Peter J. Leithart

Much as I admire the Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians, I believe they erred when they stripped the church calendar to an annual cycle of fifty-two Sundays. They reduced the rich melody of the earlier calendar to a repetitive ticking of the clock. But the problem actually goes deeper. . . . . Continue Reading »

Paul appears to be describing the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus in Colossians 2:11-12. The “stripping of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ” refers to the crucifixion of Jesus, which fulfills what the rite of circumcision symbolized - the removal of flesh. . . . . Continue Reading »

Paul says that one can only say “Jesus is Lord” by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3). He adds later in the same chapter that we are incorporated into the body, the one-and-many body of the visible church, by “one Spirit” (12:13). Surely Paul exaggerates. Anybody can say Jesus . . . . Continue Reading »

ERH sees faith not as a “religious” issue but as one of the driving forces of history. All revolutions begin in faith, and the faith that drives historical change is a faith that is reckoned as justice: “Faith is a belief in things unseen; it goes against hope, it defies all odds, . . . . Continue Reading »

Was the American Revolution a Revolution? ERH concludes it was a “half-revolution” rather than a total revolution on the scale of the Russian, French, Puritan, Reformation, and Papal revolutions. Evaluating the revolutionary character of the American Revolution rests partly on the . . . . Continue Reading »

To outsiders, the Roman Catholic church appears to have a uniform liturgical tradition, of long standing. Rosenstock-Huessy points out that the uniformity of the Mass is a rather late development. During the 19th century, “the movement of Solesmes united all the churches of the Catholic world . . . . Continue Reading »

Within two verses, John accuses Diotrephes of refusing to “receive us” and refusing to “receive the brethren” (3 John 9-10). The first refers to an acknowledgement of authority; receiving “us,” the elder and his co-workers, would mean listening and obeying. The . . . . Continue Reading »

John commends Gaius not only for receiving traveling brothers but for sending them on their way “in a manner worthy of God” (3 John 6). What does this mean? Stott is certainly right to say that they are to be treated as servants of God. But John’s language is more richly . . . . Continue Reading »

In his third epistle, John commends Gaius for his hospitality to “brothers,” particularly for his hospitality to brothers who are “strangers.” This simple commendation marks a social revolution in ancient history. The revolution is not John’s commendation of . . . . Continue Reading »

Electronic communication is supposed to be destroying our ability to use normal language, as we resort to various forms of shorthand - BTW, FWIW, LOL, ROFLOL, etc, etc. Well maybe. But if it’s a sign of linguistic decline, it’s not the first time. FF Bruce points out that certain . . . . Continue Reading »