Manifest Faith: James 2:14-26 Part Two

Just before our pericope, in vss. 1-13, we see James proclaiming a warning against favoritism. Those receiving this letter may have played favorites with the middle-upper class, or the rich, while they ignored those possibly like themselves—poor. In the Letter of James, we shall see a call for consistency between the words and deeds of believers. We shall also see that faith in quantity is not the discussion, but it is faith that lives and makes alive.

James vs. Paul?

Furthermore, our pericope is also one of the most controversial in Christendom. Its content manifests the classic theological struggle of whether or not James and Paul contradict or complement each other. As we shall see my view is the latter. Apart from the syntax or theological interpretation, Paul is known for having the fortitude to confront theological error directly and publicly (Galatians 2:11). Because of this, and considering the seriousness of this issue, I feel it plausible that he would have done this with James, if such existed, through rather direct reference. Paul tells us that he met James while in Jerusalem (Galatians 1:9) and that James was, ironically, one of those who extended to him the “right hand of fellowship” (Galatians 2:9).

It seems plausible that some communication of such a matter between Paul and James would have been well known and well written, especially considering the status of James in the Jerusalemic church and early Christianity generally. In this paper I have been careful, as should we all, to mitigate Lutheran presuppositions in my interpretive paradigm. Luther has made considerable influences in popular theology. It is also commonly known that Luther’s view of the Letter of James is highly unfavorable. Some suggest that “Luther rejected James because he knew that it contradicted his theory; and it is amazing that any should hold that this is not the case.” This letter has been divinely placed and preserved in our present canon, I feel we should honor it as inspired and seek to understand its meaning further in harmony with the Pauline writings, rather than begin with the paradigm that it is possibly contradictory.

I feel it is quite certain that Paul understood faith to have expressions beyond positive mental assent; to Him faith worked. It was active. This activity is rooted in love and thereby has its sustaining power in love (See Galatians 5:6). Paul and James, no doubt, have some of their intensity from the very teachings of Christ, who said that if we love Him we will keep His commandments (See John 14:15). The theological rationale of James and Paul, diverge at times, but are comfortably similar. As James does, Paul understands that there is life working in us, something compelling us to some activity (c.f. 2 Corinthians 4:12, Ephesians 3:20).

Written In The Holy Land:

The Letter of James does not let us know of any specifics to his location while writing, but given James’s prominence in the Jerusalem church it is quite plausible that it was written somewhere in the Holy Land around the early or mid 40's. During these times, the Holy Land area was under Roman control. Around 40 B.C., Augustus appointed Herod the Great as king and Jerusalem, of course, was to be his home and place of reign. The history of Roman governors or many Roman leaders generally, is characterized with ruling by power and intimidation, but would yield some flexibility to the religious leaders.

Such accommodations, though, actually resulted in Herod constructing an outstanding temple. Such accommodations also aided the notions of Pilate when he bowed to public pressure (Matt 27:15-26), concerning the crucifixion of Christ. Let it be known however, that the bulk of Jews disdained Roman rule and longed for freedom. The role of the Zealots, civil uprisings and insurrections were common. This type of atmosphere basically continued until a later Emperor—Titus—destroyed the city and the temple in A.D. 70.

Defections From The Faith:

In times of blessing and prosperity defections of the faith exist. Consider, Jerusalem or the Holy Land as being the location of this letter and the times of James and you will begin to see that compromise and defections from the faith were a high probability. Under Roman domination the city and area would be in literal religious turmoil, not only by the profaning presence of pagans with the sacred, but the certain conflict caused by Christianity between Sadducees, Pharisees, and of course a high priest. In such climates, Christians were the minority. Because of the conditions in and around the Holy Land, it is likely that many early Jewish-Messianic believers were tempted to compromise their values and beliefs in order to escape persecution or to improve the economy of their life situation.

The Letter of James is an attempt to make certain theological truths, some elaborately composed by the Apostle Paul later on, to come alive in practical understanding. James, the brother and later follower of Christ, writes earlier (before A.D. 49) than any of the Pauline discourses (1 Thessalonians being earliest; written A.D. 49-54). Carson-Moo-Morris suggest that “if, then, we allow some time for Paul’s teaching of justification by faith to develop and become known, the most likely date for the letter of James is sometime in the early or middle 40’s. "

Letter of James Written Prior to Jerusalem Council and Style:

In fact, this letter, was written before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 or A.D. 48-50. It would cause one to wonder why Paul would not address any preconceived inconsistency with his understanding of The Faith with that of James. A sincere and inductive focus upon the reciprocity of the two should be sought.

For some time the Letter of James has been recognized as an example of religious paraenesis; ethical instruction rooted in religious values and beliefs. The purpose of this type of writing is to influence, direct, and further ground the actions of the readers with a particular understanding. “The letter of James resembles a letter only in its opening greeting. It has none of the other formal features that are usual in ancient letters, no personal information about the readers addressed, and no farewell message.”

It also sets an imperative tone since there are about sixty imperative verbs in a total of 108 verses. Carson-Moo-Morris suggests that this frequency is actually greater than any other New Testament book. Craig Keener suggests that “James reads more like an essay than a letter, but one kind of ancient letter in which moralists and skilled *rhetoricians engaged was a "letter-essay," a general letter intended more to make an argument than to communicate greetings. Writers like Seneca and Pliny used literary epistles of this sort, which were published and meant to be appreciated by a large body of readers."

Still other styles are suggested such as the Letter of James being an example of New Testament wisdom literature. In this style, James would be a wise teacher instructing his readers in ways of wise living. "His short, rather disconnected maxims resemble the ancient proverbs of Solomon. This feature has led some scholars to suggest that James wrote in the manner in which he taught. They suggest that this epistle is written catechetical (instructional) material.”

As we read The Letter of James a clear distinction between good and evil wisdom is seen (3:13–18). “A person whose life reflects jealousy and selfish ambition has not the true wisdom of God, but is earthly minded and unspiritual. But true, God-given wisdom is “first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity” (Jas 3:17).

One possible problem for James being a well-polished apologetic or instructional essay seems to be that James changes topics frequently, and randomly (e.g. 2:1-13, 14-26; 3:1-12). The Letter of James exhibits traditional wisdom, and has many of its sensibilities in Jewish thought rather than Greco-Roman. However, passage after passage lists crucial subtexts that are biblical references, not Greco-Roman—a perspective recently defended in L. T. Johnson’s commentary on James (See L. T. Johnson, The Letter of James (Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1995).

Dr. James B. Coffman has illustrated the Christocentric nature of The Letter of James. Coffman suggests that “there is no similar portion of the Sacred Scriptures so surcharged with the mind of Christ as is the Epistle of James. This is true to such an extent that the entire epistle exhibits all of the qualities of an inspired commentary upon the red-letter portion of the New Testament, especially upon the Sermon on the Mount.” Coffman also points out more than a few applications of the principles Christ laid down while on His earthly ministry. Christ said, "Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20); James wrote: "Did not God choose them that are poor in this world, rich in faith, to be heirs of the kingdom?" (James 2:5). Christ said, "Every one that asketh receiveth" (Matt 7:8); James wrote, "If any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God ... and it shall be given him" (James 1:5).

It may be wise to consider these similarities as part of James’s theology but we should be careful that we do not make it primary. Ben Witherington suggests that the Letter of James exhibits a more conventional, less prophetic theological conception than found on the lips of the Synoptic Jesus. As we read the Letter of James we can also see many stylistic features in his text. The use of rhetorical questions is quite abundant (2:4, 5, 14, 21; 3:13; 4:1, 5), an imaginary debating partner (2:18-19; 4:13; 5:1), and abrupt changes (4:4). James also employs many metaphors, and figures of speech, e.g. tossing sea 1:6, the bridle (1:26), the brushfire (3:5), and so on.

I favor the advice of Carson-Moo-Morris here, which requests that the Letter of James not be too specific in genre. Yet, it can be seen as a series of homilies put into a letter to address issues with other Christians from afar.

NOTES:

1. As it is well known, our pericope and the book of James as a whole, practically was rejected by Reformation father Martin Luther.
2. Coffman, Burton James, Coffman's Bible Commentary, Copyright © 1971-1993 by ACU Press, Abilene Christian University. All rights reserved.
3. Mare, W. H. New Testament Background Commentary. © 2004 by W.H. Mare. All rights reserved.
4. Carson, D.A. Moo, J. Douglas, et al. An Introduction to the New Testament Copyright © 1992, 2005 by Zondervan Publishers
5. Loh, I., & Hatton, H. (1997). A handbook on the Letter from James. UBS handbook series (1). New York: United Bible Societies.
6. Keener, Craig S. (1993) IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament Published by InterVarsity Press. All rights reserved
7. Packer, J., Tenney, M. C., & White, W. (1997, c1995). Nelson's illustrated manners and customs of the Bible (360). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
8. Elwell, W. A., & Beitzel, B. J. (1988). Baker encyclopedia of the Bible. Map on lining papers. (2152). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.
9. Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments Copyright © 1997 by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA®. Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 1998, Parsons Technology, Inc.
10. Witherington, Ben. Jesus the Sage, The Pilgrimage of Wisdom. Pgs.236-247 © 1994 by Ben Witherington. Augsburg Fortress Press.

Manifest Faith: James 2:14-26 Part One

James 2:14-26
Much of our culture has lost its way in thought due to the negative influences of Post-modernism. It has caused some to question the very fundamentals of their faith. Some begin with an open mind but end with it slammed wide open as it is filled with even the most improbable of notions, at the hands of moral relativism. Our culture, no doubt, but the church is also being infected by this reasoning.

The Letter of James was written to impart practical absolute truths to the Christian faith and it is for believers who face the very situations that our culture presents. It can also inform our world that Christianity is about doing and not just talking. James is about truths enforced with divine wisdom for a people at a crossroads in religious thought and Post-Modernism has helped us reach this crossroads—for good or bad. Understanding the whole of this letter will better help us grasp the theological principles of our text under discussion.

This letter is the very wisdom of Christ made plain and practical. As our culture gropes for modernism and relativity we must reach their grasping hands with transforming truth. It is difficult, if not impossible, to make Jesus Christ of the 1st Century relevant to modern peoples of the 20th Century. Jesus is the Incarnation of the person of God, but He also existed as an actual historical man in an actual time and place. We are to demonstrate (as The Body) Jesus to the world so that they can see His eternal relevancy; the need for a Savior; faith in our Lord, be filled with His Holy Spirit that has come with enablement, and identify with our Lord in the waters of baptism. Evangelism must never supersede the need to disciple (See Matthew 28:19, literally “go” or “move” with imp. to “teach”)

Just before a sharp increase in public doubting, brought about by myths—partially revived by Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code or Simcha Jacobovici-Charles Pellegrino’s The Jesus Family Tomb theory—Dr. Josph Stowell wrote a book entitled The Trouble with Jesus (A Christianity Today’s Gold Medallion Book Award Winner 2003). Chicago Annually holds a Leadership Prayer Breakfast, the first Friday after the week of Thanksgiving. In this book Stowell tells us that attending the Breakfast was the religious thing to do. He admits that he has attended the Breakfast for 15 years (at the time of the book) and that up until a couple years ago the name of Jesus was freely used in prayers and sermons.

Stowell also goes on to say that at the 2003 Prayer Breakfast “new” change was introduced. The name of Jesus was never mentioned in any prayer or sermon. Instead, says Stowell, the emcee opened the service by expressing to the audience that diversity of religion in America now demands a new representation regarding the expression of our faith. The emcee continued to call for a “new wind” of cooperation and tolerance. Such interfaith language only set the tone for the rest of the Breakfast. Before the Breakfast ended a representative of Islam chanted, a Rabbi prayed, a Catholic priest took his turn and then a Protestant minister prayed, both without ever mentioning the name of Jesus. At the end the entire group held hands and prayed together.

Modern culture is replete with this philosophy in almost all areas of human thought, e.g. religion, politics, sociology. The need to herald to a lost and confused world the name of Jesus and its saving, healing, and delivering power should be foremost (c.f. Acts 4:12, Colossians 3:17). The Letter of James as a whole, and certainly the discussion in James 2:14-26 clearly compels believers to make their faith practical, to demonstrate authentic faith.

This faith, demonstrated and visualized, can help to bring certitude and faith to the skeptics and the Gnostics of our time. Intellectual demonstration is limited, but a Christian lifestyle with mercy, love, and justice at work can also aid in informing any person’s doubts. The Inquisition has served to springboard doubt and unbelief because it is the antithesis of Christian works. Guided by the wisdom of Christ, through the pen of his brother James, we can allow our “light” to “so shine before men” so that they may see our good works and glorify our Father in heaven (See Matthew 5:16). We can impact our culture positively with authentic Christianity.

The purpose of this discussion, on James 2:14-26, will be to get to its meaning by first looking at its historical and literary contexts. Secondly we will ask some questions of the text to help us in the interpretative process. Thirdly, we will seek to answer those questions by doing some word studies and syntactical analysis. Finally, we will seek to apply the passage to contemporary audiences.


NOTES:

1. Zodhiates, Spiros. Faith, Love & Hope: An Exposition of the Epistle of James, (1:1) Copyright © 1997, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates

2. Stowell, Joseph M. The Trouble with Jesus © 2003 by Joseph Stowell

Musings on Body Piercing

The subject of “piercing the body” relates to the ancient custom of “body art”. This historically has been proven to be a pagan custom from ancient times, i.e. Botocudo, African, Egyptian, Mayan, Aztec, Indian, etc. Many and/or most times body piercing was ritualistic and gory and has notoriously been labeled taboo for hundreds of years.

Body piercing falls under the category of jewelry. Body piercing is a form of body modification. The practice of piercing has traditionally been for religious or other cultural reasons, while many individuals, particularly in the modern West, choose to be pierced for spiritual, ornamental or sexual reasons.

Some Old Testament scriptures concerning jewelry and body piercing are:

And the LORD said unto Moses, Depart, [and] go up hence, thou and the people which thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt, unto the land which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, Unto thy seed will I give it: And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite: Unto a land flowing with milk and honey: for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou [art] a stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way. And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned: and no man did put on him his ornaments. For the LORD had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye [are] a stiffnecked people: I will come up into the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee. And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the mount Horeb. And Moses took the tabernacle, and pitched it without the camp, afar off from the camp, and called it the Tabernacle of the congregation. And it came to pass, [that] every one which sought the LORD went out unto the tabernacle of the congregation, which [was] without the camp. And it came to pass, when Moses went out unto the tabernacle, [that] all the people rose up, and stood every man [at] his tent door, and looked after Moses, until he was gone into the tabernacle. And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood [at] the door of the tabernacle, and [the LORD] talked with Moses. And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand [at] the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man [in] his tent door. And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

(Exodus 33:1-11 KJV)

Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing [as] they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts. In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of [their] tinkling ornaments [about their feet], and [their] cauls, and [their] round tires like the moon, The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, The rings, and nose jewels, The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails. And it shall come to pass, [that] instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; [and] burning instead of beauty. Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war. And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she [being] desolate shall sit upon the ground.

(Isaiah 3:16-26 KJV)

In certain passages it appears as if the Old Testament scriptures allow for jewelry, e.g. Genesis 24:22. It is possible that God permitted many things in apparel and other things which are now forbidden especially when they do not suit a New Testament Christian who is to be moderate, humble, and not vain. For example: divorce for any cause, and polygamy. These were allowed in the Old Testament but are to be abstained from in the New. The same may be said of jewelry in excess.

These are some New Testament passages that deal with jewelry as well:

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

(1 Timothy 2:9 KJV)

Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

(1 Peter 3:3-5 KJV)

Notice in the texts the emphasis is on modesty, moderation (shamefacedness) and soberness or self control (sobriety), meekness, and humbleness. These are traits that are directly attacked by excessive jewelry. Jewelry puffs up pride and creates haughtiness and centers personal attention and the attention of others upon self and not God. In all that we do there must be modesty and balance. Basically, earrings or body piercing can be considered excessive and without a real function to a Christian as opposed to a watch or wedding ring which can serve a legitimate function.

Another text that implies a very negative emotion toward “body piercing” is:

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

(1 Corinthians 6:19-20 KJV)

Our bodies are the temple or sanctuary in which the Holy Ghost resides. We are also now “bought” by the blood of Christ and therefore are His. We are not our own anymore. Instead, we move, operate, grow, and exhibit fruit and characteristics in and by the Holy Ghost.

Finally, below is a revealing excerpt from Wikipedia Encyclopedia:

“Attitudes towards piercing continue to be divisive. Some regard the practice of piercing or of being pierced as spiritual, sometimes embracing the term "modern primitive," while others deride this approach as insulting, as cultural appropriation, or as faddish. Some see the practice as a form of artistic or self-expression, while others choose to be pierced as a form of sexual expression and/or for sexual stimulation or the perceived increase in sexual feeling that certain piercings are thought by some to create. For some people, piercing is part of an S&M lifestyle or relationship, or is incorporated into SM play.
Some people choose to be pierced for symbolic reasons. For example, some survivors of sexual abuse have said that they experience piercing as allowing them to retake control over their own bodies. Some people choose to be pierced to symbolize certain relationships.

While some people consider body modification to be a sign of non-conformity, others deride body piercing as faddish. This can at times lead to prejudice or cognitive bias towards those with piercings or visible signs of past piercings.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_piercing

Quote from Four Gospels, One Jesus by Mark Strauss

"Matthew presents Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, the fulfillment of Old Testament hpes; Mark portrays him as the suffering Son of God, who offers himself as a sacrifice for sins; Luke's Jesus is the Savior for all people, who brings salvation to all nations and people groups; and in John, Jesus is the eternal Son of God, the self revelaton of God the Father." (pg. 24)

Click here for info about purchasing.

Quotes from Our God Is One by Talmadge French

Our God Is One by Talmadge French. Click here to purchase. Hardcover, 283pgs.

"For more than 85 years the Pentecostals have been preaching and singing abou Jesus, His Deity, and the absolute oneness of God. This book presents their story in thorough detail from the early Oneness Pentecostalim and the development of its earliest organizations. Oneness Pentecostalism emerged within the context of the fervor of restorationism and "back to the Bible" literalism at the turn of the century. In its rejection of the conception of the Trinity, it embraced the one and only God in totality, incarnate in the New Testament. Their positions and argumentation are made understandable in this book to those outside the movement. Yet its primary purpose has been documentation, rather than apologetic." (from Shiloah Books)

"preliminary research suggests that the actual size of Oneness Pentecostalism is approaching 20 million." (pg. 86)

"The doctrine held as the supreme theological feature of Oneness Pentecostalism is, unequivocably, its belief in the absolute, unqualified Deity of Jesus Christ." (pg. 161)

"The very essence of Oneness Pentecostal theology and experience is, in fact, "God in Christ," or God as man. To know Christ is to know God." (pg. 183)

After discussing the fact that Oneness is not Unitarianism French writes: "Oneness Pentecostals view themselves as non-Trinitarians, almost universally avoiding the use of the term "the Trinity" with respect to their own views of the nature of the Godhead. In its place thye use the common designation "the Oneness." When the speak of "the Godhead" they are most often referring to God's absolute Oneness. by use of the term "the Oneness of God," Pentecostals are emphasizing the one omnipresent God, mediated in Christ the Savior, and particularly present through the Spirit within believers." (pg. 191)

More Quotes by Horace Bushnell:

God in Christ: Three Discourses presented at New Haven, Cambridge, Andover

"A metaphysical trinity must be assaulted by a metaphysical unity." (pg. 130)

Speaking of Trinitarians: "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are, in their view, socially united only, and preside in that way, as a kind of celestial tritheocracy over the world. They are one God simply in the sense that the three will always act together with a perfect consent, or coincidence. (pg. 131)"

"...our properly orthodox teachers and churches, while professing three person, also retain the verbal profession of one person. They suppose themselves to really hold that God is one person. And yet they most certainly do not; they only confuse their understanding, and call their confusion faith." (pg. 131)

John 1:1

I truly believe that we are going to see a day where the Oneness view will either predominate or at least be seen as a legitimate alternative to the Trinitarian hypothesis. Exegetically Trinitarianism is a needless interpreting of the text.

Eg. The Trinitarian argument is always fraught with a presupposition. In regards to pros, and contrary to many Trinitarian apologists, pros does not demand the notion of "in a face-to-face relationship with." Only the context can determine if this sort of thing is meant. So in order to demonstrate that pros in John 1:1 is being used in this way, one would first have to successfully argue that the logos is a distinct person from God, who is able to be in a face-to-face relationship.

This cannot happen. They try to use pros as proof that the logos is a distinct person from God. It becomes circular. If the logos is not a reference to another person then pros would only hold its normal meaning of "with."

John's parallel account in I John 1:1-2 demonstrates that John did not have the idea that the logos was a distinct person from God in mind. It is said that the logos of "life" was with (pros) the Father. God's life was with him, but clearly not in a relationship with Him. If God's life can be with Him but not be a distinct person from Him, then neither do we have reason to believe that John's use of pros in John 1:1 indicates that the logos is a distinct person from God, and thus no reason to think pros in John 1:1 means "in a face-to-face relationship with."

Many Jews and Muslims reject Christianity, not merely due to their depravity, but also because of the "Christian" doctrine of the Trinity. It is not Christian, it is Romish and to MANY (esp. if you enjoy history) that means ALOT. Protestants haven't PROTESTED ENOUGH.

.

More Worthwhile Quotes:

"It is my opinion that the majority of Christians overlook, deny or, at the very least, minimize the problems of what it means to be a fallen human being...professing Christians tend to think that the nature of humanity is basically good and is only thrown off course by the power of temptation...The Bible...teaches that man is an apostate creature, fallen from his original innocence...depraved...impacted by sin...As Milton said in Paradise Lost:

Into what depth thou seest
From what height fallen

(excerpted from "the book that helped end slavery in England. Now in modern language. Real Christianity by William Wilberforce originally published in 1797.)

More Worthwhile Quotes

Some historians, it is sorrowful to say, have not taken into account this sad mixture of evil vessels with the good the silver line of God's grace in true Christians; though at times the alloy so predominates that the pure ore is scarcely perceptible.

(Andrew Miller, Short Papers on Church History)

September 14th
The son of a butcher, most of his family died in a plague that swept England, leaving him with a fair estate. He attended Emmanuel College and became a minister. He married, sailed for America, and served as assistant pastor of the First Church of Charlestown, before dying oftuberculosis on this day, September 14, 1638. His name: John Harvard. The founders of Harvard College wrote: “After God had carried us safe to New-England… it pleased God to stir up the heart of one Mr. Harvard, a godly gentleman… to give… one half of his estate… towards the erecting of a college.”

Bill Federer, American Minute (St.Louis, MO.:Amerisearch, Inc.,
2003). September 14

Theology is a logos about the theos—the logic of God. Theology is a rational discourse about God. The Gospel of John begins with the statement, “In the beginning was the Logos.” The basis of all logic is that some statements are true and others are false. If this word about God is not a logical word, then what is it? The whole idea of theology is that rational statements can be made about God. Even someone who says the opposite has just made a rational (although untrue) statement about God. Logic is undeniable.

(Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, Come, Let Us Reason : An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1990). 15.)

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Constitution of the United States of America

If there is ever going to be a solution to the christological riddle, it must eliminate the idea that there is a contradiction in the union of the two natures. As long as they are seen as mutually exclusive, polar opposites, the hope for any understanding appears to be in vain. Of course, by means of a mystical way of thinking liberated from the obligations of logic and coherence, we could conclude that the two natures are noncontradictory. But a delight in ignorance and muddlement will certainly not advance the cause of under-standing, so we will forego it as an option. Rather, we will analyze the components of divinity and humanity with an eye toward finding in their difference, not a contradiction, but complementarity.

Winfried Corduan, Handmaid to Theology, electronic ed. (United States of America: Baker Book House Company, 1981). 1.

To say that before His incarnation Jesus was actually (temporally) God and only the Son prophetically is somewhat problematic in that God is extratemporal. He created time and stands outside of or above time. Thus past, present and future do not affect Him as God in the way they affect His creation. (Crownover, Raymond. Crown Teaching Ministries)