You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February, 2008.
(or Intercalary Day if you prefer.)
Often,* one hears that the real leap day is 24 February instead of 29 February. Of course one thinks, ‘But there’s a 24 Feb every year, this doesn’t make sense.’ Indeed, I concur. However, I thought it might be interesting to shed light on why 24 February was considered the intercalary day.
This started back in ancient Rome, where months were not counted as they are now. The Romans had three important days each month, the calends (or kalends) (the first of the month), the nones (the fifth or seventh of the month [the ninth inclusive day before the ides]), and the ides (the thirteenth or fifteenth). The Romans (inclusively) counted down to each day, e.g., today would be the Second of the Calends of March, tomorrow the Calends of March, 21 April the Eleventh of the Calends of May, and 4 August the Second of the Nones of August.
Before Julius Caesar, the Romans used a lunisolar calendar (a calendar that tracked lunar months as well as the solar year). In order to keep the months lined up with the years every so often the ancient romans inserted a month at the end of the year before the last five days of February. Julius Caesar reformed the calendar to a solar calendar. He distributed the extra days of the intercalary month amongst the other months of the year. For the leap year, he inserted an intercalary day after the festival of Terminus (the god of boundaries). Terminalia was on 23 February or the Seventh of the Calends of March. Rather than renumber the days, the date following Terminalia was doubled so that the Seventh of the Calends of March was followed by the Second Sixth† of the Calends of March‡ which was followed by the Sixth otCoM. For a while the Roman church (until the 1970’s) had celebrated saints’ festivals on this pattern (pushing back feasts one day on 24-28 Feb).
And now you know the origin of 24 February as Bissextile day, and the irrelevant trivia section of your mind has expanded.
Homer: How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?
Marge: That’s because you were drunk!
Homer: And how!
Footnotes:
* Okay, maybe only if you’re into recondite trivia.
† Much like Fifth Third Bank.
‡ Known now as Bissextile Day.
Recently I finished the book Luther: Man Between God and the Devil. by Heiko A. Oberman. The premise of the book is that to understand Martin Luther, we cannot view him as either a mediaeval man or a modern man, but have to understand him by his own words. As the title of the book indicated Luther fundamentally saw the world and Christianity as between God and the Devil. Although Luther expressed that the devil is God’s devil, we do not see the omnipotent hand of God, and the devil is still a strong adversary of the Christian in this age. (Although this does not entail the popular belief that God and the devil have cast a vote for your soul and it is up to you to decide who to choose.)
I enjoyed the book quite a bit, and appreciated its thoroughness from Luther’s earthy language to his marrying of Katharina von Bora, and unconventional views on intimacy. Overall I enjoyed the book and found it very engaging. In some places, however, I felt the translation from German could have been made a little clearer, but even so the vast majority of the translation was transparent.
Throughout Scripture we see God working His grace and judgment through families.
— John Sartelle
I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
— Exodus 20
Jesus said, Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.
— Matthew 19
For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.
—Acts 2
Why do we baptize? and what does it signify? Before we look into the question of who we baptize, these questions are necessary to give context to the discussion and frame it.
Baptism is revealed as a command in Scripture. In the great commission found at the end of the Gospel of Matthew we hear Jesus calling us to make disciples and to baptize them in the Triune Name of God. In the Acts of the Apostles and apostolic letters we read of the Word of God being preached and people believing and having their households be baptized.
To determine what baptism signifies, we remember that baptism, like many Christian doctrines, finds its root in the Old Testament. Genesis 15 reveals the covenant God made with Abraham when God alone (pictured as a smoking pot and flaming torch) passed through the torn animals. In Genesis 17 God gave Abram a new name and the sign of the covenant: circumcision. Circumcision was to be given to every man of Abraham’s household and male infants were to be circumcised. Yet we know from examples given in Scripture (such as Esau) that not all who were given the sign of the covenant remained in the covenant, that is, not all of the visible community of faith are of the elect.
Baptism signifies our introduction in the covenant of grace. Not only is it a symbol of this introduction but it seals us in this community. The (Ana)Baptists err on two counts, viz., that baptism is a token of our profession of faith, and that there is no spiritual reality corresponding with the sign. Baptism is no mere token of faith! We cheapen the sign (and thereby grace) when we say it merely symbolizes grace without saying that baptism conveys (or is a means of) grace. Let us be clear, it is not justifying grace that baptism conveys, that is, we are not saved by baptism. However baptism marks the recipient as a member of the church, a people on whom God has bestowed his especial blessing. Baptism does not confer benefits solely at the moment when one is baptized but throughout the life of the Christian. Christians are encouraged to remember their baptism; we recognize that we live as we began, by the grace of God alone.
With this in mind we can begin to answer the question: who do we baptize? We baptize those who are heirs of the covenant of grace. Which of course leads to the question, who are heirs to the covenant? Remembering the Bible is one book — not two — we see that in covenants made with Old Testament figures, the covenant included the figures’ descendants. While Noah was noted as righteous, his children entered the ark as well. God promised with Abraham and his children received the sign of the covenant. Job offered sacrifices not only for himself but his household, etc. Examining the new covenant we see it is greatly expanded; the gospel is for all nations instead of primarily Jews, women are baptized instead of men only being circumcised. Children were included in the old covenants are they to be excluded in the new? (Remember, these covenants are outworkings of the same covenant of grace whereby Jesus secures redemption for his people and takes the wrath due them.) Wouldn’t there be an obvious command forbidding the baptism of our children? Instead of seeing this, we see that God is faithful to households. ‘What must I do to be saved?’ asks the Philippian jailer, Paul and Silas answer, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household.’ Consequently, the jailer and his household are baptized.
Are children of believers the same as those of non-believers? Μη γενοιτο! May it never be! The Apostle Paul advises that even the children of a marriage with one believer are considered holy and set apart. We see throughout history God is delighted to work in families; by the grace of God the children of believers are included in the covenant and normally grow up to be believers themselves, exercising faith in God. Growing up in antipædobaptistic churches, I was ‘dedicated’ as a child to the Lord, and saw many such ‘dedications’ while growing up. Yet we nowhere in Scripture read of child dedication ceremonies. Even these churches realize there was something fundamentally different about Christian children. How great is God’s grace. Let us then give our children the sign of the covenant to which they were born (or adopted); they have ‘a right to the rite’ (Strawbridge).
A final word (Reader, I do not entice you with this phrase only to have you read several more paragraphs.) on the subject concerns the benefits of infant covenantal baptism. Baptism is effectual not only at the time of baptism but throughout life. When parents vow the oaths of baptism they commit themselves to raising the child in accordance with the grace of God. The child is to be immersed in Scripture and the ways of God, and sprinkled by appropriate discipline. The parents cannot presume on God’s grace but grasp hold of his promise and faithfulness to families. The children are reminded of their baptism when they see others being baptized into the household of God. Moreover, stressing the communal aspect of God’s great salvation, the congregation vows to assist in raising the child into his baptism. Praise be to God for allowing such a structure and that he did not call us to be alone but brought us into a community, a household of faith.
I leave you with the words of Calvin:
For how sweet is it to godly minds to be assured, not only by word, but by sight, that they obtain so much favour with the Heavenly Father that their offspring are within his care? … Should we not … rejoice with all our heart in thanksgiving, that his name may be hallowed by such an example of his goodness?
—Institutes 4.16.32
On Saturday I was driving back from the dealership after having the car radio reset. As I was driving home, I was listening to the radio on the station it was preset to and heard what sounded like a country song. Having only a few minutes to drive home, I decided to listen to the song instead of station surfing.
The song sounded like a usual, upbeat country song with practical moral advice like: dance with your wife and kiss your husband every day, etc. The refrain was ‘Cause it’s not who you knew / And it’s not what you did / It’s how you live.’
When the song concluded, the station announced itself as a local ‘Christian’ Music station. I was shocked. (I normally don’t listen to mainstream Christian music — frequently, I play a game when I am out of town; while I’m scanning through the unfamiliar stations, I try to pick out which stations are playing contemporary Christian music; usually I can identify it within 1½ measures.) Now, granted I’ve come to expect that CCM generally speaks of Christ in a confused fashion. But this seems to outrightly deny the method of salvation. We cannot live rightly and get to heaven; true religion is not about ‘cleaning people up’ or having people live nice good lives. Rather, true religion is about how God steps into the mess our lives and redeems for himself a people. Ironically, the name of the group is Point of Grace.
I leave you with this line: Make peace with God and make peace with yourself / ’Cause in the end there’s nobody else.
My pastor has frequently commented that we are to approach God with ‘joyful reverence’, and while I cerebrally understand the idea, experientially the concept is not always perspicuous. Until recently, that is. Since discovering we were going to have a child, the similar concept of ‘exuberant terror’ seems completely normal. While very excited about having my new child; I am very humbled by the fact that I don’t know much about child raising. Quite frankly, it’s unnerving. Thus, we have two paradoxical emotions conjoined.
