Briefly Defined: Lord of Hosts

Portovenre, Parma: Cheap hotel:added colour

In sermons the terms 'Lord of Hosts' are mentioned fairly often, but rarely defined. There is more to the definition than a basic idea of the Lord hosting his creation.

I think the terms need to be defined more often, for clarity.

Jon Courson.com

In his July 21, 2016 sermon that I listened to today online, Reverend Jon Courson stated (paraphrased) that the Lord of Hosts, is the Lord and his armies.

Explains, T.E. McComiskey:

Yahweh Sĕbāʾôt (Lord of Host) is in translation: 'He creates the heavenly hosts' has been suggested. as a reasonable possibility. (465). In basic agreement with the Pastor Courson statement from the sermon, the word sĕbāʾôt means armies or hosts. (465). The name Yahweh is understood as a proper name in association with the word 'armies'. (465).

God and his armies

The Lord and his armies

These would seem to be reasonable translations into English.

Therefore, as Revered Courson was preaching on eschatology and end times events, it is not out of context to mention the Lord in a militaristic, biblical context.

Explains, W.R.F. Browning:

In regard to Lord of Hosts:

The God of Israel as commander of armed forces, both Israel and in heaven. God is the general of the armies of Israel...but God also has angels (1 Kings 22: 19) and the forces of nature. (178).

The terms 'Lord of Hosts' and related terms are a friendly, written, biblical reminder that God is a God of justice. God demonstrates love, especially to his people in both Old and New Testaments (Psalm 136, John 3, John 15 as examples). However, there is not only divine judgement for humanity (2 Corinthians 5, Revelation 20); there is also when deemed divinely necessary, lethal force used by God. This should be no surprise in light of Genesis 3 and the death sentence for human disobedience.

This is lethal force above that granted to governments for the maintenance of law and order in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2.

The two concepts should not be theologically and philosophically confused, lest a state, overstep its power of governance, biblically mandated by God. Or a state-religion attempt to govern and rule on behalf of God. Rather, the state is to maintain law and order and no state or state-religion should attempt to exercise God's eschatological mission in presumption. Each state is finite in understanding and tainted in sin. Politics within both government and state-religion makes overly-politicized reasoning and actions, over the sake of truth and biblical truth, ever so possible at key points.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

MCCOMISKEY, T.E. (1996) 'God, Name of' in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

Parma: travel wiki

When a relation fails

Burnaby: Burrard Inlet

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

A review of the Langer text continued with a brief entry...

Philosopher Langer states that combined with 'nt' there are sixteen propositions. I would gather A nt A, B nt B, C nt C, D nt D are included (71). I put together the possible propositions A nt B, B nt A, etcetera and arrived at twelve, thankfully before seeing that Langer also had twelve. (77). She points out that the four all fail as not true. Something cannot be north of itself.

Cited

'To express the fact that a relation fails, i.e. that the proposition in which it functions is not true, it is customary to enclose the proposition in parentheses and prefix this whole expression by the sign ~. (72).

~ (A nt A) means fails. House 'A' is not north of house 'A'. (72).

Langer therefore presents...

A nt B

~(B nt A)

(73).

'The falsity of the latter follows from the truth of the former...' (73). The author points out that it is possible that neither is north of the other (same latitude north, my add), but both cannot be north of each other.
---

N (North Pole)
S (South Pole)

N nt S

~(S nt N)

My add.

In mathematics (the tilde) ~ means approximately or equivalence relation, in logic ~ means not, or as Langer presented, false/fails. I know from experience that some social research methods/statistical terms have slightly different meanings than in a philosophy context. I have mentioned on this website that while I was completing my PhD, I was working in both academic disciplines. This was particularly tricky in preparing for the PhD viva.

I can reason that ~ could be used rather often today, especially online...

Burnaby: Burrard Inlet

Money is a measure of rightness?

Fraser River

Preface

Thanks for friends that came out from far and wide for my birthday party. Special thanks to Darren (Bobby Buff) for making that special sacrifice of getting over the Pitt River Bridge (He stated that he was 'uncomfortable'). Ryan (Cousin Buff), in attendance with his wife, stated three times that he was surprised Darren made it out, because it was past his bedtime. Cactus Club Coquitlam did a fine job making sure my disabled Mother got in and out smoothly, on a night when they were very busy.

The party featured, besides the default comedy, a group political discussion in regard to Donald Trump and the United States Presidential race; as well as a discussion of HALT and the need for Vancouver real estate reform.

Globe and Mail July 15

My friend Jennifer Lloyd is quoted within...
---

Last week

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

'The argumentum ad crumenam assumes that money is a measure of rightness, and that those with money are more likely to be correct.' (70). In other words, if you are so right, why cannot you be rich? (70).

Immediately, Donald Trump's Celebrity Apprentice television program from a few years ago comes to mind. Often mandatory tasks were won by the contestant that could raise the most money. Many of these finds came from corporate and celebrity donations.

The philosophical question that arises is:

'Does a larger fundraiser equate with a right apprentice?'

F=Fundraiser
A=Apprentice

F=A or A=F Does not appear true, at least in many contexts. It is possibly true, I admit. One could be a fundraiser in training.

An apprentice is a junior employee learning a trade and skill from a more experienced employer/employee. A fundraiser, at least a successful one, is someone skilled with raising funds. I would reason that a senior skilled employer/employee would reasonably more often perform fundraising better than an apprentice.

Does gaining the most money in a competition, make one the right apprentice? The Celebrity Apprentice, featuring celebrities was funnier than the Apprentice, but the celebrity version lacked authenticity as truly seeking an apprentice. A pseudo celebrity apprentice may very well make a good fundraiser.

The author then rightly states:

'There have been branches of Christianity which held that worldly success could be taken as a mark of divine favour.' (70).

Prosperity theology,  prosperity gospel and health and wealth gospel, comes to mind. Often associated with certain televangelists.

These theologies create a drive and quite possibly in many cases, a love for money and yet in 1 Timothy 6: 10...

English Standard Version

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

New American Standard Bible

For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

King James Bible

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

'Money' is not a measure of rightness, it is a measure of the accumulation of money in the context discussed.

Rightness is determined by reason, in this realm primarily revealed in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, inspired by God through writers.

Pirie from his secular perspective writes that in regard to rightness 'of course money has nothing to do with it.' (70).

Freedom, Rights, Judgement

Abbotsford: Recently

A work related colleague, recently inquired, in regard to my views and understanding on religious studies. I stated the following, edited for this website.

My views are Biblical, Reformed and moderately conservative. My work is primarily gospel focused, as opposed to primarily or even largely culturally focused in attempts through legal and societal means to maintain the power and influence of the Christian Church in British Columbia, Canada and Western society. I am significantly, on occasions only, politically involved, but it is not a ministry focus. I have at times written letters to politicians and signed petitions.

Philosophically, I hold to the view that within Western democracy, as long as in obedience to the law of the land, people have the freedom and rights to do as they please. I will not always agree with each law, and I will not always be in agreement with ethics, morality, acts and actions. I attempt to demonstrate love for others and as well, equally important, are concerns for justice and truth.

At the same time, I maintain within the Western democratic system, the freedom and rights, for me as an individual, to reason that God is infinite, eternal and revelatory in Scripture. God will definitely, as the only entity that exists by necessity, maintain his freedom and rights to judge humanity, his creation, accordingly.

Additional for this website:

In my newly acquired commentary series, Reverend Courson states Christians will be judged in Christ in 2 Corinthians 5: '...the judgement seat of Christ, where everything we've done will be judged.' (1119). Revered Courson, correctly in my opinion also appeals to 1 Corinthians 3 where he explains that 'some will make it to heaven'  (1030), but will have not committed work deemed valuable to Jesus Christ and therefore to God. This person's work is burned up as useless, although he/she is saved in Christ. This is the judgement seat of Christ. The Bema seat.

Courson opines that Christians will not be judged at the Great White Throne judgement of Revelation 20. (1784). In contrast to Courson, Mounce considers this a general judgement for all of humankind. (365). He reasons that because the 'book of life' (Naming those in Christ, including Old Testament believers, my add) is mentioned, a general judgement is meant here in Chapter 20: 11-15. Those not in the book of life are lake of fire, bound. (Revelation 20). Likely figurative literal language for the everlasting hell described.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.