Dear Friendly Friends,
What I am interested to hear about, however, is how the Egyptians fit into the above scenario. Was theirs a theocratic monarchy too? Or rather, what elements of the Hebrew nation were the "wellspring" for Egypt?
Dr. K read from the Bible, "to obey is better than to sacrifice." So then, does that mean that if I could live perfectly and obey all the commandments, that'd be better than receiving Christ's sacrifice? On that same train of thought, it occurred to me that the way this applies now could be "Christ obeyed, so that we no longer have to sacrifice."
Just another random sidethought to contribute to my firth paragraph, Dr. K said "the applicability of God's moral truths" helped create order in government etc. That started off with America, did it not? We were the seat of Western Culture for quite some time. And now... we've fallen from obeying God's commands by straying away from that moral truth (by trying to make truth relative). So.... yes.
From the quiz....
"True or False: In the account of creation recorded in the book of Genesis, the Hebrew word for “formless” rhymes with the Hebrew word for “empty or void,”which further underscores the omnipotence of God’s action."
I got 12/13 on the quiz. what does "underscore" mean? Doesn't that mean... degrade? As in, the rhyme degrades God's glory?
Also, Dr. K's head was on the constant swivel and he seemed kind of antsy. Keaton, was he one of the teachers who moved around a lot in class?
-Which We Made Up Ourselves
Barney-
ReplyDeletePolitics:
Good point about the papacy/charlemagne/etc!
Here's my thought: The word lots of people used for this idea was "christendom" ... the idea that humans could make a christian kingdom on earth, which because of its christianness has the authority of God behind it. That idea has shown up in many forms. A "theocratic monarchy" seems to be one where everyone obeys God's Word, the king has to obey God's word in his ruling, and the people also have to obey the king's word too. Like the picutre he drew. Everyone is subject to the Word of God. Always. That's the "glue" that holds their country together.
In later medieval+ times, there were other forms of the idea: being a king by "divine right." In my head, that's different from a "theocratic monarchy" because it doesn't focus as much on the Word. Rather, it seems to me that a "king by divine right" was mostly concerned about the divine right as the source of what made his reign legitimate. So then the popes and constantines and charlemagnes got to argue about whose reign was legitimate. Some of it was bad. Other stuff good-like Michaelangelo, Bach, etc.
The egyptians? I sort of answered that in my embarassingly long post. (don't feel like you have to write as much as I did. I'm just trying to give food for thought.) As a matter of course, the egyptians were doing their own thing at about the same time the hebrews were, so the hebrews didn't really wellspring to the egyptians so much as "get enslaved by them at one point."
American Politics:
ReplyDeleteYou're right! To be fair, it isn't specifically "obeying God's commands" that gave us a primiere seat in the West. We'll find out more about that as we go along. In general, Americans have abandoned the enduring principles of the founding, in favor of an entirely different ideology. The founding wasn't a religious thing, although some people seem to suggest that America is a sort of divinely-ordained country (mormons, "manifest destiny" baptists, etc). Rather, the principles of the American founding came from lots of different places, one of which was the Hebrew legacy. So... yes, but it's not JUST the Hebrews/OT.
The phase is "Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman"
Theology:
ReplyDelete"better to obey" - do you remember what bible verse he quoted? I'm gonna go ahead and guess that the word "obey" there also means "keep" or "hear." We'd understand this to mean "hear with faith, believing God's promises, and obey because He commanded us." Particulars like "sacrificing" aren't as important as hearing the Word of God and believing it, which of course means subsequently obeying it.
Underscore:
Means to underline. As in, to emphasize. So... you had the right idea.
Swivel:
It seemed like he wasn't used to cameras, or sure what camera to look at. He's kindof a nerd, so this doesn't surprise me.
"So then, does that mean that if I could live perfectly and obey all the commandments, that'd be better than receiving Christ's sacrifice?"
DeleteWe don't receive Christ's sacrifice--a sacrifice is made to God. We receive the BENEFITS (forgiveness) of that sacrifice through Christ. This distinction is important.
Would it have been better for us to just obey all of God's law OR to fail to obey and therefore have to sacrifice? The only reason sacrifice is ever necessary is because of failure (sin). So obedience is better than sacrifice if the criterion for better is "requires no loss of life."
Does this make sense?
Why did I get the quiz question wrong, then?
DeleteAaron, that's what I meant, much more eloquently stated. I'm not sure what I actually said before.
You got the question wrong because you misunderstood the word "underscored." It means "to emphasize" rather than "to downplay."
DeleteYou had the right understanding of the issue at hand, and read the question wrong. That's all.
Probably another thought to look at could be John 14:18-24. It talks specifically about God dwelling with His people, and not dwelling with those who stray away from His commands.
ReplyDeleteBasically... yeah. There's more to the story than just the Old Testament. There's a whole New Testament, even. If you're wondering about the relationship between "obedience" and "faith" ...check out the epistle to the Galatians (and of course Romans). Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Hearing with faith is how we "keep" the Word of God, despite our total inability to keep the commands of the Law. Saul sacrificed because he thought that this sort of work was what God wanted. God wanted, instead, faith in His Word and obedience to that Word in faith. Saul thought it was about the actions, and missed the faith part.
DeleteBrennick, you can also find OT support for the idea of God dwelling with His people, and not dwelling with those who stray away from His commands.
DeleteExodus 20:5-6
"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the
LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that
hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me,
and keep my commandments."