MacArthur Milks the Prodigal Son

Kinda suggested that I might get to Bailey's stuff on the prodigal son here.

Thought MacArthur might be a little more edifying, though. And he is.

He mentions three books of Bailey as his source in the intro. Directly quotes Bailey twice in the book. And Bailey is sourced in half (2) of the footnotes in this book.

Twice as much as I'd like to see.

Yet when I post a comment on a YouTube video suggesting as much- it gets removed as hostile?

Was recently notified that somebody subscribed to my YouTube channel- didn't think I had one.

Glad I don't subscribe to FaceBook.

Even gladder not to Tweet.

Oh well, on with the show this is it...

MacArthur begins by suggesting that "it's not a good idea to try to milk meaning out of every incidental detail in a parable" (viii). I would suggest that he should have followed his suggestion.
Particularly when he milks Bailey for 'cultural insight'.

One of these lactations occur when MacArthur suggests (20,85) that "the idea that God would freely accept and forgive repentant sinners... was a shocking and revolutionary concept. Almost no one in that society could conceive of God as reaching out to sinners". And that this society thought it was "the repentant sinners duty to work hard to redeem himself and do his best to gain whatever degree of divine favor he could earn".

Carson doesn't see such merit theology in their society here. It is also very hard to believe that they were that ignorant of very basic Torah (Exodus 33:19) and prophets ( Psalm 51:17, Isa. 1:11. and Mic. 6:6-8). Would they think that God freely accepting and forgiving Ninevah was novel stuff? Basic stuff that Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai supposedly had to re-teach them after the sacrifices could no longer be performed (when the temple was destroyed)?
Neusner is similarly quite critical of such Rabbinic studies of that period here.

Another lactation occurs when the prodigal son is suggested to be wishing his father dead (45,51). That "any self-respecting father in that culture would naturally feel he had to disgrace the son as publicly as possible- giving him a slap across the face, a public denunciation, formal dismissal from the family, and possibly a funeral".
Young makes a bold claim that Bailey is being anachronistic- by importing modern examples into the first century here. In other words, this is shear speculation. There is no historical reference.

A final lactation occurs when MacArthur claims, the elder son "never really understood or appreciated his fathers goodness to him; but he was happy to receive it and milk it for whatever he could get out of it". Seems a little hyperbolic to me. Almost as mockingly hyperbolic as Luke 15:31.

Apart from these lactations MacArthur does some excellent stuff here. Perhaps unknowingly- even shooting Bailey's gospel directly in the udder:

"And so we're told, Christians should be less concerned about their personal redemption and more concerned about redeeming our culture or resolving the large scale dilemma of our times, such as racial prejudice, global warming, poverty, the marginalization of disenfranchised people or whatever worldwide crisis is slated to be featured cause for the next Live Aid concert(142)".

See Bailey's gospel here and here. Udderly incompatible.

A shame that MacArthur borrows Bailey's cream. Incompatible bedfellows indeed.

Fireproofing Your Body and Soul

Spoiler Alert


Does he look worried to you?

Nah. He's a fireman in this movie. Supposedly see's it all the time.

Knows what fire can do. Thinks he knows what the fire will do.

Till he has a revelation of real fire. A fire that can destroy the body. A fire that can destroy the soul. A revelation of Him who is able to destroy both body and soul in Hell (Matthew 10:28). A revelation from Him WHO WAS, AND WHO IS, AND WHO IS TO COME (Rev. 4:8).







Does she look worried to you? Nah. Just angry. Seems like that a lot in this movie.

Husband (fireman) is a jerk. And likes jerking off. Isn't flattering this nurses ego enough. So she finds a doctor to flatter her.

Such doctor turns out to be a philanderer. While her husband becomes convicted of sin- and ceases from being a porn junkie. Her husband then attempts to woo this angry woman back (contrary to 1 Cor. 7:15).

Kinda freaks her out. Kinda concedes that 'people can change'. Kinda concedes that she ought to change.



So they do the 'happily ever after' thing again.

Does she ever get angry again? Does he ever jerk off again (which are not necessarily sinful- see here)?

Do they ever commit adultery again?

Wait a minute you say, "He was never committing adultery. He was just looking at a computer monitor!"

Wait a minute you say, "She was never committing adultery. She was just looking to a flattering doctor!"

Well... Cameron (fireman) and Comfort (evangelist) appear to suggest (The Way Of The Master) - 'It's the same thing!'.

But it's not.

Perhaps you differ, "Jesus said it was the same thing!". But did he? Let's look at this passage.

In Matthew 5:28 you will see that Jesus makes a distinction. He adds the qualification, "in his heart".

To their credit, Cameron and Comfort grant this qualification as well.

But this qualification relegates this commandment to the same definition as the tenth commandment- Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife...

A commandment that impacted the apostle Paul greatly (Romans 7:8). The commandment that was actually foremost in impacting Cameron as well.

But such is not physical adultery. We must not get loose with our definitions.

Such looseness would grant virtually everyone virtuous grounds for divorce. Such was not Jesus intent.

The intent of Jesus's charge of coveting in that Matthew passage (and charge of hating your brother in the prior passage)- was to bring our sinfulness to the forefront. To recognize that we would do well to covet the sinless one (2 Corinthians 5:21). To truly love God and our brother made in His image. To know truly monogamous rapturous intercourse with Christ. Lest our whole body and non-virtuous soul be thrown into Hell.

A good reason not to be non-virtuous. And an infinitely better reason to actually be virtuous.

Please allow me to close with some inept wisdom from the Talmud:

A king once engaged two watchmen to take care of his orchard. One was blind and the other lame. still they answered the purpose very well; for their presence was quite sufficient to keep depredators at a distance.
One evening the lame watchman was sitting in the orchard, when his eyes fell upon a bunch of luscious grapes, the first and only ripe ones in the whole place.
"Are you feeling very thirsty?" said he to his blind companion, who was walking up and down, feeling his way with a stick.
"Would you like a bunch of fine juicy grapes?"
"Yes", was the blind man's reply. "But you know we cannot pick them. I am blind and cannot see. You are lame and cannot walk".
"True", said the lame man. "Still we can get at them...take me on your back. I can guide you, and you can carry me to the grapes".
And so they stole the precious fruit and ate it.

Now the next day the king went into the orchard to gather this very cluster of grapes; for he had already observed it as being just fit for the table. It had vanished, and he at once taxed the watchmen with the theft.

"How can my lord, the king accuse me of such a thing?", exclaimed the lame man. "Here I must sit all the days of my life, without moving a single inch; for am I not lame?"
"And how can my lord accuse me of such a thing, when I am blind?" asked the other. "How can the heart long after, or the hands reach that which the eyes cannot behold?"

The king answered not a word. But he ordered his servants to place the lame man on the back of the blind man, and he condemned them to punishment just as if they had been one man.

So it is with the soul and body of a man. The soul cannot sin without the body, nor the body without the soul; the sin of both is the sin of each, and it will not avail in the great day of judgment to shirk the responsibility; but even as the lame and blind watchmen, body and soul will be judged as one.


One would think that the Talmud would understand coveting better than that. One should hope that they understand coveting better than that.
Failing that, they should have little confidence in being fireproof. And far less confidence of being in communion with Christ.

A Canterbury Hell

Would you dare to be alone with this guy?

A guy who wouldn't dare to be alone with himself?

"My concept of hell. I suppose, is being stuck with myself for ever and with no way out", says the Archbishop last week.

Not the traditional concept of Hell is it (we have refuted this alone concept in the July 18 post) ?

Nor does this Anglican head believe in the traditional "lake of fire". Why? Because he doesn't believe that he has to believe that Hell is a place. That he doesn't have to present a fundamental profession of 'the faith once delivered to the saints' (Jude 3). So there.

To heck with the Apostles' Creed. To professing that "He descended into Hell". Let's just say, "He had a helluva time on the cross". Let's call it the Canterbury Creed.

I wonder if he got that concept from Pope John Paul II, "Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy".

Maybe he got it from America's favorite cracker, "When it comes to a literal fire, I don't preach it because I'm not sure about it".

They would reinterpret the rich man as saying, "warn my brothers so that they will not come to this state of torment".

Sure, the Greek word topos- may in fact, be interpreted figuratively. But then you are obligated to interpret kolpos figuratively as well. Does this work here?

What does a state of Abraham's womb look like? How can angels carry a man to Abraham's state? How can Lazarus be in Abraham's state?

I have no problem professing that Abraham and Lazarus apparently share the same statement of faith. That they obviously share the same estate. But to profess that they will share the same state (let alone status)--is well... increedulous.

I profess that Abraham and Lazarus will share the same place. A place of many mansions.
A place prepared for resurrected bodies. And a place prepared for glorified minds.

What were those other guys professing? Paul rebuked their heresy, 'if there is no resurrection of the body to a place... then the state of your faith is worthless' (1 Cor. 15).

May we hope those guys were just being conceptually inarticulate.
Just this side of creedal apostasy.

A Most Disturbing Sermon

Image via Wikipedia

Jonathan Edwards.mp3



The mp3 above- is an audio file that I recorded a few years ago.
My reading from a transcript found at Michael Marlowe's site (excellent research there).
A sermon that I (and others) find even more disturbing than Edwards famous- Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God.

A disturbing and indisputable thesis. Though some disturbed moderns would try to dispute this.

Terribly sorry about the disturbing advertising that accompanies this audio (minimize it). Am considering adding video to this audio and posting it on You Tube-- but that may be even more disturbing.

Let me know if you are disturbed ...

Bailey's Noble Vineyard

Part 6 (x)- The Parable of the Noble
Vineyard Owner and His Son





OK, OK. The stones didn't cry out literally in this text- like the pic suggests. But they did indeed cry out- figuratively speaking.

Bailey is a little more contextual here. Good for him. He was trying way too hard to isolate the texts- to illustrate the chiastic structure of these parables. A literary device used for mnemonic purposes.
A device recognized and brought to prominence quite recently by Gordon Wenham. A recognition that further dissembles the long-standing and compromising 'documentary hypothesis' of Julius Wellhausen.

But the recognition of this device or structure adds little to my understanding of these parables. Even less enlightening is Bailey's literal interpretation of this parable.

Rather, this parable (Luke 20:9-16) ought to be treated allegorically. The vine-growers/Jews saw Jesus. And to attain gain, they threw him out of the vineyard/Jerusalem and killed/crucified Him.

Bailey rejects the speculation that Luke may have added the "threw him out of the vineyard" part to accommodate prophecy- because 'it fails to take the parable literal enough'. "Such speculation is unnecessary when you consider the potential defilement of the grapes", claims Bailey (420).
What a wuss.
He won't defend Luke.
He won't defend Luke's inspiration.
He won't defend the translations (there are no variant textual readings).
He merely defends his own literal interpretation- of grapes!

Yet, the allegorical interpretation is confirmed- with Jesus subsequent elaboration (v. 17&18) of a stone falling on those that reject THE CHIEF CORNER stone/Himself. Try taking those stones literally.

But these are just sour grapes, dear readers.
I thank you for putting up with my gripes.
I hope that my gripes have been helpful for you. And please do not hesitate to rock me with your comments.

In closing:

Bailey concludes this final chapter by saying, "To summarize this great parable is nearly impossible". But that doesn't stop him from trying.

Please allow me to make one more summary for you here.

Either you fall on that stone- or it will fall on you.

And you won't like the latter.

Bailey Takes a Pounding

Part 6 (ix)- The Parable of the Pounds

Here Bailey starts by suggesting that "OUR UNDERSTANDING OF SCRIPTURE [caps in original] must always be open to refinement. All interpretations of Scripture need to be tentatively final. Our interpretation of Scripture, therefore, must never be closed to correction or revision."

Sounds real modest doesn't it? A real generous orthodoxy, right?

But does it not charge God with speaking obscurely and ambiguously? As early church father Cyrrhus wrote, 'Let no one therefore, and especially among the pupils of piety, be so bold against the divine Spirit as to charge his words with obscurity...'. Is Bailey a pupil of piety?
And what exactly does the psalmist mean when he says (Psalm 119:130) His words "give understanding to the simple"? Is Bailey something other than simple?

It seems to me that Bailey is saying that he doesn't get this parable. Bailey concludes (I refuse to target his summaries cuz that's like shooting fish in a barrel), "In this parable the master's command is an opening statement, no more. The story has no concluding scene and the reader is stimulated to reflect on the unfinished symphony that is the parable."
Huh?

Bailey would do well to interact with the whole parable (Luke 19:11-27). The beginning and ending verses. But that wouldn't be politically correct, now would it?

Luke makes it clear in the verse opening the narrative, that this parable is about- what was about to happen to Jerusalem!
Luke makes it reasonably clear in the concluding verse- that it is Jerusalem that is to be slain!
Is Jesus not talking about cities? Is he not going to Jerusalem to be slain?
Jesus then elaborates (v. 44) on why Jerusalem will be slain... "because you did not recognize the time of your visitation".

But of course Bailey is wiser than that. Thinking that it couldn't possibly be about Jerusalem. 'Jerusalem never charged interest!' "Interest was forbidden in Jewish law!" And, 'the master wasn't really endorsing interest- he was just being facetious!' (406)

Is Bailey really that dull? Does he not know that the Torah does not condemn interest but rather condemns exorbitant interest (more than double the investment in 6 years- Deut 15:18)?
And even that interest was permitted to be charged to foreigners (Deut 15:3). Was the Holocaust not largely a reaction to Jewish bankers? Was this not the cause of much vitriol from Luther centuries before?
Muslims continue to play that stupid game too. They will add a premium to the loan. Yes, hidden interest. So...they will take out a Muslim mortgage of $200,000 for a $150,000 house. "Oh, but it's not interest", they say. What a double-minded bunch.

Bailey even throws his buddy Matta to the flames here (398). Thinking he can deflect some heat. Knowing Matta's allegory doesn't stand up.

Bailey even brings "Luke's integrity" into question. Far be it- that Bailey should bring his own understanding of "the Father's mercy" into question (407).

Bailey might try reading Psalm 2 again- for a better understanding of this parable:

"Ask of me and I will surely give the nations [cities] as your inheritance"

AND

"Do homage to the Son [O Jerusalem], that He [the master] not become angry, and you perish in the way".

Or is the master too "merciful" to pound Jerusalem?

Is the master too merciful to pound YOU?

Bailey's Pearly Gate

Part 6 (viii)- The Parable of Lazarus and The Rich Man

I mentioned in the intro- about some passages not being viewed as parables by some commentators. This is one of them.

Some are adamant- about viewing this passage as a historical damnation. I don't have a problem with that view. Seems this was a polemic contested by the reviser of the weak 5th century D manuscript.

I don't have a problem if you were to call this passage prophecy either. Given that prophecy may be defined as being forth telling as well as foretelling.

I don't have a problem with calling this a parable either. It certainly has the obscurity common to parables. How Rome can derive purgatory from this passage is surely indicative of that.


OK... who is being addressed in this passage? Bailey thinks it is the Sadducees. I see the Pharisees 5 verses earlier (Luke 16:14) but no Sadducees. I see the Sadducees mentioned at least 40 miles and 4 chapters later.

Bailey thinks that this is an extension of the two prior parables. I see Jesus continuing to condemn the Pharisees in the 4 verses prior to this passage. And Jesus using this parable to elaborate on their "eternal dwelling" mentioned in the previous parable.

OK... who are the characters in this passage?

Well, Jesus provides the name Lazarus.

Bailey suggests that the name Lazarus ("the one whom God helps") mighta been understood by these Sadducees from it's Hebrew meaning. But, as Bailey says, this woulda been peculiar thinking for folks unable to see "God helping" the pathetic Lazarus in the only life that they believed in (the here and now). Peculiar thinking for folk that were unable to understand the Torah. Peculiar folk that probably couldn't even read. And the few peculiar folk that could read- were more likely to read the Torah in Greek rather than Hebrew anyway. Nah... they probably didn't import that meaning. Particularly at the rate of speed of this parable. And the Sadducees don't appear that quick on the uptake.

I could grant the Puritans their historical view here. That there actually was a Lazarus already in Heaven. And that's why that name was used. Seems to me that God would get a kick out of being that accurate historically.

I could also grant the view that Bailey briefly alluded to- that Jesus used that name to taunt the Pharisees. Were not the Pharisees were already a little ticked about a certain Lazarus? That Lazurus from Bethany that Jesus raised from the dead (John 11)? Jesus taunting? Yup. Probably the strongest view.

The Rich Man character?
Is translated Dives in the Latin text. Given the name Nineue in the Coptic. Called Finaeus and Amonofis in others. But no name in the better texts. Let's call him Dives- cuz he took a deep dive in a shallow pool :)

Bailey claims there were no other "individual[s] with a name in all Jesus's parables" (382). I see the name Abraham mentioned a few times in this one. Seems Bailey missed the name Moses as well. Bailey's "accurately translated" Arabic version (385) musta got licked clean by his "therapeutic dogs" :)

Next, Bailey indulges in a bunch of speculation about Lazarus hearing and seeing Dives. And being compassionately eager to dive in- to assist the "poor man frying in hell"(392).

In this passage, I don't see any indication of Lazarus either hearing or seeing Dives.
John Gerstner doesn't think Lazarus would have heard Dives either.

Indeed, I suspect this great chasm was beyond yelling distance. I suspect this narrative is non-historical. A virtuous narrative bridge spanning the now and then.

I don't think Lazarus would have seen Dives either. Are you gonna look afar when you are dwelling in the bosom of Abraham? Now, he may look afar- far later. But not without resurrected eyes. He's gonna need looooong range vision. Vision to cut through the flames. Cut through the abundance of corpses. But for now he's gonna want to bathe in the unaided vision of his huge savior for a good long time- prior to directing his resurrected eyes to puny peripheral sights. He's one of the Rev 7 multitude from the tribulation. He's one serving God in his temple- both day and night. Not bothering with the dogs outside the city (Rev 22:15).

Nor do I see Lazarus being compassionate towards Dives in this passage.
Jonathan Edwards seems to think that Lazarus would have no love nor pity for Dives. But rather, will rejoice in seeing God glorified by His justice towards Dives. Though it be improper to rejoice in Dives damnation- prior to Dives death.

But the passage is focusing on Dives not Lazarus!

Seems likely that Dives will see "Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the prophets" (Luke 13:28) from "that place". Seems likely that Dives will see Lazarus from "that place" as well. And Dives vision will continue to endorse God's judgment on Dives.

Now, a question often raised is, "Will God have an eternal presence in Hell"?

Norm Geisler seems to think- that in hell, even God would have no presence (2 Thess. 1:9).
Gerstner would disagree with Geisler on that- calling him to make his bed on Psalm 139:8.

Which brings us to the all important question.
The explicitly implicit question of this parable.
A question of eternal import.

'Where will you make your bed?'