well, as full-time as blogging gets, anyway.

The Friday Post this week

OK: usually we have the next part of the Christmas series, or some other exhortation for you faithful readers to go into the weekend preparing yourselves for worship and the word.

I have something different today. Some of you (I don't keep a counter there because I don't do that for the fame and fortune) have been reading the DebateBlog exchange with Jodie about the matter of what James really said and really meant in regard to faith and works. Who knew that James didn't really mean "save" when he said "save your soul"? It was news to me, I assure you.

Anyway, she provided this link to pdf about what it meant in the OT when the word "saved" came up -- and what do you know: the OT, apparently, never meant soteriological salvation when it said "saved", either. So when Ps 18 says, "The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold," and from that we sing, "A Mi-Tee FO-o-tress i-is Our God! A Bulwark Ne-ver fa-a-ay-ling!" nobody is actually talking about salvation.

That con-sarned Luther and his theological hyjinx! How shall we ever be rid of him and them?

You think about that briefly, and then shake it off and be with God's people in God's house on His day. I'm narrating our Christmas cantata (that's an uptown way to say, "we're gonna sing real good to recorded fiddle playin'") on Sunday -- God willing it will bless the hearers.

UPDATED: ah, shoot. Read this link too.

Branded

My wife has branded this blog esoteric, and she thinks all of you are spending way too much time reading and blogging when there is obviously work to be done -- for ministry or for a pay check. Get back to work.

You can see why she is made of bronze and has a cloud of energy surrounding her. She's fierce.

One from the Tavern

Just read this over at BHT (yeah I know: if my wife is reading, I better stop reading BHT), and here's my take:

Just now Mark Driscoll realizes that he's got a national stage? Because some locals with thin skins, liberal theology, and no humor want to picket his church?

What happened to "man up"?

An interesting update

My wife says she's going to start reading my blog.

Who thinks that's a good idea?

Monday

About 3 months ago, I threatened over at TeamPyro to discuss the Catalyst podcast and I got bogged down with other things.

Go listen to it for yourself (the current edition should be Barna -- that's episode 14), and then read my review of Barna's book from a year ago (Part1 Part2). Let me say that if there was ever a time we needed a guy like Tim Enloe on the "right" team, it is in thinking about what Barna advocates in this interview.

And then you'll be ready to discuss Catalyst with me.

Preparing for Christmas [5]

<< back to part 4

My point, so far, is that God's wrath is coming, and Jesus -- whose birth we celebrate at Christmas -- is the savior from that wrath. It's a point a lot of people got because that's what a savior is -- and it's a point I have made here before, so you were probably with me on it by way of preparation, one way or the other.

Now, the question is: is that enough? That is, if we understand that what we deserve is God's wrath and what we get is God's savior, can we now have some ham and some applesauce and some casserole and maybe (in presbyterian homes, of course) a glass of wine, a decent night's sleep, and then open the presents on Christmas morn after an appropriately-solemn reading of Luke 2? I mean, seriously: enough's enough.

Listen: Christmas is not about a logical argument, an intellectual affirmation, and then a secular session of either greed or idolatry (or maybe both). Christmas is about God with us.

When the Jews had the Temple, God's wasn't "with us": He was nearby, to be sure, but He was separated ritually and physically from the people. He had a covenant with the Jews, and He gave them the means to sort of "pay up" or "make up" the ways in which they broke the covenant, but here's what He says about that:

Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

Two little lines in the book of Hosea -- a book in which God says that the right way to see the relationship between Israel (the chosen nation) and God is that God is a faithful husband and Israel is a wife who prefers the life of a prostitute to the life of fidelity. But Hosea has to go and buy his wife back out of prostitution to make himself like God in this object lesson prophecy.

The obvious application is that God is coming back for us when we don't deserve it -- you've all heard that one, I am sure. But look: when God is spelling it out for Israel in Hosea 6:6, God is saying, "You know: I don't want you just to think about what I have done this for you, I want you to acknowledge that I have done this for you and act like I am real to you."

I think that's a little dazzling, frankly. God doesn't want to just save us: God wants us to act like a wife bought out of prostitution.

We don't have to be people who are in it for the money anymore -- because the price for us has been paid forever. We don't have to work off our debt. Now, that sounds like standard christianese, I am sure -- and the best way to overcome that is to describe for you in detail what the life of a protitute is like. However, homeschool moms are reading this, and they would probably find that a little much -- and they might be right. I'll sum it up in a sentence: imagine a life in which your own body is not safe from the demands and impulses of others who care nothing about you. If you were stuck in a life where you don't even own your own body, or have a right to your own flesh, how would you act toward the person who paid the price for your body and set you free from that kind of slavery?

That's the razor's edge at Christmas: it's the place where mental assent doesn't cut it. We can't just agree that these things are true for us in some religious metaphor, or maybe in some metaphysical transaction. We have to be in love with the one who has actually done this for us. We have to live as if God is with us. God doesn't want us to go and offer a dove or a lamb or a bull in the temple: God wants us to love Him above all things because He deserves to be loved above all things. And He should get it right now because He is worthy of it right now -- in the same way you love your own spouse right now personally, passionately, and somewhat impulsively.

This Christmas thing -- it shouldn't be about an idea of God: It should be about God. In person. Here with us.

When we prepare for Christmas, we ought to be loving God in a real way -- because He is saving us in a real way, and He is here with us. What are you going to do with this God who is with us -- place some statues in a wooden box and turn the light on, or welcome Him into your family and life as if He was your beloved husband and deliverer from slavery? What is actually the right thing to do?

... to be concluded ...

BTW, unless something happens at the D-Blog, this'll probably be my last post today, so be with the Lord's people in the Lord's house on the Lord's day. Jesus loves you even when you're iced in and it's too cold to thaw -- and a blog is not a church. It's a blog.