Romans 9:17 says:

For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."

So I asked the question, could Pharaoh repent?

Ben did a great job with this and took the same track I would.

In Exodus 4, before Moses left for Egypt, God told him

"When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. Then you shall say to Pharaoh, "Thus says the LORD: "Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn.""' (v. 21-23)

In Exodus 7, God instructed Moses again what to say before Pharaoh. In verses 1-5, the Lord says:

"See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet. You shall speak all that I command you. And Aaron your brother shall tell Pharaoh to send the children of Israel out of his land. And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh will not heed you, so that I may lay My hand on Egypt and bring My armies and My people, the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments. And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out My hand on Egypt and bring out the children of Israel from among them."

This is a clear demonstration of Proverbs 21:1:

The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.

Exodus 8:15, 32; 9:34 do say that Pharaoh sinned and hardened his heart. But 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:8 all say that the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart. Notice the wording of Exodus 10:1-2:

Now the LORD said to Moses, "Go in to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his servants, that I may show these signs of Mine before him, and that you may tell in the hearing of your son and your son's son the mighty things I have done in Egypt, and My signs which I have done among them, that you may know that I am the LORD."

The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart that He might show His signs... that He may be known as the Lord. God's sovereignty over Pharoah's heart is evidence that God is God. What does that say of someone who would deny God's sovereignty over hearts?

Isaiah 6:10 says

"Make the heart of this people dull,
And their ears heavy,
And shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart,
And return and be healed."

God warns Isaiah that his message will "fall on deaf ears." In fact, it would further harden their hearts and lead to their destruction. And these were God's chosen people, the Israelites, to whom he was going. Sometimes the preaching of the gospel makes the world worse. It is not the results that please God, but the obedience. It is God who will harden hearts and God who will open hearts.
And 63:17 says

O LORD, why have You made us stray from Your ways,
And hardened our heart from Your fear?
Return for Your servants' sake,
The tribes of Your inheritance.

They are not suggesting that they were innocent until God caused them to sin. They are acknowledging that they did indeed sin and are personally responsible for that sin. They are naturally sinful. "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting" (Romans 1:28). They are born sinful and God gives them over to more sin because of their sinfulness. But "He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens" (Romans 9:18).
Jacob and Pharaoh were both born sinful. God had mercy on Jacob out of His own free, independent will. But God hardened Pharaoh to his own destruction. In both cases, God was given the glory and shown to be truly God.
JD brought up Judas. Judas is a great example of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Peter put it this way in Acts 2:22-24:

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know-- Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it."

What they did with lawless hands (personal responsibility) was done by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God (divine sovereignty).

Now, for the next question. Paul asks it in Romans 9:19:

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"

New York Times
February 27, 2008

William F. Buckley Jr., who marshaled polysyllabic exuberance, famously arched eyebrows and a refined, perspicacious mind to elevate conservatism to the center of American political discourse, died Wednesday at his home in Stamford, Conn. He was 82.

Commentary:
Reason Magazine

I received the news of Bill Buckley's death with a great sense of loss. No, he was not a major intellectual influence on my becoming a libertarian. I have to credit Robert Heinlein and Barry Goldwater and Ayn Rand for that. But since for most of us libertarianism as an intellectual and political movement has been an offshoot of conservatism, Buckley in truth was a great enabler. By creating National Review in 1955 as a serious, intellectually respectable conservative voice (challenging the New Deal consensus among thinking people), Buckley created space for the development of our movement. He kicked out the racists and conspiracy-mongers from conservatism and embraced Chicago and Austrian economists, introducing a new generation to Hayek, Mises, and Friedman. And thanks to the efforts of NR's Frank Meyer to promote a 'fusion' between economic (free-market) conservatives and social conservatives, Buckley and National Review fostered the growth of a large enough conservative movement to nominate Goldwater for president and ultimately to elect Ronald Reagan.

Tibor's Space

American conservatives are not like others who simply embrace a method of reasoning about public affairs, namely, to consult tradition and be guided by it. That is unprincipled. American conservatism is tied to the ideas of the Founders. Buckley was indeed an American conservative. He did, in my view, combine his loyalty to the Founders with some infelicitous convictions but he must be credited with fostering a long overdue post-New Deal awareness of what America is really about, namely, the rights and sovereignty of the individual human being. I will forever be grateful to him for that.

National Review

If ever an institution were the lengthened shadow of one man, this publication is his. So we hope it will not be thought immodest for us to say that Buckley has had more of an impact on the political life of this country -- and a better one -- than some of our presidents. He created modern conservatism as an intellectual and then a political movement. He kept it from drifting into the fever swamps. And he gave it a wit, style, and intelligence that earned the respect and friendship even of his adversaries. (To know Buckley was to be reminded that certain people have a talent for friendship.)

Did God hate unborn baby Esau?

In Romans 9:10-13, Paul quoted Malachi 1:2-4:

"I have loved you," says the LORD.
"Yet you say, "In what way have You loved us?'
Was not Esau Jacob's brother?"
Says the LORD.
"Yet Jacob I have loved;
But Esau I have hated,
And laid waste his mountains and his heritage
For the jackals of the wilderness."

Even though Edom has said,
"We have been impoverished,
But we will return and build the desolate places,"

Thus says the LORD of hosts:

"They may build, but I will throw down;
They shall be called the Territory of Wickedness,
And the people against whom the LORD will have indignation forever."

If God had based his hatred on His foreseen wickedness of Esau, why did he plainly say, "for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil" (Romans 9:11)? The text indicates that no good or evil deed determined His hatred. In fact, Paul further emphasizes that this is his point by saying this was done "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls."

In Romans 3:10-11, Paul already stated:

As it is written:

"There is none righteous, no, not one;
There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.

In Romans 8:7-8, Paul said:

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

In Ephesians 2:1-3, he said:

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

While the majority of us accept to the doctrine of original sin or total depravity, we don't acknowledge the implications. Theologically, you could say we're all born Evil Dead. But, wait a minute, God is love, right?

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:7-8

Once again, look at the context: Beloved. He's speaking to the elect. But look at Psalm 5:5

The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity.

Psalm 11:5

The LORD tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates.

If we are born dead in trespasses and sins, then what does that say about God's attitude toward us? That's right. There should be nothing but hatred for us. Put together, original sin and God's hatred of the wicked suggests that God should have hated both Jacob and Esau. But look at what comes next in 1 John 4.

In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. (v. 9-11)

That's the miraculous statement in this passage. In spite of what God foreknows of Jacob, He chose to love him! So, if God chose to love Jacob and hate Esau, did Esau ever really have a chance? What if Esau wanted to repent? The writer of Hebrews said:

Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord: looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled; lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright. For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears. (12:14-17)

Ouch! Well, this actually leads into my next question:

I would like to start asking some tough questions on my blog, and I really do want your feedback. I hope these will prompt a good discussion and encourage you to dig deeper in your Bible study.

This first one packs a real wallop (actually, I think they all do):

And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."
Romans 9:10-13

Q: Did God hate Esau before he was born?

Perhaps, like me, you're already humming along with the song made famous by Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young. But I'm actually referring to Deuteronomy 6:1-9

Now this is the commandment, and these are the statutes and judgments which the LORD your God has commanded to teach you, that you may observe them in the land which you are crossing over to possess, that you may fear the LORD your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, you and your son and your grandson, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged. Therefore hear, O Israel, and be careful to observe it, that it may be well with you, and that you may multiply greatly as the LORD God of your fathers has promised you--"a land flowing with milk and honey.'
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.
"And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

According to this passage, you are to teach your children the commandments, specifically the Ten Commandments which he just presented in 5:1-22. Bishop Ray Sutton, in his 1986 book Who Owns the Family: God or the State?, applies the Ten Commandments to the family:

A. 1st Commandment: No other gods means God owns the family.
B. 2nd Commandment: No other worship means the family that worships together stays together.
C. 3rd Commandment: No manipulation of God’s name means man is to live by obedience to God's law and trust Him for the results.
D. 4th Commandment: The family is to allow God to sanction it by submitting to God’s structure of time: worship and rest one day and work the other six.
E. 5th Commandment: Inheritance comes through faithfulness.
F. 6th Commandment: An attack on man is destruction of the image of God. Since the "image" is "male and female" (family), murder is an assault on the family.
G. 7th Commandment: Adultery directly affects the marriage covenant.
H. 8th Commandment: Theft is an attempt to manipulate man. As we saw in the 3rd commandment (paralleling the 8th), man is to live by ethics not magic.
I. 9th Commandment: Children are to learn how to sanction properly. Bearing false witness is an unlawful sanction.
J. 10th Commandment: Coveting what belongs to another is an attempt to take someone else’s estate.

Meditate on these principles and consider how you can teach them to your children when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. Bishop Sutton goes on to comment:

Our forefathers fled to this country to be able to keep these commandments. Freedom to them was the liberty to obey God, not disobey Him. How things have changed! The State should not set another standard, but enforce this one. Parents ought not teach another, but train their children in this one. The standard is set by God.

So teach your children well. And may your relationship with them be better than the one between Graham Nash and his father.

In a letter to Abigail Adams on February 22, 1787, Thomas Jefferson said:

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson Smith, dated February 21, 1825:

This letter will, to you, be as one from the dead. The writer will be in the grave before you can weigh its counsels. Your affectionate and excellent father has requested that I would address to you something which might possibly have a favorable influence on the course of life you have to run; and I too, as a namesake, feel an interest in that course. Few words will be necessary, with good dispositions on your part. Adore God. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighbor as yourself, and your country more than yourself. Be just. Be true. Murmur not at the ways of Providence. So shall the life into which you have entered be the portal to one of eternal and ineffable bliss. And if to the dead it is permitted to care for the things of this world, every action of your life will be under my regard. Farewell.

From The Pennsylvania Gazette
February 20, 1788

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

The Federalist No. 57
The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with Representation
New York Packet
Tuesday, February 19, 1788
[James Madison]

To the People of the State of New York:

THE third charge against the House of Representatives is, that it will be taken from that class of citizens which will have least sympathy with the mass of the people, and be most likely to aim at an ambitious sacrifice of the many to the aggrandizement of the few.

Of all the objections which have been framed against the federal Constitution, this is perhaps the most extraordinary. Whilst the objection itself is levelled against a pretended oligarchy, the principle of it strikes at the very root of republican government.

The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust. The elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government. The means relied on in this form of government for preventing their degeneracy are numerous and various. The most effectual one, is such a limitation of the term of appointments as will maintain a proper responsibility to the people.

Let me now ask what circumstance there is in the constitution of the House of Representatives that violates the principles of republican government, or favors the elevation of the few on the ruins of the many? Let me ask whether every circumstance is not, on the contrary, strictly conformable to these principles, and scrupulously impartial to the rights and pretensions of every class and description of citizens?

Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor; not the learned, more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscurity and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. They are to be the same who exercise the right in every State of electing the corresponding branch of the legislature of the State.

Who are to be the objects of popular choice? Every citizen whose merit may recommend him to the esteem and confidence of his country. No qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession is permitted to fetter the judgement or disappoint the inclination of the people.

If we consider the situation of the men on whom the free suffrages of their fellow-citizens may confer the representative trust, we shall find it involving every security which can be devised or desired for their fidelity to their constituents.

In the first place, as they will have been distinguished by the preference of their fellow-citizens, we are to presume that in general they will be somewhat distinguished also by those qualities which entitle them to it, and which promise a sincere and scrupulous regard to the nature of their engagements.

In the second place, they will enter into the public service under circumstances which cannot fail to produce a temporary affection at least to their constituents. There is in every breast a sensibility to marks of honor, of favor, of esteem, and of confidence, which, apart from all considerations of interest, is some pledge for grateful and benevolent returns. Ingratitude is a common topic of declamation against human nature; and it must be confessed that instances of it are but too frequent and flagrant, both in public and in private life. But the universal and extreme indignation which it inspires is itself a proof of the energy and prevalence of the contrary sentiment.

In the third place, those ties which bind the representative to his constituents are strengthened by motives of a more selfish nature. His pride and vanity attach him to a form of government which favors his pretensions and gives him a share in its honors and distinctions. Whatever hopes or projects might be entertained by a few aspiring characters, it must generally happen that a great proportion of the men deriving their advancement from their influence with the people, would have more to hope from a preservation of the favor, than from innovations in the government subversive of the authority of the people.

All these securities, however, would be found very insufficient without the restraint of frequent elections. Hence, in the fourth place, the House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it.

I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America -- a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.

If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.

Such will be the relation between the House of Representatives and their constituents. Duty, gratitude, interest, ambition itself, are the chords by which they will be bound to fidelity and sympathy with the great mass of the people. It is possible that these may all be insufficient to control the caprice and wickedness of man. But are they not all that government will admit, and that human prudence can devise? Are they not the genuine and the characteristic means by which republican government provides for the liberty and happiness of the people? Are they not the identical means on which every State government in the Union relies for the attainment of these important ends? What then are we to understand by the objection which this paper has combated? What are we to say to the men who profess the most flaming zeal for republican government, yet boldly impeach the fundamental principle of it; who pretend to be champions for the right and the capacity of the people to choose their own rulers, yet maintain that they will prefer those only who will immediately and infallibly betray the trust committed to them?

Were the objection to be read by one who had not seen the mode prescribed by the Constitution for the choice of representatives, he could suppose nothing less than that some unreasonable qualification of property was annexed to the right of suffrage; or that the right of eligibility was limited to persons of particular families or fortunes; or at least that the mode prescribed by the State constitutions was in some respect or other, very grossly departed from. We have seen how far such a supposition would err, as to the two first points. Nor would it, in fact, be less erroneous as to the last. The only difference discoverable between the two cases is, that each representative of the United States will be elected by five or six thousand citizens; whilst in the individual States, the election of a representative is left to about as many hundreds. Will it be pretended that this difference is sufficient to justify an attachment to the State governments, and an abhorrence to the federal government? If this be the point on which the objection turns, it deserves to be examined.

Is it supported by reason? This cannot be said, without maintaining that five or six thousand citizens are less capable of choosing a fit representative, or more liable to be corrupted by an unfit one, than five or six hundred. Reason, on the contrary, assures us, that as in so great a number a fit representative would be most likely to be found, so the choice would be less likely to be diverted from him by the intrigues of the ambitious or the ambitious or the bribes of the rich.

Is the consequence from this doctrine admissible? If we say that five or six hundred citizens are as many as can jointly exercise their right of suffrage, must we not deprive the people of the immediate choice of their public servants, in every instance where the administration of the government does not require as many of them as will amount to one for that number of citizens?

Is the doctrine warranted by facts? It was shown in the last paper, that the real representation in the British House of Commons very little exceeds the proportion of one for every thirty thousand inhabitants. Besides a variety of powerful causes not existing here, and which favor in that country the pretensions of rank and wealth, no person is eligible as a representative of a county, unless he possess real estate of the clear value of six hundred pounds sterling per year; nor of a city or borough, unless he possess a like estate of half that annual value. To this qualification on the part of the county representatives is added another on the part of the county electors, which restrains the right of suffrage to persons having a freehold estate of the annual value of more than twenty pounds sterling, according to the present rate of money. Notwithstanding these unfavorable circumstances, and notwithstanding some very unequal laws in the British code, it cannot be said that the representatives of the nation have elevated the few on the ruins of the many.

But we need not resort to foreign experience on this subject. Our own is explicit and decisive. The districts in New Hampshire in which the senators are chosen immediately by the people, are nearly as large as will be necessary for her representatives in the Congress. Those of Massachusetts are larger than will be necessary for that purpose; and those of New York still more so. In the last State the members of Assembly for the cities and counties of New York and Albany are elected by very nearly as many voters as will be entitled to a representative in the Congress, calculating on the number of sixty-five representatives only. It makes no difference that in these senatorial districts and counties a number of representatives are voted for by each elector at the same time. If the same electors at the same time are capable of choosing four or five representatives, they cannot be incapable of choosing one. Pennsylvania is an additional example. Some of her counties, which elect her State representatives, are almost as large as her districts will be by which her federal representatives will be elected. The city of Philadelphia is supposed to contain between fifty and sixty thousand souls. It will therefore form nearly two districts for the choice of federal representatives. It forms, however, but one county, in which every elector votes for each of its representatives in the State legislature. And what may appear to be still more directly to our purpose, the whole city actually elects a single member for the executive council. This is the case in all the other counties of the State.

Are not these facts the most satisfactory proofs of the fallacy which has been employed against the branch of the federal government under consideration? Has it appeared on trial that the senators of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York, or the executive council of Pennsylvania, or the members of the Assembly in the two last States, have betrayed any peculiar disposition to sacrifice the many to the few, or are in any respect less worthy of their places than the representatives and magistrates appointed in other States by very small divisions of the people?

But there are cases of a stronger complexion than any which I have yet quoted. One branch of the legislature of Connecticut is so constituted that each member of it is elected by the whole State. So is the governor of that State, of Massachusetts, and of this State, and the president of New Hampshire. I leave every man to decide whether the result of any one of these experiments can be said to countenance a suspicion, that a diffusive mode of choosing representatives of the people tends to elevate traitors and to undermine the public liberty.

PUBLIUS

In The Busy-body No. 3 (February 18, 1728), Benjamin Franklin wrote:

Almost every Man has a strong natural Desire of being valu'd and esteem'd by the rest of his Species; but I am concern'd and griev'd to see how few fall into the Right and only infallible Method of becoming so. That laudable Ambition is too commonly misapply'd and often ill employ'd. Some to make themselves considerable pursue Learning, others grasp at Wealth, some aim at being thought witty, and others are only careful to make the most of an handsome Person; But what is Wit, or Wealth, or Form, or Learning when compar'd with Virtue? 'Tis true, we love the handsome, we applaud the Learned, and we fear the Rich and Powerful; but we even Worship and adore the Virtuous. -- Nor is it strange; since Men of Virtue, are so rare, so very rare to be found. If we were as industrious to become Good, as to make ourselves Great, we should become really Great by being Good, and the Number of valuable Men would be much increased; but it is a Grand Mistake to think of being Great without Goodness; and I pronounce it as certain, that there was never yet a truly Great Man that was not at the same Time truly Virtuous.

On February 18, 1793, in Chisholm v. Georgia, James Wilson said:

A State, I cheerfully admit, is the noblest work of Man: But Man, himself, free and honest, is, I speak as to this world, the noblest work of God....

Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed."
But He answered her not a word.
And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she cries out after us."
But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, "Lord, help me!"
But He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs."
And she said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."
Then Jesus answered and said to her, "O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

Sidon was remembered as the home of ancient queen Jezebel (1 Kings 16:31). Matthew does not introduce this woman in the most flattering way. Introducing her as a "woman of Canaan" was the equivalent to introducing a someone as a "Yankee" one hundred forty years ago in the Southern U.S. Any of Matthew's Jewish readers with an ounce of prejudice would despise her. But then she calls Jesus by his Messianic title "Son of David." This is now a Yankee that confesses the Confederacy. She was acknowledging the kingdom rights of the Jews. She was also recalling the kingdom that encompassed Jews and non-Jews.

Someone who else who spent some time in Sidon was Elijah (1 Kings 17:9-24). And in this account, this woman of Canaan shares a particular character trait with Elijah: holy chutzpah. She doesn't take no for an answer. But this is also holy chutzpah. As my children know from the catechism: God can do all his holy will. So if you are going to pray with holy chutzpah, not taking no for an answer, you also must first know you are praying according to his holy will.

This woman approached Jesus with holy chutzpah, and he said of her, "O woman, great is your faith!"

I just remembered something from college. I went to Bob Jones University. Maybe you went there, too, or you went another Christian school. Or maybe you have no idea what I'm talking about. But I thought I'd share it anyway. I still laugh when I think about it.

Fundamentalist institutions like BJU are known for their rules. Some of the rules they are known for don't actually exist. Some of them, like the infamous pink and blue sidewalks, we wish had existed. Strange as it may seem, life would have been much easier if the sidewalks had been pink and blue so we could have better navigated and got in less trouble.

One of the major categories of rules at these institutions is music. The ultimate can of worms. You see, its not just the institution, but every individual. I had professors who grew up with Southern Gospel and could still appreciate it. I had others that would have fainted if such music were even suggested. I had professor who grew up on Country Western and still had fond memories of Gene Autry. But, again, it wasn't just the professors. You had to worry about the students. One student listened to whatever he wanted to and hated every minute at the school. Another student might go through the school's own music and skip half the tracks for her own standards' sake. One might personally dislike the music, but would let you listen to what you want. Another thought all music was the instrument of Satan and couldn't wait to turn you in if caught humming. So you never knew who you were around.

Enter "lyrical conversations." Yes.

Obviously there are some songs that are so ingrained into the American psyche that all are born with inherent knowledge of the lyrics. Those songs you avoid. But there are other songs that are less well known, except to their fans. These songs are useful for lyrical conversations.

So here's how friends can safely be made at a fundamentalist institution. If you suspect someone might make a good friend/ally, you introduce lyrics into your conversation. One of my friends told me he was out working with another guy one day. They had been making small talk, when the other got philosophical. He said, "You, know, Ryan, I really think that life is a dance that you learn as you go. Sometimes you lead, but sometimes you follow." Ryan nodded and responded, "Yeah, I think you're right. Just don't worry about what you don't know." Soon, they were best buds.

I personally was sitting in the back of math class one morning. I suppose the discussion of mathematics turned caused the young man beside me to ponder the subject of science in general, because he brought up a famous scientist, "Galileo, Galileo, Galileo," he said. I suppose the rhythm prompted him toward opera, because he followed the name with "Figaro."

I wanted to explain that I didn't understand, so I apologetically responded, "I'm just a poor boy, from a poor family."

He dismissed the conversation, waving his hand, "Let him go."

I nodded. But I still felt guilty for not understanding. Acknowledging the just punishment for my crime of ignorance, I admitted, "Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me."

"For me?" he asked.

"For me," I corrected. Sometimes, on days like today, I wonder what could have become of such friendships had I only understood what he meant.

Well, I best get back to work. It's not quitting time, yet. But, then again, I'm sure it is five o'clock somewhere.

From February 15, 1791, Thomas Jefferson's opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank was very clear (and applies to a lot more):

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That " all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [12th amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition...

It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...

It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It [the Constitution] was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

See the document in its entirety here.

So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:


Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."


Jesus came preaching the good news. He healed and he delivered. And only moments after he spoke these words, those in his hearing took him out to a cliff to throw him from it.

You know that fear when you are about to share the gospel, when you take a stand for Christ, when you have to confront another with their sins. You fear you will be rejected or scoffed. The proud do reject the message of God's sovereignty. They always have and they always will. Only a work of the Holy Spirit will break the pride in their hearts so that they can hear the message of liberty and be delivered.

You must know all these things, and then you must boldly and prayerfully speak for Christ.

Christ knew he would be rejected. He knew you would reject him all the times that you rejected him. Yet he still came to you. Not in weakness, pleading for a friend, but as a conqueror, reigning until all his enemies are put under his feet. His Spirit broke through your pride so that you could be set free.

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free" (Galatians 5:1).

On this day, February 13, 1818, in a letter to H. Niles, John Adams wrote:

But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.

You may read the letter in its entirety here.

So He got into a boat, crossed over, and came to His own city. Then behold, they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, "Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven you."

And at once some of the scribes said within themselves, "This Man blasphemes!"

But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, "Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, "Arise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins"--then He said to the paralytic, "Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house." And he arose and departed to his house.

Now when the multitudes saw it, they marveled and glorified God, who had given such power to men.

As Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, "Follow Me." So he arose and followed Him.

Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, "Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"

When Jesus heard that, He said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader... If Virtue & Knowledge are diffused among the People, they will never be enslav'd. This will be their great Security.

Don't worry, I am keeping this blog, but I did want a place to showcase my artwork. So I started a new blog this morning: http://brianbyarsart.blogspot.com/

I posted a picture I drew yesterday of Bilbo Baggins for my son. There will be more to come soon.