A journey with sacraments

I think that I became a paedobaptist for the second time (!) because I decided that every argument against it, if valid would also overturn circumcision, because the differences between the OT and the NT that were relied upon to distinguish the two were shown up to be no difference at all by Romans 9-11.

I think I've now come to a 'high' Lutheranish position for the same reason. Arguments about real presence and effectual rituals rely on seeing God as either free or bound. However the OT sees God as both ultimately free, but graciously choosing to bind himself in covenant to certain signs. In the OT he is seen as both as everywhere and residing in the Temple. It sees sacrifices as themselves effectual, and yet worse than pointless without repentance. How can you reconcile the two? I haven't got a clue. In that I am like Luther who said to Zwingli:

"I do not ask how Christ can be God and man and how His natures could be united. For God is able to act far beyond our imagination. To the Word of God one must yield. It is up to you to prove that the body of Christ is not there when Christ Himself says, 'This is my body.' I do not want to hear what reason says. I completely reject carnal or geometrical arguments..."

Judah and Tamar retold

"may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring that the Lord will give you by this young woman." (Ruth 4:12)

A strange blessing to give a couple considering Judah and Tamar were as far from the perfect couple as you could imagine. However, perhaps this was important to the author of Ruth as the story bares some striking similarities to the story in Genesis 38. In addition the story ends with "the generations of Perez" giving a genealogy beginning with Perez and ending with David.

After some reflection I think I may go so far as to say that Ruth is the recounting of what the faithful people of God act like in contrast to the cautionary tale of Judah and Tamar. Here are some of the similarities I spotted.

Gen 38	Ruth
Judah went down from his brothers and turned aside to a certain Adullamite	Elimelech moved away from his people to Moab
Judah and his son marry a Canaanite	Mahlon and Chilion marry Moabites
Judah's two sons die	Elimelech and his two sons die
Judah and Onan act unfaithfully as kinsman-redeemer	Boaz acts faithfully as kinsman-redeemer, the un-named redeemer of Ruth 4 does not act faithfully
Tamar faithfully seeks to continue the line	Ruth faithfully seeks to continue the line
Tamar offers herself as a prostitute to Judah	Ruth seeks to seduce Boaz in a way which could almost be considered entrapment
Judah dishonourable and seduced by Tamar	Boaz is honourable in his conduct to Ruth
Tamar is included in the people of Israel and is an ancestor of Boaz, David and Jesus	Ruth is included in the people of Israel and is an ancestor of David and Jesus

However, as I find Genesis 38 one of the more puzzling bits of Scripture perhaps I haven't helped myself understand Ruth any better.

Anointing of Jesus

"I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her." (Matthew 26:13)

I think I ought to do a list of episodes which appear in every single one of the four gospels. I don't think there can be many and arguably this one isn't one as the four accounts of Jesus being anointed do not all tally nicely and there seems to be more than one event described in the NT. But anyhow, I have always found this phrase in Matthew's account weird. But I think the sermon I heard at church on Sunday has hinted at a reason behind it.

Of course the anointing is to burial and that is explicit in 3 of the 4 accounts. However could it not also be an anointing of Jesus as King? It is like David and Saul but as different as he is different yet similar to them. It is an anointing to death, through which comes glory; an anointing by a lowly woman and not a mighty prophet or priest.

I don't know, I'm just musing.