Abram's Altars

has anyone else noticed the two altars in Genesis 12?

Gen 12.6 Abram traveled through the land as far as the site of the great tree of Moreh at Shechem. But the Canaanites were in the land. 7 The LORD appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.” So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him.

Gen 12.8  From there he went on toward the hills east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. There he built an altar to the LORD and called on the name of the LORD.

Gen 12.9  Then Abram set out and continued toward the Negev.

the first altar seems to be about thanksgiving. upon entering the promised land, but finding it occupied, God promises, and Abraham gives thanks for this promise despite appearances by making the altar (and theoretically sacrificing upon it also).

but then he makes another one, seemingly with no purpose.

my thinking is this:
all of Abram's travels were directed by something specific.

• Ur to Harran because of his dad
  
• Harran to Canaan because of God's word
  
• Shechem to Bethel-Ai because God speaks of future promise
  
• Bethel-Ai to Negev because of [something to do with the altar]?
  
• Negev to Egypt because of famine
  
• Egypt to Negev because of the Pharaoh
  
• Negev to Bethel-Ai because of flock size
  
• and so on

so the missing part of the puzzle seems to be the altar between Bethel and Ai, and my thinking is that this altar is part of entreating God, 'calling on the name of the LORD'. i haven't seen any other evidence for this use of the altar. Saul's pre-emptive sacrificing seems more about sanctifying the battle rather than asking for guidance - the normal most Exodus means for guidance seems to be the Urim and Thummim. i couldn't find anyone who agreed with me (let alone mentioning the possible importance of the second altar), until i came across Calvin on prayer. in Inst. III.xx.9

Hence, under the law it was necessary to consecrate prayers by the expiation of blood, both that they might be accepted, and that the people might be warned that they were unworthy of the high privilege until, being purged from their defilements, they founded their confidence in prayer entirely on the mercy of God.

the Battles edition of the Institutes i have lists Genesis 12.8 as a cross-reference here, that is, he was praying to God for guidance, direction, and proleptically, pointing to Jesus, the high priest who, because of his shed blood, is able to intercede directly with the Father on our behalf.

book reading tizzy

i've loved getting my head into some books of late.
first came Gulliver's Travels (via gutenburg.org), then i finished off Calvin's Institutes, then Ben Elton's Inconceivable, then the diary of Anne Frank, then a penguin excerpt from Herodotus, Xerxes Invades Greece.

Gulliver was great, particularly as i'd only ever read a dumbed-down version of the first part, the voyage to Lilliput (which the supposed abomination of a film is broadly based on). what was striking was the decline in humanity evidenced in each of the four parts. the God-fearer Swift was interested to show the absolute depravity of man, which is revealed bit-by-bit throughout. indeed, by the end of the book (SPOILER ALERT) Gulliver cannot stand the sight nor smell of others of his species, so disappointed is he with the race he was unfortunate enough to be born of.

Calvin was long. and often concerned with defending orthodox Christianity against people who are long-gone and arguments long-forgotten. i was struck with his thoughts on baptism, as well as confirmation, which i will write about soon. i'll probably have to read it all again when i finish college - the beginning, read two years ago on the bus, is a distant memory.

Elton is a great writer, whether for TV or his novels. he did a great job in this book of making the whole vibe associated with trying to conceive a heck of a lot lighter. this isn't why i was reading it - but the depths of despair i understand can be associated with this issue, when cut with Elton's humour, couldn't hurt. i think...

Anne Frank was great. seeing the war from a little teeny-bopper's perspective (i refuse to say tweenager) was very different. i've talked to people who were her age but in Australia (my nan) - a thoroughly different perspective - as well as someone her age in Germany (my Gast-Oma). it's funny to think that they probably all would've gotten along well. what i found hard reading it was as the dates got closer to (SPOILER ALERT) her being found and taken to a concentration camp was her ignorance. the last entry shows her to be a typical selfish child - like all 14 year old girls the world over since time immemorial - who just happens to be in hiding with seven others in Nazi-occupied Holland. so she whinges to her diary - and that's it. no warning. the hagiography in the beginning of the book was a bit odd, yet not unexpected. but a great example of the pointlessness of war, greed, xenophobia, that catches all and sundry up in its wake.

finally, Xerxes. this is where the inspiration for the movie the 300 came from. a couple of years ago i read Thucydides' the Peloponnesian War, which has a very similar style. frustratingly, there are 9 and a half blank pages, and the story isn't finished - (SPOILER ALERT) Athens is sacked - and the book stops! what happens to the ships that have sailed down south? does Xerxes make it across the isthmus? of all the relatively inane things that are included, why include them, and not finish this part of the story, AND leave blank pages? what are you doing with Penguin Epics mr/mrs Penguin? anyway, it was interesting to read Herodotus explain the origins of all the various tribes and nations - where they'd come from, who they moved on, their descent, origin of their name etc. it is bizarre to think of a time when you could emigrate somewhere where there was noone where you were going - hey, this looks like a good place to start a settlement that will still be here in a few thousand years!

but otherwise, onto some serious reading. Ricoeur, Figuring the Sacred. should keep me going a little while.

Calvin: why baptism?

i'm getting closer to finishing Calvin's Institutes. in the second-last chapter he has a go at the five sacraments rejected as unbiblical (confirmation, penance, extreme unction, orders and marriage). he doesn't have a problem with the first or last two, just with them being called sacraments in the same way as the lord's supper or baptism are.

in speaking against penance, he writes:

As if baptism were wiped out by sin, and is not rather to be recalled to the memory of the sinner whenever he thinks of forgiveness of sins, so that from it he may gather himself together, take courage, and confirm his faith that he will obtain the forgiveness of sins, which has been promised him in baptism!
IV.xix.17

that is, one of the key reasons for baptism is to recall, when you fall into sin, that you are one of those Christ died to redeem, and to go and sin no more.

Eucharist in John 6?

a while ago i summarised Calvin's Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper.

i began thinking about it again in relation to John 6 and what's going on there. in the anglican prayer book service, i thought it said something like 'may the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ keep you in eternal life.'

in John 6.53-58 Jesus says

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

now, it's pretty clear that Jesus is talking about his death, but it's not insignificant that the same terms used to talk about his death are the used to talk about the remembrance meal he instituted.

Calvin says in the aforementioned treatise

The bread and the wine are visible signs which represent the body and blood, but the name and title body and blood are given to them because they are as it were the instruments by which the Lord distributes them to us. (Section 14)

we want to protect people from popery (check out not a couple of the 39 articles!), but what happens at the Lord's table isn't nothing either. Calvin does a great job of charting this line between Luther and Zwingli in this respect.

reading a couple of protestant commentaries on John 6 (Hendricksen and Köstenberg), neither think it's about the institution of the eucharist, but Köstenberg does suggest Calvin might be on to something in that it is derivative - that is, we celebrate what Jesus tells us about sharing in his death by sharing in the meal. indeed, whenever we remember Jesus' death on our behalf is a great opportunity to share in a remembrance meal, celebrating our union with him in his death and resurrection. we are not obliged to do it every time, but by never doing it we miss out on engaging all our senses (hearing, speaking, seeing, feeling, tasting) - a beautifully creaturely way for us creatures to join together to remember Christ's death, instituted by our creator!

'supdate

if you've been grieving my blogospheric absence, let me fill you in on where i've been:

nowhere really – just busy!

i stepped in at the last minute to do a sermon on prayer, a great time - though not long enough - to think through whether i really do value prayer or not.

essay on Isaiah 26 was great fun, but took waaaaay too long - i spent 2 and a half weeks working on the Hebrew, and only a couple of days looking at the theological issues surrounding it.

next on the list was exam fun and games - philosophy was first, and then Church History (European Reformation).

the mayhem was broken up with a weekend camp for SWAC youth, where i had the honour of talking through 2 Peter with them.

i arrived back in time for my New Testament exam, translating and exegeting 2 passages from John 7:29-31 and John 1:11-13. it was good fun, but there was a little too much winging-it, not quite enough knowing-what-on-earth-i'm-talking-about.

i arrived back yesterday from speaking at a vision valley snow camp on the two sons in Luke 15. it was a great couple of days, very tiring, but an awesome opportunity to share the reckless love of our heavenly father with some young people who may not have heard of it ever before.

anyway, i'm off to Gradcon in a couple of days, i just need to knock this essay on the head before then!

anyway, that's where i've been. i hope you've been well too, dear reader.

speak soon,
D5

Calvin on the Lord's Supper

something that struck me about this document (which i've summarised below) is just how unlike himself Calvin is here - i feel like i've been reading Luther! How i wish he had've stopped at one of his earlier editions of his Institutes - when concise he is a pleasure to read! [incidentally, his earliest edition (1536) of his Institutes was only 50pp - my copy of his 1559 edition runs to 1521pp!]

and it's also like he just couldn't get around to writing this letter - it was really in 1529 (Marburg Colloquy) and 1530 (Diet of Augsburg) when this issue came up, particularly in point 5 where he explains the disputes between protestants on the matter.

Short Treatise on the Holy Supper
of our Lord Jesus Christ

            John Calvin, 1541

Why did he write it?
‘It is a very perilous thing to have no certainty on an ordinance, the understanding of which is so requisite for our salvation.’

1. Why Instituted? (3-6)
   just as in Baptism we enter into a new family
   so the Word nourishes children
   BUT due to our weakness*, a visible sign is required → Bread and Wine
   • it Signs and Seals Promises with certainty
   • that we might rejoice and praise
   • to lead us to holiness, innocence and brotherly charity
   
   
2. Fruit and Utility (7-19)
   • a mirror of Jesus’ death and ascension
   • Jesus and all his promises are found in the supper
   • receive the supper that we might receive the benefits & the benefits are only found there
   • Christ is offered to us there that we might possess him
   • spur to holiness and charity
   
   
3. Correct Use (20-32)
   • repentant
   • as saved sinners
   • unified
   • hungering
   
   
4. Errors (33-52)
   • not a sacrifice we make but one that has been made
   • no such thing as transubstantiation
   • not to be worshipped
   • not a Jewish festival
   • not in the bread alone but in both elements do we receive the benefits
   
   
5. Divisions (53-60)
   Luther is interested in holding onto Jesus’ words
   Zwingli & Œcolompadius are against idolatry, thus emphasis on signs
   → Neither listen to where the other are coming from

Big Picture:

• Jesus isn’t contained in a piece of bread (despite the jaffles you can buy on ebay with pictures of jesus - scroll down!)
  
• Don’t knock the efficacy of the Lord’s Supper

* by weakness i take it he means more our mortality than our sinfulness, although his inherent dualism means these are a little too closely linked for my liking

calvin on prayer

"Hence, as the ambitious adopted Jupiter as their patron; the avaricious, Mercury; the literary aspirants, Apollo and Minerva; the warlike, Mars; the licentious, Venus: so in the present day, as I lately observed, men in prayer give greater license to their unlawful desires than if they were telling jocular tales among their equals. God does not suffer his condescension to be thus mocked, but vindicating his own light, places our wishes under the restraint of his authority. We must, therefore, attend to the observation of John: "This is the confidence that we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us" (1 John 5:14)." Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin, Book 3, Chapter XX, Point 5 *

it's interesting, not to mention culturally unsettling, to see the emphasis Calvin puts on the manner and the mind in which we come to God in prayer. with the contemporary estimation of the spontaneous, this is a healthy rebuke to those who esteem this too highly.

(however, before the liturgists give a triumphant huzzah, he is quick to apply the counterbalancing argument, in the very next point!)

* accessed from here, as for some unknown reason, several chapters of the macsword (a free mac bible program) copy don't work...

really here

NEITHER presumtion of, nor resignation to, the future, allow us to truly embrace the present - we are able only to truly love and to serve, practically able to be involved when we have real hope.
Hope is nothing else than the expectation of those things which faith has believed to have been truly promised by God. - Calvin
FOR without that view of the future, we will become despondent with the lack of change, and will indeed become resigned to the downward trend of history, the decline of man.
BUT, being sure of our future in Christ, we can truly fix our eyes on him, unwaveringly following and serving him and his kingdom, toward the ends of his kingdom.

so, knowing the end is nigh, do we live presuming the coming, being resigned to the coming, OR are we realistically expecting his kingdom?

i say this to counter the thought that we live oblivious to the present, for i would suggest it is only in having this realistic expectaion of the future that we are able to properly grasp hold of the present.

(the vibe of these ideas were stolen off me by Jürgen Moltmann, long before i was born...)