Something had occurred to me as I was reading Scripture—I love writing that as if I do it all the time. I noticed the times that Old Testament saints and the not-so-saintly, when they sacrificed offerings of whatever kind it was always in connection to the res significado (I think that's the right word)—the thing signified. Even in the times that God revealed through the prophets his will to the people he made it explicitly clear that the heart in connection with the thing is desired more for proper piety. This occurred to me as I was reading the story of David's last days in 1 Kings 1:1-53, found in the ESV One Year Bible, June 6.
On another note, these past two days were on "what's in a name" theology. Joel McDurmon, a writer for American Vision, has recently published an article called Blasphemy and Freedom. And in that article the author describes what can only be described as a proper delineation of name-ology. However in this article I think the author really just intends to outline a Christian attitude in invoking the name of God. He writes, "At the bottom of all, is the foundation of allegiance to God; and the commandment does not forbid swearing period, but swearing in vain. Bearing God's name in truth—not in vain, but in truth—is the bedrock of religion and therefore of social health." I was really surprised to read that last part. How could bearing God's name be the bedrock of social health? Musing over this issue, I began to see its reality as I remembered today's reading in 1 Kings. But before I scribe down everything I read this morning, I found the dialog between Romeo and Juliet—a dialog that Mr. McDurmon duly notes in relation to God's name—appropriate.
O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.
…which was her surname. Romeo mumbles to himself, listens on; Juliet continues:
‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s a Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
This short dialog, I think, properly notes the nimbleness of extolling the vacuity of names. Even at certain times I would find this a valid expression, but, of course, this is due to the current situation in post-modernity. Much is given sway to the meaningfulness of anything, including names. However, in the Scriptures, a lot is given to the dutiful lauding—and duly rueful deprecation—of names. To give one example, God in his New Covenant had throughout eternity decided to judge men under the name Jesus. I think the primary reason for doing that is largely due to God's insistence of meaning behind names. The author again writes, "The concept of 'God's name' so closely pertains to His Being and Nature that any affront to any of God’s attributes is subsumed under the very mention of His name." So closely related to are the designations and imaginations of names subsumed under a person's character, office, piety, justice, etc., that no characterization can be made apart from the name. On any note, such were the musings of this morning. Blessing in the Trinity.
No comments:
Post a Comment