Awenydd

I’ll comment on what I think about this later, and what exactly might be the implications of such a reading, but just wanted to throw the material out for preliminary reference:

Eurepides’ Medea:

“Ah, me! a wretched suffering woman I! O would that I could die!”

“Oh, oh! Would that Heaven’s levin bolt would cleave this head in twain! What gain is life to me? Woe, woe is me! O, to die and win release, quitting this loathed existence!”

“This one brief day forget thy children dear, and after that lament; for though thou wilt slay them yet they were thy darlings still, and I am a lady of sorrows.”

Seneca’s Medea:

“Why, soul, dost hesitate? Why are my cheeks wet with tears? Why do anger and love now hither, now thither draw my changeful heart? A double tide tosses me, uncertain of my course; as when rushing winds wage mad warfare, and from both sides conflicting floods lash the seas and the fluctuating waters boil, even so is my heart tossed. Anger puts love to flight, and love, anger. O wrath, yield thee to love.”

“Why dost thou delay now, O soul? Why hesitate, though thou canst do it? Now has my wrath died within me. I am sorry for my act, ashamed.”

“What, wretched woman, have I done? wretched, say I? Though I repent, yet have I done it!”

Romans 7

“For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate . . . So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.”

“For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.”

“Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?”

I have been rediscovering an old favorite of mine, the first epic film I can remember watching. And I mean REALLY epic. How The West Was Won was filmed and released in Cinerama format in 1962. I first watched it when it was on TV. It has been years since I last saw it, but I’m eagerly awaiting a completely remastered and restored release later this year. And that one just might push me over to get Blu-Ray . . . just as soon as Sony finalizes the format.

But enough of that. I am rediscovering the film through its magnificent score by Alfred Newman. From the opening titles, the score conveys powerfully, over the course of the film running the emotional gammut of fun, adventure, struggle, loss, grief, and sorrow. It is truly an overlooked classic. It was my first favorite film score, even before I knew what a film score was.

Listening through the score and remembering scenes from the film reminds me of the incredible scope that the film had, tracing the saga of an American family through three generations. While the song featured in the film bears echoes of manifest destiny, I think the film is careful not to stereo-type the struggle between the Native American and the pioneer of the move West, portraying both sides rather fairly, if a little idealistically.

HOW THE WEST WAS WON
Lyrics by Ken Darby

Promised land the land of plenty rich with gold
Here came dreamers with Bible fist and gun
Bound for land across the plains their wagons rolled
Hell bent for leather that’s how the West was won

Stride by stride they tamed the savage prairie land
Nothing stopped them no wind nor rain nor sun
Side by side these pioneers from every land
All pulled together that’s how the West was won

And they sang of the day when they would rest their boots
In a land where the still waters flow
Where the dreams of a man and wife could put down roots
And their love and the seeds of love would grow
(And grow and grow)

Dream by dream they built a nation from this land
Forged in freedom for every mother’s son
Here it is the beautiful the promised land
We won’t forget them and how the West was won

Please sample a few tracks from the score in my player and then go buy the 2-Disc set if you’re impressed with it as I have always been. If you’ve already listened, check the player again. I’ve added a new track.

Some additional notes on the score:

How The West Was Won was awarded an Academy Award for “Best Recording,” which had a great deal to do with how Alfred Newman produced the score. It was apparently one of the first (if not the first) score recorded by close-mic’ing each individual section of the orchestra, which gives the orchestra that sense of presence, increases the scope of the recording, and allows the listener to easily distinguish between the various parts of the orchestra. Since 1962 this recording method has become commonplace for film score recording, it was very innovative at the time.

We all know legalism is bad. It showed its ugly face most memorably in the Pharisees who constantly confronted Jesus for breaking “the traditions of the elders.”

“Why do you not wash your hands before eating?”

“Why do you do heal on the Sabbath?”

“Why do you eat with sinners?”

Generally when we think of legalism we think of these things. The imposition of man-made rules and restrictions that have no real grounding in God’s law. The Sabbath rule that one ought not lift more than the weight of a dry fig? “Preposterous!” we say. “Don’t drink, don’t dance, don’t play cards” . . . where does it say that in the Bible? Well, nowhere, of course. They’re man-made rules, and they violate the spirit of the law.

Legalists usually have good intentions. Usually the rules are simply unwarranted extrapolations of a rule that is found in God’s law. The Pharisaic rule not to lift a certain weight was originally drawn from a desire to keep the Sabbath law. But when we place rules where God does not, that is where it becomes legalism.

So “don’t be drunk” becomes “don’t drink,” “Do not fornicate” becomes “no dancing,” and “don’t steal” (gambling can be a form of theft) becomes “don’t play cards.”

Yeah, we’re all familiar with those. We are only too sensitive when legalism violates our “Christian liberty.” But what about the other side of legalism? What about the side that says, go ahead and do what you please?

Matthew 15:1-9

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,”Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,”he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

Anything that violates the spirit of the law while adhering to the mere letter is legalism. There is a legalism that constrains people to man-made rules that fly in the face of the intended purpose of the commandment, and there is a legalism that excuses people from keeping the law by finding loopholes. It is just as sinister as the restrictive legalism, but it is in some ways more difficult to fight.

People like to be excused from their duty and still be able to wipe their hands and say the law does not condemn.

Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (ESV)

If you read this and most other translations, you can easily come to a mis-understanding of what the text is actually saying. In English, this verse appears to say that the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven. As this lends itself to our imagination, we picture people on Earth gazing up at the sky at some supernatural apparition—the sign of the Son of Man. But there is a better and more likely interpretation of this phrase. To understand it, we need to ask ourselves, what, exactly, is “in heaven”? In Greek, this can more naturally (and in light of the second half of this verse, which I’ll come to, more likely does) refer to the location of the Son of Man, rather than to the sign. The sign simply appears, and the location of its appearing is not disclosed.

How does the second half of the verse support this interpretation? Again, if we just read the English, and particularly if we do not read it in the light of other Scriptural texts to which it refers, we may let our imaginations get the better of us. We picture Jesus Christ, robed in brilliant light, riding the clouds of heaven like a chariot, descending to Earth on the last day with a host of his angelic army following at his back.

But let’s think biblically here instead of letting our creative natures run wild. To what is this verse referring? The Son of Man on the clouds of Heaven refers, in fact, to Daniel 7:13-14.

I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

I have a couple observations about this. First, there should be no doubt that Matthew 24:30 is a direct reference to Daniel 7:13. Both speak of the Son of Man “coming” on the clouds of heaven; both speak of the Son of Man’s power and glory. Matthew 24 describes the fulfillment of Daniel 7.

So this is Christ’s second coming, right?

The problem is when we consider the direction the Son is “coming.” In English, when we say “come,” we automatically assume that the subject is travelling in our direction. Hence our tendency to interpret Matthew 24:30 as Christ “coming” down to Earth. But we need to consider the perspective of Daniel and the purpose of Matthew.
Which way is the Son of Man coming in the texts? Daniel views his visions from a high heavenly vantage point. In Daniel 7, the Son is coming to the Ancient of Days. In proper English, from an earthly perspective, the text tells us that Christ is really going, not coming. So why does Matthew say “coming”? Matthew is quoting Daniel almost word for word. Since Daniel (viewing things from a heavenly vantage point) says “coming,” Matthew uses the same word to make the reference explicit. That may make the direction of movement more obscure, but that is only if one isn’t aware of Daniel 7.

Let’s compare this with a conflation of two other passages—

Matthew 28:16-20 and Acts 1:9.

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

Sound familiar? All of these passages are speaking of Jesus Christ going to the Father’s right hand on the clouds. I don’t think there can be much doubt. Matthew 24:30 is speaking not of Christ’s second coming to Earth at the end of history (which is yet to come) but of his ascension to the right hand of the Father (which happened at a particular point in history), where he rules both Heaven and Earth.

So in light of this, what is the first half of the verse saying? It is Jesus’ promise to his listeners that they will be given a sign that the Son of Man is in Heaven—that he has gone to the right hand of the Father, and that he rules. Of course, the rest of Matthew 24 must be read with this in mind. And we should note that the tribulation comes before this sign.

While we should not confuse the sign with that which is signified (the sign is the evidence of a state that is already in effect), most often sign and signified are temporally linked. One closely follows the other in time and space. From this, we may infer (though not with complete confidence from this text), that since the signified (ascension and rule) occurred two thousand years ago, the event of the sign itself also is history.

No, I have not suddenly started a campaign to get “Christ” out of “Christmas.” Most Christians automatically assume that “X-mas” means and always has meant crossing out the name of Christ. I want to submit that perhaps the term goes back a bit further than that. Maybe even with roots as far back as the 4th century A.D. You see, in Greek, the first letter of Christ’s name is Xi.

So on the contrary, I’d like to see a campaign started to put Xristos back into “X-mas.” And instead of boycotting people who use the term, take the opportunity to tell people what that “X” really stands for.