Gym-Rat-ian Confessions, Part 2 - Who Goes There?

I always half believed a stereotyped image of the sort of people who go to the gym faithfully almost every day: almost entirely teeny-, 20-, 30-, and 40-somethings (maybe a few die-hard 50-somethings); mostly in-shape or crazy-in-shape; mostly people whose lives are centered on their chosen type of fitness (e.g. body-building or runners). Ignoring the fact that I can't read people's minds, I'll say up front that I've seen such people at the gym over the past several months.

Age Range. Obviously, what follows is based on my personal, imperfect, guesstimates. With that caveat, I think I can safely say that I've seen youths (boys and girls) as young as junior high age (obviously with parental consent) , and I've seen septuagenarians and possibly octogenarians. I'd guess the age range for most people I see as 30YO-55YO.

Fitness Level. This is one of the two areas where the stereotype is furthest from reality. I'd say that people who are visually in-shape or crazy-in-shape are in the minority (a large minority, but still a minority). Saying this as a description, not denigration, I've seen quite a few people who are obviously not in-shape, or are very out-of-shape. FWIW, I'd place myself somewhere between not-in-shape and visually in-shape.

Reason for Being Gym Regulars. Like I said above, there are obviously people at the gym for whom their chosen type of fitness is at or near the center of their lives. But there is a wide range of apparent purposes represented (based on outward appearance). Some people are obviously there to lose weight. Some people are there to get in shape. Those two are my purposes. Some are there to recover from some health event - an injury, a pregnancy, a stroke. Some elderly people are there to maintain and even expand their physical capabilities.

I don't need or want to arm-twist anyone into joining a gym. But if doing so would make sense to some one, and they have the personal discipline to do it (rather than throwing their money away for something they won't use), maybe the above will help overcome some mental roadblocks. And it need not be applicable to gym membership only. I've seen a similar wide range of ages, abilities and purposes among people walking and running as exercise on their own.

Miracles Within Miracles

I've been reading recently in the Gospels and Acts, and it occurred to me that it's easy to miss the scope of miracles in some healings. A person healed of leprosy may be just that, healed of that disease. But if the disease did damage to parts of the body, that also may have been healed. This was certainly true when deaf, blind and lame people were healed. For such a person, being healed of the immediate cause of their blindness, etc., would not have sufficed. In addition to that healing, the person's nerve pathways would have had to "learn" to communicate information, the person's brain would have had to learn to interpret information or learn to control muscles never used, and those muscles would have to "learn" and gain the strength to be used!

Gym-Rat-ian Confessions, Part 1

It's months overdue, but I have a confession. I'm becoming a Gym Rat. At the end of last year several things came together. I was tired of having to work my exercise time - outdoor walking - around the weather (both winter and summer present challenges, even in Silicon Valley's mild climate). We found that my company-provided health plan offers membership at 24 Hour Fitness at a substantial discount. My company shuts down every year between Christmas and New Year, and I checked out 24 Hour to see if it could make sense for me. It did and does.

Let me say at the outset, a gym membership does not come with the discipline to darken its doors or exercise machines with one's shadow. Discipline and determination are developed, not bought. Buying a year's gym membership won't magically get one inside the gym and exercising every day. And I wasn't trying to buy that discipline. I had already been doing my regular walking for exercise (not an occasional casual stroll!) for well over a year and a half.

So, why did I join? I already mentioned greater flexibility regarding weather. It never rains inside, nor does the temperature get into the 90s. I mainly (but not exclusively) use the treadmill. Walking outside, I have to estimate my pace, and if I want it to be steady for some measured time, I have to account for things like stoplights and crossing intersections. Treadmills do that for me and time me. Treadmills are safer - no cars with distracted drivers, no idiots on bicycles passing me from behind on the sidewalk without announcing their presence, no idiots on bicycles coming straight at me on the sidewalk ignoring my existence. Streets in my area of Silicon Valley are fairly flat, but half-marathon courses (such as that of the San Francisco Half Marathon) can include hills. Treadmills can add varying degree of incline (handy generally to improve stamina and also to increase the number of calories burned per minute). It's not the same as walking outside, but using a treadmill offers some useful advantages and flexibility. I've also been using weight machines, to improve my general strength (not for body-building as such) and burn calories in a different way.

I plan to post more along these lines. I'm not into, "Me! Me! Me!" but blogging is about things that occupy my time, energy and thoughts.

Stuff & Life

Haven't posted much for several months ...

Stuff grows to exceed available space.

Life expands to exceed available time.

I suppose those may be more "First World Problems" than universal, but maybe not.

More About Music I Enjoyed In My Younger Days

1960s and 1970s (especially the first half of that decade) pop-rock was the music I grew up with. 1970s "Jesus Music" was much of the music I to which I listened in my years between high school and my first years of being married. There was a lot of good and fun in that music, and I still listen to music from that genre and time. But to be truthful, some of it was a bit simplistic and trite - annoyingly so. It wasn't the very best thing for feeding one's spirit (though there was much worse "out there" in secular music of the time). Even worse - in my opinion, of course - in light of the past 3 decades was the way eschatology was presented.

There was an near (or maybe actual) dishonesty to how end-times teaching was presented in the 1970s among Evangelicals (and maybe Fundamentalists). Some lip service was paid to, "No one knows the day or hour." It was always a qualifying caveat mentioned in books and presentations about end-times prophecy, but both the proportional use of time and the tone contrast between the caveat and the prophetic speculations communicated to the hearers that the caveat did not matter much. The grand, over-all, message a hearer would come away with was, "Any moment now, any second now," somewhere between urgent and hysteria. Personally, I think some teachers, churches and education institutions owed (and owe!) Evangelical Christian believers a very repentant apology for so carelessly wasting such believers' time, energy and money! And then there's the harm such unfulfilled urgency did to the Gospel's credibility among both weak believers and non-believers! Suggesting, to a point barely short of predicting, something that did not happen has consequences, sometimes eternal consequences! Ask Harold Camping about that, if he's still alive.

Getting back to 1970s "Jesus Music", it was, in part, a vehicle for communicating that eschatological urgency and enthusiasm. Larry Norman's "I Wish We'd All Been Ready" and 2nd Chapter of Acts' "Something Tells Me" are just two examples of this (but far from the only such). So even in the "Jesus Music" I enjoy - including artists I particularly like - there are aspects that taint my enjoyment. Humans are fallible, and need to be more conscious of this fact, Christians especially.

Thinking About the Music I Grew Up With

On a musical level, I enjoy much 1960s and some 1970s pop music. It's what I grew up with. But increasingly I'm unable to dissociate the music from the message of some of the music and the lives (and sometimes deaths) of the musicians from their music. I cannot dissociate, for example, The Association's "Requiem" or Creedence's "Fortunate Son" from the hideous consequences of the way the US withdrew from Vietnam (seriously, who that was even somewhat aware of the horrors of Lenin & Stalin and/or of Mao could not have foreseen Vietnam's "reeducation" camps and the Khmer Rouge's "Killing Fields"?! My enjoyment of "California Dreaming", "Monday, Monday" and "Creeque Alley" is alloyed by the way Papa John, Mama Cass and Mama Michelle screwed up their lives (even ignoring the claims of incest against Papa John!)?

Trinity and Divinity, Part 5, Hebrews 1:1-12

Before proceeding, I have a little confession. I've been referring to Hebrews 1:8 for quite a few years, and have read the chapter many times. But for some reason it wasn't till preparing for this that I really followed and understood the writer's full train of reasoning in it. As will be seen, that fuller understanding augmented rather than changed my understanding of Hebrews 1:8.

Hebrews 1:1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

In these first two verses, the writer sets up a pattern of parallel contrasts. Here, it's limited human prophets vs. the Son, though that will not by the primary contrast in the chapter. Human prophets were “long ago”, and were limited human beings. The Son, however, is described both as the Co-Creator and as the “heir of all things”. This latter cannot be true unless the son is not a “thing”, created.

“(I)n these last days has spoken to us in His Son,” is interesting, though perhaps a rabbit trail. One's immediate thought is, “Well of course! The prophets spoke and their words were written down. Jesus spoke, and His words and story were written down.” Not so fast! There were prophets in the church as well. Agabus and the daughters of Philip are mentioned in the Book of Acts. Paul spoke of prophecy as a gift of the Spirit in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12. And then Paul spoke, in Ephesians 4:11, of prophets as being one of Jesus' gifts to the church. So, taken together all these passages mean: 1.) New Testament prophets are means in which believers are, “ spoken to ... in His Son;” the Son is speaking in them; 2.) God, Who is speaking in these New Testament prophets, includes the Son (Jesus, Who gave the prophets) and the Holy Spirit (Who gives prophecies).

3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.

Chapter and verse divisions in the Bible are later, human, “inventions” that make the Bible easier to use. So this sentence really is part of the thought in verse 2. Where verse 2 speaks of the Son as the uncreated Creator, this verse firmly shows that the Son is God: in glory; in nature; in power. Isaiah 42:8 points out that God does not give His glory to any other, so that the Son radiates God's glory means that the Son is God. “(E)xact representation” cannot be explained away by saying that a really good portrait or sculpture is a representation of a person. Not so! A portrait is two-dimensional; the real person is three-dimensional. A sculpture is made of stone or metal, and is not living, unlike the real person. “(E)xact representation” can only be true if the Son is God. And no “thing”, a creature, can uphold all creatures. Only the Creator, God, can do that.

And this verse states the the Son's power is not limited: not to within creation; there is no creature that is not subject to the Son's sustaining power. Again, the Son is not created, but is the uncreated Co-Creator.

When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. 

Here the writer of Hebrews sets up the contrast that will be the topic of the rest of the chapter – the Son vs. the angels. This contrast is devastating to the Arian theology of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, in further showing that the Son is God, and in showing that the Son is not angel (not even the chief angel). Two differences com into view in this verse and a half. First, the Son's name, the “Son”; second, and less obviously, the Son's position of power and authority. The writer has already precluded understanding the Son as a created “thing”. So “Son” (and “Father”) express relationship and intimacy, not creature-hood and/or inferiority. This relationship and intimacy set the Son apart from the angels. Angels do not have such a relationship with God. Sitting down on a throne means the Son is in a position of power and authority; the angels serve the One with that power and authority.

5 For to which of the angels did He ever say, "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"? (Psalm 2:7) And again, "I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME"? (2 Samuel 7:14)

Verses 5 and 6 are the closest Hebrews 1 comes to lending support to Arianism, yet they fall short, and are amenable to a better interpretation. Were the Son a creature – an angel or something unique and “other” - God would have said, “Today I have made you.” What was done, however, is that the Father-Son relationship was established within the One, uncreated, God.

6 And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, "AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP (Deuteronomy 32:43 & Psalm 97:7) 

“Firstborn” has two meanings in Scripture: the first one born among multiple children; one who is preeminent or the heir. The first meaning doesn't work, even within the idea that the Son is a creature (an idea already precluded). The second does work: the Son is preeminent over creation, of which the Son is Co-Creator. There are at least two important things to understand in the command that the angels worship the Son. First, they are inferior (positionally) to the Son. Superiors do not worship inferiors; peers do not worship peers. Second, only God is to be worshiped. So, in pointing out the fact that the Son is not an angel, the writer also shows that the Son is God.

7 And of the angels He says, "WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS, AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE." (Psalm 104:4) 8 But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. 9 "YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS." (Psalm 45:6-7) 

Verses 7 and 8 culminate the servant-served contrast between the angels and the Son. Angels are specifically called servants in verse 7, and then verse 8 expands on the authority of the Son. Apparently, there are two ways, “Your throne o God,” could be translated, the other being, “God is your throne.” That latter doesn't make sense, unless one needs to avoid a clear statement that the Son is God. And that's what Hebrews 1:8 is, a clear statement that the Son is God in a context that identifies the Son as the uncreated Co-Creator served by and sustaining the highest of creatures (angels).

10 And, "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; 11 THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN; AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT, 12 AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP; LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED. BUT YOU ARE THE SAME, AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END." (Psalm 102:25-27) 

A key fact may or may not be obvious in the verse and its source in Psalm 102. Clearly, as quoted here in Hebrews, “ YOU, LORD” refers to the Son. While those words are not present in the sentence the writer of Hebrews quotes, it is present throughout the Psalm. And “LORD” there in Psalm 102 is the Divine name, YHWH! So many/most of the intended First Century audience for the book of Hebrews would have recognized that, in using this quote from Psalm 102, the Son was being equated with God.

Once again, the Son is spoken of as the Creator. The contrast in these verses between creation being subject to time and aging and the Son being ageless and unchanging show that the Son is eternal, a characteristic of God alone.

13 But to which of the angels has He ever said, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET"? (Psalm 110:1) 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?

The writer of Hebrews returns to the contrast between the Son and the angels. The Son is at rest; the angels are at work serving believers. The Son is the ruler (of creation); the angels are servants.

In detail and taken as a whole, Hebrews chapter 1 devastates the Arian theology of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society! The Son, Jesus, is the Co-Creator of every creature. The Son speaks as God. The Son is eternal. The Son is as superior to the angels as a king is superior to His servants. The Son is directly identified as God.