"By What Name Or Authority?" The Petrine Sermon of Acts 3 in Canonical Context

This represents a brief introduction to the meaning of Acts 3:11-26, and its consequent sermonette to the leaders of Israel at the time, Pharisees and Saduccees both, from Acts 4. Here, they act in the place of the Lord Jesus, filled with the Spirit of Jesus, and stand literally in the place of Solomon (Solomon's Porch). But they do miracles like Moses and Elijah. Everything they do and say, they do by the authority which Jesus gave them, and by His Holy Spirit. This summed up in Peter's response as he says it was not by our power or holiness - but One alien to us in both cases. It was from heaven, where Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father (Psalm 110).

Thus Luke presents Jesus as One greater than Moses, One greater than Elijah, One greater than Solomon, and One greater than King David.

And as the lame man [recall Mephibosheth who ate at the table of Solomon's father] which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering.

[This is why the Bible calls them "signs and wonders," which were used of God to draw attention to the apostles to confirm their message (the Gospel) and do good among the people to teach them of the tender mercy of the One in whom Paul and Peter would call men to place their trust; the verb "wondering" is no accident].


And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people [standing in the place where Solomon used to preach also:],Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?


[What they heard: "Don't look at me, I don't have any supernatural power of my own; it's borrowed; this is from the power -- Name -- and Holiness of the Messiah, Jesus, the Holy and Just One"]


"The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he [Pilate] was determined [tried many times] to let him go.

[What they heard: "That wicked pagan Pontius Pilate was better than you," "You chose Barabbas instead of God's Son, favoring a serial killer and insurrectionist over Messiah, how godly are you?"]

1. Interestingly, Peter says they "denied Him," as also Peter had denied Jesus three times, and was forgiven; Peter's language, based on his own experience then anticipates the mercy they are to receive upon their repentance

2. Peter calls Jesus the Son of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, meaning that Jesus is both the Son of God and the promised Seed of Abraham, in whom all the nations would be BLESSED. Again, Peter's language anticipates mercy (blessing) even while he proceeds to hammer the Gospel home in very forceful and indicting terms.

3. In case you missed it. Peter is indicting his audience, calling them not sons of Abraham, but of the devil, murderers of the Messiah, the Son of God. But God raised Him up and glorified Jesus to vindicate Him and convict you. This is not a seeker-friendly prosecution.

4. Pilate had, Josephus tells us, many times in the past brought idols near the Temple vicinity. Once he brought in a big golden eagle to thrill the Jews with a sign of Roman power and idolatry. There were heavy losses in the ensuing riots. Pilate was a pagan and proud of it by his record. Yet he sought to release Jesus, while the Jews had him killed. This means that Peter is calling the Jews worse than the worst of unbelievers. First-century Jews -- esp the zealots -- were not Rome's biggest fan club.

This is what I mean by "not a seeker-friendly prosecution." It amounts to a "scum of the Empire" indictment.

Peter Adds:

"But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you"

[What they heard: "Does the name OJ Simpson ring a bell? Charles Manson? You people are Adolf wicked."]

1. By calling Jesus the Holy and Just One, Peter has identified Him as both the Messiah, and as the source of power and holiness by which this man was miraculously healed.

2. They had pressed for the release of Barabbas when they should have acquitted Jesus; Barabbas was what they had accused Jesus of falsely many times -- an insurrectionist, or today we say "insurgent," a terrorist. This probably means that Barabbas had taken up arms against the Roman empire in some bloody uprising, and was captured. He was probably a zealot. Jesus had not done anything against the empire, and went about healing its citizens and peasants (not all of whom were Jewish persons. Some were Syrian or Phoenician). The so-called "good thief" was scheduled for execution alonside barabbas, showing that he was neither good nor particularly a thief, but an insurrectionist of the "Barabbas party." But, he turned out to be one of the good guys in the end -- by the grace of God.

Strangely, his crucifixion fell on both the worst and best day of his life. This is not the best way to enter the kingdom of heaven, but it beats the alternative. God does truly work in mysterious ways.

Peter continues:

"And [You] killed the Prince of life, whom God hath [first, ahead of the others] raised from the dead; whereof we are eye-witnesses [sufficient to convict you before God].

"Archegos" [Prince, author, pioneer, Chief, etc] is really difficult to translate and I never feel good about my translation of it no matter how hard I try or how nuanced my efforts. Arche is first, primary or beginning (or beginner depending on context). The suffix -gos amounts to "one who." "One who begins" can refer to an architect, if what he begins is a construction project, it might be an engineer who drives a train of many cars in length -- he is in the lead car and so would be in Koine the train archegos. I can list many kinds of persons in today's world who would or might fit the bill:

The head of a department at work; any military officer who leads his unit into battle; any company whose name or brand serves as a type of industry superstar -- McDonald's would likely be the archegos of the fast food industry, and Starbuck's for the whole new coffeeshop phenomenon (Peet's has better coffee, and Panama Bay Coffee Co. probably has the best beans of all).

The sense of "archegos" as used by Peter carries the Semitic flavor of the Feast of Firstfruits, as the tithe was to be the first part given (chronologically) and the best part of all you had. This teaches that we may only give God the very best. It should be perfect and from above, like the law of the Lord, and Spirit of the Lord, whenever possible.

Calling Jesus the archegos of life appears to be a play on the notion of firstfruits -- which would have been used to feed the poor.

The suffix "of life" indicates that Peter refers to the resurrection (eternal life) unto glory. Paul's use of like thought he expresses as "the firstfruits [i.e. tithe] of them that are raised from the dead." This is precisely what Peter means. But one sense is added, since it portrays the Lord implicitly (or by connotation at the least) as a kind of food, like the animals which would be sacrificed were for the priests.

In what sense one might feed on the risen Christ is not here made clear, but much more shocking and overt statements of this kind appear in John's Gospel. This most likely displays one way in which the Lord's Supper subsumes within itself all the sacrifices of the first Testament, here with specific reference to the Feast of the Firstfruits, which would have been the Pentecostal "Ingathering." Peter is preaching in light of the Jewish holiday calendar.

He might have simply said, "Jesus will gather in people to be his own from every nation, and these shall enter in as He did. He went first. Others will take up their cross and follow Him in resurrection unto life. He is the first and best part [Archegos].

2. Peter's point is deliberately ironic and reads somewhat like "You killed the Author of Life," which is (for irony) like stealing a Bible, only far worse in its effects and ethical implications.

3. God has raised up His Son, the Seed of Abraham, of whom it was promised would be for a blessing to all nations. The claim "God raised up Jesus" was not a mere fact to be publicized. It was an indictment of those who killed Him, and a vindication of Jesus in the sight of all that God had reversed the ungodly verdict, overruling the sentence. The Jews and Romans authorized representatives put to death the Lord Jesus. This amounted to the entire world, both Jew and Gentile in bibical (federal) thinking. [Peter is still indicting. He does not let up the whole time, until they repent].

Paul argues this openly in Romans, that the whole world is held guilty by God under the law, so that there can be no excuse on Judgment Day for failing to believe in the Messiah.

Peter adds:

"And his Name [authority, power] through [the healed man's] faith in his [Christ's] name [holiness, goodness] hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know:

[What they heard: You can't weasel your way out of this one, you know I am right]


"yea, the faith which is by him [faith from God] hath given him [healed guy] this perfect soundness in the presence of you all."

Comments: The "yea" means "indeed," "not only is this the case, but also." Here, Peter drives home the point that not only did Christ heal this man but He gave the man the faith which functioned as the instrument through which the healing came.

This puts Christ in the place of the Almighty, making Christ the source and goal of one's faith, a point which would not have been missed by his fiercely monotheistic audience.


A man is saved by grace, and that grace comes to him by faith in Jesus -- in his power and holiness -- meaning the saved man believes that Jesus CAN do it, and is righteous and just in so doing, and that His authority is from God.


This faith is not something you can conjure up if you "just imagine" hard enough, or click your heels together 3 times. God either grants one the faith to believe unto salvation or not. This is not popular among Arminians, but faith is not a work; it is a gift; and no man works for a gift (you cannot earn charity). Faith to believe in Jesus comes from God. Left to your own devices you would be -- well, left to your own devices -- faithless.

Peter continues:

"And now, brethren, I know that ye did it [killed the author of life] in ignorance, as did also your [equally guilty] rulers. But those things, which God before[hand in the all the Holy Scriptures] had shewed [prophesied] by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, He hath so fulfilled [the propecies concerning Christ that you should kill Him, and He should rise again][in Jesus].

Repent ye therefore [because Christ is risen], and be converted [to Christ], that your sins [just named] may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the [returning] presence [i.e. parousia] of the Lord. And He [the Father] shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive [retain] until the times of restitution of all things [at the end of the millenium, when all His enemies will have been made a footstool for his feet], which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began [esp. from Psalm 110][ regarding the time when the world will end -- as we know it in the estate of sin and misery].

For Moses truly said unto the fathers,"A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, [a powerful miracle-working faithful prophet] like unto me [Moses]; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say [teach] unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people [this happened at the hands of the Romans in A.D. 70].

[One of those things Jesus commanded was, "when you see armies surrounding Jerusalem, then let those in Judea flee to the mountains." If they did not obey, they were indeed cut off completely. The Romans showed no mercy, as Romans are wont to do].

Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel [1050 B.C.] onward, as many as have spoken [in the Bible], have likewise foretold of these [last] days [of the Old Covenant era, and the beginning of the New].

Ye are the children of the prophets [so God expects you to know this stuff], and of the covenant which God made with our fathers [like Abraham] [so you, his decscendants are responsible for it by way of covenant with "you and your seed after you"], saying unto Abraham,"And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." Unto you [Jews] first God, having raised up his Son Jesus[from the dead and seated Him in heaven at Gods' right hand], sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his [murderous] iniquities [for you killed the prophets and stoned those sent to you, like your fathers].

Comments: As Peter was saying this, it was in fact being fulfilled. Jesus had poured out His Holy Spirit from heaven, and Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, was just now delivering this message from the Spirit of Jesus. Peter was offering, in the name of the Lord Jesus, the blessing of the Abrahamic covenant to his audience. It could not have been delivered to them by Airborne Express on a more simple and elegant silver platter, right in front of them, there it was.

The blessing. This would be for Peter's audience, and Israel or Esua moment. Melchizedek was extending the bread and wine to the Men of Israel who had killed him, just as He had to Abraham many centuries before. All they had to do was repent and be baptized by the grace of God, having believed Peter's message, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Seed of Abraham and Firstfruits of them that are raised from dead.

Acts 4:7-12

And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, by what power, or by what name, have ye done this?

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost [this is mentioned because Christ promised that they were to take no thought in advance what to say, but that when they spoke before rulers and kings, the Holy Spirit would give them utterance; it hearkens back to Acts 2] said to them, Ye rulers of the people [chief priests], and elders of Israel, If we this day be examined of the good deed [miracle] done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;

Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel [This suggests that a crowd had gathered; Peter now raises his voice to let the crowd in on the conversation. Peter is not just answering now; he is preaching] that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead [showing that you murdered an innocent man], even by him doth this man stand here before you whole [which means you are REALLY in trouble with God].

This [man you killed] is the [prophesied corner-] stone [of the True Temple] which was set at nought of you [Sadducee] builders [who are known for boasting in the Temple], which is become the head of the corner[stone of the new Temple]. Neither is there salvation in any other [Name but Jesus]: for there is none other name under heaven given [by God] among men, whereby we must be saved.

What they heard: God only gave one Savior to all men. And you killed Him. But God raised him from the dead, as the foundation [similar to Archegos again] or cornerstone -- Peter's name means "Rock of foundation" according to Jesus in Matt 16 -- which Peter here calls the Lord Jesus citing Psalm 118.

Peter has declared to those who glory in the Temple that the One they killed was raised by God to be the basis of the New and better Temple of God. This probably primarily targets the Sadducees in the audience, though the Pharisees saw themselves as dependent upon it also, for there was only one priesthood and sacrificial system appointed by God. They did not sacrifice anything in the synagogues -- only in the Temple.

The phrase "neither is there salvation in any other name," begins with "neither." This links the passage to an earlier concept - that of the Temple. Salvation and Temple form two concepts with only one primary common denominator -- if you put the two concepts together in the Jewish mind, you get "sacrifice" as the logical consequent.

Salvation needed Temple sacrifice. This both Pharisee and Saduccee believed. Indeed, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission. so the phrase, "Salvation in any other name" means Christ "became" -- he doesn't say how -- the cornerstone of the New Temple by way of His once for all sacrifice which replaces all others.

In other words, in the act of killing Him, Peter's audience replaced their own temple with a New One, of which Jesus had become the basis by his death and [consequent] resurrection. But they did it in ignorance -- not on purpose. God did it on purpose. The Psalm Peter alludes to ends with "The Lord has done it and it is marvelous in our eyes."

Who -- did it? I though Peter said THEY did it? Doesn't Peter keep on saying this? But they did it "according to the counsel of God's foreknowledge and purpose." It was God's will to crush Him. Only when you crush a ripened grape does the wine -- new wine - begin to flow to the people. They did it in ignorance, but the Lord has done it to install Jesus as the Chief Cornerstone, heir of all things, and ruler of the nations. It was attended by miracles -- the temple curtain was rent in two, the earth shook violently, and the clouds darkened the sky from about the third hour.

It was - in the sense of marvel as miracle -- a marvelous event which installed Jesus as the Chief cornerstone. The miracles of the resurrection, and which Jesus performed after it, make it all the more marvelous.

"In our eyes." This phrase expresses the perspective of the apostles and prophets, the dominical foundation of the Church. In OUR eyes means they were chosen as EYE witnesses to the resurrection and ministry of Christ, from its beginning until his forty day teaching spree in Jerusalem. It is marvelous in our eyes for John said, "Many other wonderfull things Jesus said and did, but if I were to try to record them all the world could not contain the volumes."

John was an eyewitness to many marvels. So were the other apostles. Paul lists the 12 AND Peter as those to whom Jesus appeared in the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3-8). You simply do not forget something like this. Peter had seen Jesus transformed in an instant to the sun's radiance, standing with Moses and Elijah.

These men killed Jesus, but God has done it by resurrection to install Christ as the New Temple's foundation by apostles and prophets He sent. They performed their miracles, Peter answered the Sadducees, in the Name of the Builder of the New Temple, of which this formerly lame man had just become a part.

Back then, they did not have the phrase, "In your face." But if they had, this would have been it. Peter and John had power from on High, from heaven which the Temple signified. By killing Jesus these men had established the New Temple half-way. God did the rest.

Jesus had said to his opponents: "Destroy this Temple and in three days will I raise it up." This translates: "Do your worst." But the Temple of which He spoke was His own body. Peter had said the same thing: by killing Jesus' body -- God's perfect sacrifice -- they had eliminated the need for the levitical priesthoods imperfect and now-useless sacrifices.

They had -- in the most important ways I can think of -- utterly refuted themselves, and their entire sacrificial system. Jesus was now in charge of the Temple and its absolute standard. The cornerstone's purpose was to set the architectural standard for the rest of the Building. Those who trust in His sacrifice enter the New Temple. Those who do not, are left in the court of the Gentiles as unclean. Jesus is now the standard for entry.

He became that cornerstone by their prophesied execution of Him, and God's prophesied resurrection of Him. God operated here strictly by lex talionis. The blessing of the Abrahamic covenant now rests with Jesus -- raised from the dead as Melchizedek the High Priest - to impose upon those of whom he declares it, every spiritual blessing in Christ.

This blessing was here associated with a formerly lame man, the offspring (after a fashion of Mephibosheth). Likewise, this man had been invited forever to eat at the Lord's table, very much like the table of Showbread in the Temple, from which only the priests could eat.

Mephibosheth was no longer lame, but he still ate at the table of David's Son. It was the name of Jesus of Nazareth that had made Him whole, Who is the Chief and Standard of the New Temple. The Levitical Priesthood was put to death in Christ's death. And He was raised - and all those in Him - to the life of a new priesthood. The Lord Jesus intended to bless them by turning them from their inqiuties, as was the duty of the priest to bless the people in the Name of the Lord.

This blessing comes by the preaching of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus. The Lord has done it, to this very day, by apostles, prophets, evangelists and ministers. And it is marvelous in our eyes.

Obama Inhaled: Let Me Be the First To Say -- "Who Cares?"

It would appear that certain morbid reporters are still asking the "inhaled question" of political candidates, as though voters actually care about what they did or did not do that was really stupid in high school. For some reason, the doorbell ditching question just doesn't make the list, which is odd because that's alot more fun than losing your memory temporarily. Whoopie cushion questions apparently are forbidden, and from my point, just as relevant.

Why does smoking top the list of dumb teenage exploits, and not say, DUI's, or any number of other sins of youth? Maybe older Americans who skipped the whole hippy-love-drug sixties are starting to feeling like the missed out. I dunno. What they missed out on was brain damage, and a variety of other self-destructive behaviors, put to really bad music.

Obama says he inhaled because "that was the point." At least he has follow-through. There is a verse from the Proverbs which says that the sluggard buries his hand in the dish, but will not bring it back again to his mouth." You are not supposed to bury your hand in the dish - this is an act of gluttonous grabbing -- me first. But if you do smoke, at least have the follow-through to inhale.

Otherwise, people remember that not only did you do what you should not have (you are never absolved by doing illegal things in a lazy manner), but that you didn't even have the basic know how to do the job right. It wasn't just illegal; it was incompetent too your honor! Can I go now?

I like Obama. He is not afraid of the question; he "just handled it" and told the truth in an age when it's the most you can do in many cases just to ask for your representatives to lie to you IN ENGLISH. 10 to 1 Obama knows exactly what "Is" really means. I don't think he will ever get elected to the Whitehouse. He's honest and intelligent. That's two strikes already. But you gotta admire his determination.

Here is the article caption of Obama handling the question right, and, here the rule applies well that no good deed will go unpunished.

"Obama: Yes, I inhaled—that was the point"

AUDUBON, Iowa (CNN) — Earlier this week in New Hampshire Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama spoke candidly about his past experimentation with drugs and alcohol in high school, and on Saturday—after a question on medicinal marijuana—Obama was prodded a bit further and asked whether or not he had ever inhaled.

"I did," the senator from Illinois said to light applause. "It's not something I'm proud of. It was a mistake as a young man."

The question was a reference to a line made famous by former President Bill Clinton who, while admitting to trying marijuana, said he did not inhale. "I never understood that line," Obama continued. "The point was to inhale. That was the point."

On the campaign trail on Saturday, GOP White House hopeful Mitt Romney said Obama's earlier comments set a bad example for young people."

Read Article? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Comments: Mit says it sets a bad example. Well, Mit, tell us about the history of Mormon polygamy and what kind of example that sets. Oh I know. In 1882, the Mormons quit practicing polygamy because they are "so godly," and obeyed the U.S. government's mandate to cease and desist, or get driven into Mexico. If Mit had been running for president in 1879, we might end up with two or three first ladies. They may have family values, but how extended that family is, is something of an open question. The complied because they had to, and after the practice got their founder killed.

This is not the best religion to join and speak of setting good examples. The false prophet (and looking-glass seer) -- he was fined for this -- Joseph Smith died in a shootout in a jail at Carthage, Illinois -- not too far from Barrack's hometown. Mit had better be careful because those jailhouse records still exist, and Obama could do some very interesting research, like the late Dr. Walter Martin did.

Dr. Martin was known as the foremost expert on pseudo-Christian cults in his day and carried the "Bible Answer Man" title to some fame in the Evangelical world. His title was well earned.

I think we'll just call Mit's comment a Carthaginian misfire and leave it at that, a simple case of "just blowing smoke." Does it even really matter?

Like Cheeseburgers? Let's Make It Hot

Now and again, this or that strain of the now infamous (and quite deadly) E. coli bacteria shows up in a beef shipment. Word on the street is you need to cook your burgers at above 160F to make the bacteria defunct if you happen to get a bad sample. I cannot think of any good reason NOT to do this in the first place. 160 is not really cooking something. The steamed milk at Starbuck's has to be this temperature. If you order your coffee -- which is not to be cooked -- extra hot, you get 180.

My take? Barbecue it over an open flame. It tastes far better, you get the burger actually COOKED (not just thawed at 160), and the whole backyard smells great. So it's Autumn. So what. Your barbecue can't tell time, and the lighter fluid can't even spell (which means it would vote Republikin if possible). Here is the article which commands you in the name of the E.Coli damage control medical team to cook your hamburgers, so they don't look red anymore. Okay, but it's your liver transplant. The Associated Press wants you to know that:

"A company voluntarily recalled nearly 96,000 pounds of ground beef products after two people were sickened, possibly by the E. coli bacteria, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service said Saturday.

The recalled ground beef products were distributed in seven states.

The beef products by American Foods Group include coarse and fine ground beef chuck, sirloin and chop beef. They were distributed to retailers and distributors in Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Virginia. The problem surfaced after an investigation by the Illinois Department of Health, which was looking into two reports of illnesses.

The bacteria is E. coli O157:H7. E. coli is harbored in the intestines of cattle. Improper butchering and processing can cause the E. coli to get onto meat. Thorough cooking, to at least 160 degrees internal temperature, can destroy the bacteria."

The whole article is found here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/25/beef.recall.ap/index.html

Comments: No, I don't work for Burger King or Wendy's, but charbroiling rules.

Of Chemistry And Way Cool Words To Know

Today's word is "amphoteric" (Say "am-fuh-TER -ik"]. This describes things like iron, metals or other substances, which react with other chemicals as either an acid or a base, depending on reactive conditions. Wiki examples include some kinds of zinc and aluminum.

An acid simply is something "acidic," which often means anything -- when dissolved in water or some other liquid -- with a pH balance lower than 7, and a base is higher than a 7. This makes 7 the "neutral" pH descriptor.

Pure water is a 7. And slurpees are pretty close. This means the further (in either direction) you get from a 7, the less likely you are to want to drink it.

Coca-cola is unrated because, should it receive a rating, we would find out that it is amphoteric, and can rank as either a 1 (like battery acid), or about a 12 (like ammonia or bleach) on the pH scale -- meaning, given enough time, it could eat a hole through the earth half way to China.

Black holes are places where astronauts spilled their cokes into an unsuspecting galaxy. Bad things happened to their inhabitants. Scientists will tell you that there are no inhabitants in black holes. Gee, I wonder why.

Here It Comes: Ready Or Not -- $100 Oil

Last week's record high of $96.24/ barrel is expected to be overtaken soon as many are taking out positions -- call options -- with prices ("Strikes") well above 100.00. FT.com reports a run on call options used for hedging -- insurance call purchases -- of up to $250/ barrel.

This means people are beginning to panic. But they are panicking properly by buying insurance against that which they see coming. If the price drops, the most one can lose is the price of the contract. This unique feature makes options very safe. Some 75-80% of all options contracts expire worthless, but this does not mean that no one made money on them. Several owners can make money on a single contract changing hands before the final holder is left with no chair when the music stops (expiration transpires).

This means that only 20% of contract holders actually take delivery of the good underlying the contracts.

This rush on oil contracts will probably have a gold and silver counterpart, and this means the U.S. dollar will likely drop further against other major currencies, even though it has lost an astounding 34% of its total value since 2001. This means a loaf of bread costing $2.50 in 2001 now costs about $3.75, using your chopped up dollars.

This is really bad and shows the effects of U.S. involvement abroad for an extended period. I hate to say "I told you so," but ..... I am still telling you so. The Iraq war is bad for the world economy, bad for the Middle East, its bad for our European neighbors, and its bad for America. Meanwhile terrorist enrollment climbs to well over its pre-Iraq invasion levels.

Reality check: how's the program going? If even one person enables Jack Cafferty to find these statistics, he is going to have a field day with them (I am sure he has researchers).

When oil hits the 100 mark, it would be worthwhile to tune him in. He is sure to have a few great one-liners ready to launch.

Want to read about the mad dash on oil calls? http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d5a8517a-8bdd-11dc-af4d-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

Quote of the Week

"If I were George Bush, I would fire me." -- anonymous

(I heard this a while back on Jack Cafferty's show from a caller-in, but I have no idea who he was).

Perhaps not too many people know who Jack Cafferty is, of "Cafferty Files" fame on CNBC. But they should; he is really funny, and his job is, basically, to vent his frustrations carefully enough to avoid offending too many people on the CNBC staff, but to invite as many intelligent ventors as possible to contribute to his show. He reads some of the better-expressed opinions on the air, always the hardliner votes, no matter which direction they lean.

No one ever has ever wondered about how Jack feels on any one topic. Mostly, he berates stupid politicians and policies very cleverly. I probably agree with Jack about half the time, but laugh about 95% of the time. He has every senior citizen's dream job. They pay him to be crochety.

If he had his own radio talk-show, I would definitely listen in. Many of his criticisms bear excellent logic, and he almost always offers the justification for his critiques. He isn't a ranter, so much as a teacher with attitude. He has serious points to make, but makes them humorously.

It's downright funny. You can read up a little on Jack (and see his pic) at the CNN situation room site here: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/situation.room/blog/

Chinese Stock Market Overtakes Britain's As Third Largest

Petrochina is a very large oil company -- one of the largest in the world with a $1 trillion (US) valuation. This outstrips Exxon Mobil Corp. and General Electric Co. combined. China's economy continues its longstanding rally, as it's economy grew at around 8-9% again last year. And the economists continuing denying that this is possible. Thankfully, none has yet called China a Democracy.

The article summary on Petrochina's growth reads:

"The rally makes PetroChina shares four times more expensive than those of Exxon, even though China's biggest oil producer has a quarter of the revenue. China's stock market was valued at less than $1.1 trillion before tripling this year and giving the communist nation four of the world's 10 biggest companies, even after today's 5 percent tumble in Hong Kong stocks."

To read more on this topic, click here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQyRJI72Kor8&refer=worldwide

If these number do not make a great deal of sense, then just take this away from the article:
China is still growing like a monster, and is beginning to overtake some of the top ten major players in the West. This should frighten you. U.S. foreign policy simply is not working, and neither are most economic policies of western nations.

What we need: Less failing. More Bible.

Extreme 2 Mile Long Pileup on N 99 In California's Central Valley

You've heard of a Snafu (situation normal all fogged up), well, this is it. Over 100 vehicles crunched their way into the newspaper headlines with this extraordinary accident on northbound highway 99. Pray for these people because -- if I know insurance companies -- they are going to need it. The funds are always less than needed and they come too late. It's just an ordinary way of things. The Fox News article caption reads:

FRESNO, Calif. - Collisions on a foggy freeway Saturday resulted in a pileup of as many as 100 vehicles and the deaths of at least two people, the California Highway Patrol said. The collisions included nine big rigs on northbound Highway 99 just south of Fresno, CHP Officer Scott Jobinger said.

"It looks like we had a chain reaction crash in that fog," Jobinger said.

[The article adds:] "Wrecked vehicles were scattered for at least two miles along the freeway as crews worked to clear the wreckage ..."

Here are the rest of the details if you wish: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071103/ap_on_re_us/freeway_pileup

If I may be so bold as to offer a little advice? Pay attention. READ this article and take it to heart. DO NOT DRIVE IN THE FOG. I know you have a million good reasons why you should. But I have over a hundred on my side, and they can ruin your life. It simply is not worth it.

If you still have doubts, please re-read the article. Thank you.

I Believe In Jesus, So I Believe In Capitalism

Many today remain skeptical that the Bible -- a book "of religion" actually conveys the ideals and doctrines one might use to make a case that it actually favors a particular kind of economic system. The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA) wrote a constitution which in fact specifies that the Bible favors no particular economic system.

Doctor Gary North has spent the better part of a very scholarly life disproving just that claim. I surely will not here attempt to recapitulate all the details of his bibical case for capitalism (but I will recommend his books at http://www.freebooks.com/). Nevertheless, I will show in brief from the Word of God that its well-known doctrines do in fact imply one kind of economic framework, thus denying in principle all others.

The Bible clearly teaches doctrines compatible only with free market capitalism, and even specifies the precise limits of just how "free" this market economy ought to be. It's ethical teachings form a legal and socio-economic framework when carried to their logical conclusions, and applied where they themselves teach they ought to be applied.

The Bible has the final and authoritative answer to all social theoretical questions, all of them. Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin disgraces any people. The Proverbs tell us this, and they teach kings how to rule a society, a people. It was written by kings for their children -- future kings. This means it necessarily possesses a social and economic doctrinal set.

First, God has given Christ "all authority in heaven and on the earth." Before Christ condescended from heaven, He was already King of Heaven. This is not new. What is new is the last part, specifying that He (since His vindication three days after his death at the hands of the whole world -- Jew and Gentile alike) properly inherits all things. For it is written, "The meek shall inherit the earth," and again, "God gave to men the earth" (Psalm 24:1).

These men who will inherit it, with Christ, the Heir of all things, come from every tribe, tongue and nation, both male and female (Gen. 1:26). The conquer what becomes their portion of that inheritance by the grace of God found in the Gospel of Christ. This they declare as priestly evangelists in training. They inherit in the resurrection what they conquer in this life by the Gospel, rising as kings to impose the law of the Lord as the law of the land.

At least that it what the book of Revelation says. The Psalms and Proverbs said it first though. In short, God's people do what Jesus did. This does require, however, a little change in our understanding of "meekness" since the Lord Jesus thundered against the wicked powers of his day. In this regard, he was little different than all the prophets. But that is for another time.

God's sovereignty in Christ implies that He rules all things, and Christ the king favors the righteous in his ruling, and withstands the wicked. God works "all things together for the good of them that love Him." This implies the postmillenial thesis.

Christians must inherit -- win, succeed, obtain victory - over three things: the world, the flesh, and the devil. This victory is guaranteed, and Christ Himself is the surety (guarantee) of that promised success. He accomplished this already in principle, but its historical outworking remains. This is why the Bible teaches Christians to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (i.e. with extreme caution, circumspectly, not recklessly).

Thus, success in all things -- the blessings of the covenant of grace -- Christians possess fully only in the resurrection unto glory. Yet, the Bible teaches that a Christians initial salvation (justification and regeneration) is continuous with the rest of his salvation. He simply "works out" what he already is and has in order to grow in sanctification (holiness, to be like God).

For God is at work in His people causing them to will and to act according to His good pleasure, and He who began a good work in them will complete it til the day of Christ Jesus. God, therefore, over time even overcomes their own stubborn tendencies to rebel, and subdues the flesh to his holy purposes. There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the Lord -- not from the world, not from the flesh, and not from the devil (see the book of Job).

So the sovereignty of God in Christ, plus the goodness of the rule of Christ toward His people, plus the doctrine of the continuity of salvation in Christ, these three taken together imply that Christian begin to inherit from the moment they are saved. That inheritance continues until they finalize it in the resurrection.

Why then do not all Christians grow progressively more wealthy over time? The answer is found in the order of God's priorities for his people: holiness first, then happiness. But He wants both for them. Nevertheless, sometimes He postpones the one for the sake of the other. In the end, the greater sanctification NOW leads to the greater final blessing later.

Let us revert to the book of Job. Why did God allow -- even bring to bear - curses upon Job and his household? In every case, it was for the purpose of Job's greater sanctification. The odd thing is that Job is introduced to us as "a man who fears God and shuns evil." But Job has issues. He tries -- for one thing -- to live a righteous life on behalf of his own children. He sacrifices for them almost compulsively to insure that they do not go astray in their hearts. This is not Job's terrain. It is God's. Job was righteous and loved his house, but He did not trust in God's sovereignty (yet). Neither did Jonah (He didn't trust the fish either).

Job, in short, was a man both of faith and fear. And God sought to purge him of the one in order to establish the other -- to overcome the flesh in Job, and to silence the world of complainers against him (both against Job on the one hand and God on the other), and the devil whom God had invited to a debate. Satan recognized God's challenge for just what it was: God was taunting Satan. And Satan took up the challenge God knew he could not resist. The Lord played him like a fiddle.

Thus did Job portray the Lord Jesus by way of type, where Satan was again seduced by his own pride into supposing he might defeat God. The "defeat" he brought about was his own. That is called "Lex Talionis." Some 1,200 years (or so) after the life of Job -- Job was not a post-exilic book -- and Satan had learned nothing about the infallible Sovereignty of God. His pride would not permit him to learn what others had clearly seen - including Job's friends. One wonders at what distance Satan stood from the conversation God had with Job in the later part of the book. Surely, he knew of it soon after if not at the time (for he was given to roaming to and fro throughout the earth -- Lord later said of this roaming "Seeking whom he may devour", where devour means to "kill, steal and destroy" - the ultimate vandal).

So we know that Job inherited over time, but that inheritance was not smooth and even. It was however, continuous. His type shows that God's people inherit good things from God -- mixed with trials and tribulations. But the very long end of Job's life was one of peace and great wealth and prosperity. He died "Old and full of years," satisfied with his life.

Proverbs 11:30 shows a continuity between heaven and earth for the righteous: "Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner."

Matthew 19:27-30 has Peter inquiring of the Lord Jesus:

" ... Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first."

Here, it is plain that Jesus specifies just what the receive a hundred times as much OF -- the same that was mentioned by Peter in the question -- "houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands." Does this not sound like the book of Job again? Here, the Lord suggests a continuity between this life -- what Christians give up in order to follow Christ -- and what they recieve "in glory" (everlasting life is a life of glory, like that of Solomon, only far greater).

The resurrection is not about "things" for a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. But wisdom is to be acquired in the acquiring of all other things. So possessions are not "the point," but they do come with wisdom. Little could be clearer from the life of Solomon - the richest man in history, and its wisest up to that point.

The glory-life of resurrection simply greatly empowers dominion, since the dominion mandate attends humanity in the nature of the case. God is sovereign, and created man in His image, making him a secondarily-sovereign agent. Man is appointed to rule over all under Christ, which 1 Timothy 2 calls Him "The Man" (meaning the second and better Adam).

Thus, we see the aquisition of property -- having and using cool stuff, with houses and land -- form a part of ordinary humanity. Capitalism is "human" economics. Capitalism is based upon work and trade. The Bible teaches both. Salvation is free to men because it must be. There is no way one can earn it. But even that is to be "worked out," with striving. "Strive to enter the narrow gate" the Lord Jesus commanded.

Life -- any life well lived -- necessarily contains a good deal of proper striving (after righteousness and wisdom). This is why eternity is described as "rest" for those that enter the narrow gate. It is rest from striving after that which God commands. The striving does not cause the inheriting of righteousness, but you cannot inherit unless you strive like you mean it. Your three enemies will fight hard to keep you out of the kingdom, so you must fight hard to inherit. This is true for all Christians. The world, Jesus said, loves its own, and so the wicked do not have to fight against that system. They do not have the same strife the Christian does.

But then, from this very short discussion, let us deduce a few things about Capitalism from the Bible's other teachings.

1. God is sovereign and sovereignly gave to men the earth.
2. Thus, the Lord Jesus became a man to inherit it (For Satan had aquired it by stealth).
3. He rules all things in favor of the righteous, and promises them more "good things" (of the kind we are now familiar) in the resurrection. We know resurrected people can eat, since the Lord ate broiled fish and honeycomb, so food is on the menu in the resurrection still.

4. God commands men to rule the earth, and to tend it, as Adam was commanded in the Garden of Eden. We are supposed to acquire land and build it up (improvements) like the Proverbs 31 woman. She buys and sells. So did Solomon.

5. The Bible commands men to fill the earth and subdue it. This is part of being human, not some part of being Christian per se.

6. The Bible commands men to serve (make and produce things other people want) and trade. Goods and services form the backbone of a nation's GNP. This is basic capitalism 101.

7. Above all, we are to seek wisdom. "In all your getting," Solomon commands his children [i.e. God commands His children] "get understanding." Without this, the possession of goods and services mean nothing, since one cannot manage them well. Give a fool a great deal of money suddenly and you will have a dead fool. Give a fool a great deal of wisdom suddenly, and you have a man fit for a great deal of wealth suddenly.

8. Wisdom consists in the strategic acquisition and distribution of wealth in such a way as to advance the Gospel of Christ and its attendant virtues, of which faith, hope and charity are chief. This is what it means to say, "for the glory of God and good of men."

9. The proper limits of free market economies are set by the law of the Lord (the international standard of wisdom). This would include prohibiting the manufacture and sale of idols, conducting business on the Lord's Day, prostitution or pornography of any kind, slavery, and the like. It would also limit taxation to no more than 10% total in any national case, and would require some behaviors. These include aiding and abetting your neighbor's welfare and prosperity, as though it were your own (i.e. so called "Good Samaritan" laws).

10. All these teachings of the Bible are wholly incompatible with any form of Communism or Socialism. Communism forbids private property, where the dominion mandate commands this (and the eighth commandment presupposes this since you cannot steal what no one owns). Socialism, the control of the distribution of goods, places total control -- but not ownership -- of the nations assets in its hands. The Bible understands ownership to include control, thus refuting all forms of socialism.

The apostle Peter said to Ananias, "While it [the land he proposed to give away] was yours, was it not in your power to do with it what you will?" The authoritative example of the apostles shows that even when "everyone had everything in common," that the control of their assets only fell under Church jurisdiction AFTER it was freely donated -- NOT by compulsion from the state or Church.

Therefore, we may safely conclude that the Sovereignty of God, His gracious donation of the earth to us, our derived soverignty under Him, the dominion mandate, the wisdom mandate, our continuity with the resurrection, the Great Commission's doctrine of inheritance which Jesus taught, the biblical prohibiton against theft, it's command to love our neighbor as the self, and the many several other related doctrines of the Bible -- clearly convey the logical force of a command which amounts to free market capitalism.

This consists in the right of men to pursue the dominion and wisdom mandates by work and trade within the social and economic limits specifed by the law of the Lord. Because I have obligation to love my neighbor, I also have the obligation to help him do what God commands him.

Only free market capitalism can fulfill, without obstructing, the two greatest commandments. If it is hatred of my neighbor to steal from him, it must be love to help him prosper and advance the cause of his personal wealth. This is why the OT says, "If you see your neihbor's ox stuck in a ditch, go and help him pull it out." Therefore, God commands free-market capitalism, and forbids all forms of socialism and communism.

This is not a new commandment, but an old one. Even the Westminster divines, among those Puritans who gave us (eventually) the stock markets, have free-market capitalism clearly built into the Larger and Shorter Catechisms on the duties commanded and forbidden under the eighth, ninth and tenth commandments.

These read:

Q. 74. What is required in the eighth commandment?
A. The eighth commandment requireth the lawful procuring and furthering the wealth and outward estate of ourselves and others.[162]

Q. 75. What is forbidden in the eighth commandment?
A. The eighth commandment forbiddeth whatsoever doth, or may, unjustly hinder our own, or our neighbor’s wealth or outward estate.[163]

Q. 76. Which is the ninth commandment?

A. The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.[164]

Q. 77. What is required in the ninth commandment?
A. The ninth commandment requireth the maintaining and promoting of truth between man and man, and of our own and our neighbor’s good name,[165] especially in witness-bearing.[166]

Comments: One's wealth and prosperity depends to a great extent on his or his company's reputation. McDonald's has built up (earned) a certain reputation. To deliberately undermine it would differ in no material aspect from stealing, since the effect would be to deplete its resources.

Q. 78. What is forbidden in the ninth commandment?
A. The ninth commandment forbiddeth whatsoever is prejudicial to truth, or injurious to our own, or our neighbor’s, good name.[167]

Q. 79. Which is the tenth commandment?

A. The tenth commandment is, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.[168]

Q. 80. What is required in the tenth commandment?
A. The tenth commandment requireth full contentment with our own condition,[169] with a right and charitable frame of spirit toward our neighbor, and all that is his.[170]

Q. 81. What is forbidden in the tenth commandment?
A. The tenth commandment forbiddeth all discontentment with our own estate,[171] envying or grieving at the good of our neighbor, and all inordinate motions and affections to anything that is his.[172]

The Puritans sure could spot an implicate of any proposition or proposition set. They properly infered these answers from the commandments, given the rest of their canonical context.

Commandments 8 through 10 are then properly refered to as the trifecta of biblical, free-market capitalism -- if we allow for the irony that the Bible forbids "trifectas"(i.e. gambling, since it necessarily includes coveting -- fast money won perchance with [theoretically] unlimited potential).

Therefore, I believe in capitalism as an article of the Christian faith, not simply because it has turned out to be better for people, because "it works," or because the majority likes it. God commands the dominion and wisdom pursuits. Biblically-circumscribed capitalism is not some mere tradition of men. This is why it works so well. But we ought not to favor what has good short-term consequences merely for the benefits. That is pragmatism, and James plainly teaches that we are to shun such fleshly and demonic "wisdom."

I believe in capitalism because I believe in Jesus. The promotion of free-market capitalism simply amounts to promoting the Christian economic system, as one part of the Christian worldview. It should not be treated entirely in isolation from the rest of the biblical outlook, though this may be necessary for the purpose of limiting one's teachings for the moment.

But any one proposition, doctrine, or set of teachings we must eventually situate within the whole worldview to properly "contextualize" (this is what people often mean by this very awkward term) it, to see it within a more balanced picture of the way it relates to the other Christian doctrines we are more familiar with.

Christian capitalism simply forms one of the many sets of doctrines within the biblical framework. It is an article of the Christian faith, the faith of Jesus, and should be treated as such in any Christian teaching context. This means that advocating any form of Socialism or Communism amounts by the force of logic to teaching another religion which seeks to compete with the Gospel of Christ for the allegiance -- and wallets -- of men.

As such counter-biblical economic theories and systems properly form apologetic targets for the biblical apologist. This means Keynesianism, Social Security programs (which amount either to Ponzi or Pyramid schemes), and other counter-biblical policies are fair game.

And not just any form of "Capitalism" will do. The ten commandments and their canonical qualifications are highly specific as to which kind of capitalism the Lord has commanded. This means I am not advocating Libertarianism, although I would prefer much of its platform precepts to those of the Republicans (pragmatist Capitalism) or Democrats (pragmatist Socialism). And let the reader notice -- as I have mentioned before -- the postmillenial nature of Capitalism.

The fact that Islam, for instance, does not allow one to charge interest on loans truncates its ability to grow and take dominion (thankfully). Here, it fails the postmillenial economic test. Jesus commanded of the wicked and lazy servant, "YOU should have put your money at interest with the bankers...."

The Lord Jesus is a capitalist of a very biblical kind, a practical Man who seeks profitable servants, who forgives the debts of those unable to pay who seek it of Him, who puts up surety for His people [with the full faith and credit of heaven and earth], and who specificies in His Word just how He expects His people to manage their money.

This means that I am not a Socialist or a Communist for the same reason I am a theonomic Capitalist: I believe in Jesus, and in the faith He commands.

And now for a very unscientific postscript.

Capitalism buys shares of "goods, services and contracts" [companies], not "chances." The mutually-consenting nature of gambling does nothing to mitigate its evil, since coveting is a form of false religion, the worship of chance and money. This is a commonly-misunderstood aspect of free-market capitalism with biblically-specified limits.

Christians do not want money -- and men ought not to want money -- gained in ways the Bible forbids. They should seek money to which God hs promised to add his blessing. The favor of God brings wealth, and God adds no trouble with it. Thus, capitalism seeks to acquire -- since God command us to acquire -- but properly construed it seeks to acquire for the glory of God and the benefit (both short and oh-so long-term benefit) of men.

It seems clear enough -- given the Bible's teachings and the confessional dicta based upon them from the Puritans -- that the RPCNA should give real consideration to amending its Constitution in this regard. There is no shame in reformation, but rather glory, the inevitable destination of believers in Jesus from every denomination.

But the ones with better confessions and greater understanding (like the RPCNA and almost any denomination with three letters or more) have a special obligation to conform their standards to their better knowledge. For they lead God's people at the head.

Though not on a one-for-one basis, Presbyterians tend to rate their denominations by numbers of letters the way others do their hotels with stars, making the RPCNA something of a five-star denomination. So they will want a very clean lobby. Fair or no, people expect more from hotels with more stars.

If your denomination believes in capitalism, this means the elders take their Bibles very seriously. If they have not come this far yet, give it a little time, and send them a link to this post. And don't forget to pray for them. They need it almost as much as you do.