|
"Christian Crowns, Pagan Names, and the Time of the Cock-Crow." [first posted 3/10/07] Question #1: Do the crowns given to the saints as rewards signify some hierarchy? Response#1: Most of what I have written on the
crowns can be found in Peter
#18, "The Doctrine of Crowns". To sum up, all believers who survive
the crucible of life with faith in tact receive the crown of
righteousness; those who reach spiritual maturity receive the crown of
life; and those who successfully complete the missions and ministries
they were assigned receive the crown of glory. As the parable of the
talents (among other passages) makes clear, there are different levels
of production, and we should expect that there are degrees of rewards
for these different levels as well. Nothing we do will go unrewarded
(even a cup of water offered in the Lord's Name: Matt.10:41). The Lord
will also take into account the circumstances of our lives and the
abilities we were given (more being expected of those who were given
more: Lk.12:48).
Question #2: I am being told that the use of given names with pagan origins is un-Christian (as well as the celebration of originally pagan holidays like Christmas). Could you comment on that? Response#2: Well, I know plenty of good Christians
whose names are not biblical, and that is something that is paralleled
in scripture. Daniel and his three friends were also given pagan names
in addition to their Hebrew names, and while under Daniel’s leadership
they did make a point of not defiling themselves with Babylonian food,
they didn't seem to think that the use of these names was anything to be
distressed about. I think the key distinction here is between worshiping
or celebrating a pagan god versus an unemotional understanding that
these names are in common use (and that there is no need for believers
to get upset about something they are not personally acknowledging the
truth of). For instance, to take an extreme view, one should not refer
to Sunday, Monday, Tuesday etc. (as these are all pagan names designed
originally to honor the pagan gods for whom they are named), but instead
talk about "day-1", "day-2", etc. This strikes me as the worst sort of
self-righteous legalism, and very pointless too. When I teach my Greek
and Latin classes, the names of pagan gods inevitably come up for all
sorts of obvious reasons. We mention them and treat them as any other
cultural artifact (but that doesn’t mean for a moment that we believe
they exist or that we are in any way worshiping them). For while I am
very aware of Psalm 16:4 and like passages, for me such scriptures are
referring to genuine acknowledgment, celebration, and worship, that is,
acting as if these gods were real and due some honor. This is certainly
not any part of the average American's celebration of Christmas (for
example), even if there is some original connection with ancient pagan
holidays. Christmas is a cultural thing, not really a biblical thing,
but that doesn't make it any more blasphemous than, say, the 4th of
July, and to the extent that it promotes a genuine interest in Christ,
I'm not sure what any humble servant of Jesus who is willing to be all
things to all people if only to save a few could possibly say about
that. Question #3: At John 18:27, since this was clearly well before dawn (sometime between midnight and three in the morning), this couldn’t be a real rooster, could it? Is this a reference to some sort of night watch signal, or what was it? Response#3: The first thing I would say is that
although I have no experience on the farm, one of the places my parents
lived for years was near a farmstead that had several roosters, and they
would crow very, very early in the morning, well before dawn as it is
officially calculated in our culture.
Thirdly, the time of Peter's betrayal
was almost certainly much later than 12:00 - 3:00 AM. In John, this
betrayal takes place not only after the trial of our Lord before Annas
and the Sanhedrin, but also after Jesus is taken to His second of the
six trials, namely, His trial before Caiaphas, the sitting high priest
at that time (Jn.18:24). It is in the high priest's (i.e., Caiaphas')
courtyard that Peter betrayed Jesus three times (Jn.18:25-27). Since
Peter does not change his location during these two trials, it is clear
that both take place in the same general area, the estate of the high
priest. Luke further tells us that after the third denial and the crow
of the rooster, Jesus "turned and looked at Peter" (Lk.22:61). The fact
that Jesus was visible to Peter at this time most likely means that our
Lord was in the process of being led out of the house when Peter
committed his third denial - which means that this second trial in front
of Caiphas had been completed. Finally, it is very shortly after this
that Jesus is judged by the entire Sanhedrin. All four of the gospels
indicate that this third trial, coming very shortly after the second and
with Peter's denials sandwiched in between them, took place at day break
(Matt.27:1; Mk.15:1; Lk.23:1; cf. Jn.18:28). Thus the evidence suggests
that the three denials occurred in the hour just before dawn - a not
uncommon time for roosters to crow, unless I am mistaken. I think we can
therefore say with certainty that this was indeed a rooster, as the
Greek text says (alektor = rooster, and only rooster in Greek). |
||