A decree went out in those days...

In 27 BC, four years after becoming sole ruler of the Roman oikoumene (inhabited world), Augustus Caesar expanded his slate of tax reforms to include registrations in all of the Empire's Provinces. Prior to that year, Rome only took a census in Italy. After that year, Augustus made sure his Governors could not over-fleece Rome's provincial flocks.

In 9 BC, Augustus Caesar unjustly demoted Herod the Great from "friend" to "subject". Herod's chief advisor Nicolas wasn't able to clear up the confusion for almost a year, during which time Augustus must have instigated the census recorded by Luke. The Emperor's ex-brother-in-law, Gaius Sentius Saturninus, may be the one who decided on the odd "each to his own city" requirement.

As Governor of Syria until 6 BC, Saturninus may or may not have received assistance from one Quirinius (who in any event did not take a Judean census as Governor until 6 AD). Whether Luke was wrong, or whether Luke's meaning is obscure, Quirinius does not actually factor into the birth of Christ so far as we know.

The logistics were ridiculous but thorough. Above all, they would have been time consuming. Rome could not staff every city in Herod's Kingdom at once, and the cities could not simultaneously have hosted both soldiers and homecoming visitors while also under-staffed locally. It could not have been "fruit-basket turnover" all at once. Somehow, Saturninus had to advance-publish a staggered schedule of times and locations for each city to be registered. If they got behind schedule, the Governor would have had to republish a new schedule, kingdom-wide. Therefore, it's more likely Saturninus drew up a schedule with plenty of breathing room. Or reverted to one.

At any rate, this could not have been a quick census. It probably took most of 8 and 7 BC to accomplish. Once begun, it continued, even though Herod was reconciled with Augustus in late 8 BC.

By the time Syria's cohorts had moved down as far as Bethlehem, Joseph and Mary were living in Bethlehem. The scandal back in Nazareth made it easier to relocate, which must be why Mary went along. (Presumably, women were not required to be present at these registrations. By the way, property was not registered in Judea until 6 AD, at which time it famously sparked talk of rebellion.)

We know Mary was pregnant on the road to Bethlehem. The young couple must have moved in with Joseph's kinfolk (extended-family home living was very common) and yet they did not have enough space for the new mother to take her own room in the house. During her time of uncleanness, after childbirth, Mary and Jesus would have to stay with the household livestock. Whether that meant a stable, cave, lean-to or outbuilding, the son of God was placed in a feed-trough.

Bethlehem's registration took place shortly before or sometime after the Lord's birth. The census itself continued on, probably in a southward direction. We can say for sure it was over before summer of 6 BC, when Saturninus returned to Italy.

If Jesus was born anywhere between April of 7 BC and March of 6 BC, then he was twelve years old in March of AD 7. That was the first spring Joseph allowed Jesus to go to Jerusalem for Passover, because it was also the first spring Herod's son Archelaus was banished from Palestine.

The first conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter took place in late May, 7 BC. The Magi may have arrived after the third conjunction, that December. If Jesus was 6-8 months old when they arrived, it could explain why Herod thought he might be toddling already. The Frankincense and Gold paid for a sojourn to Egypt. And then Herod died. We have already mentioned Archelaus.

One last detail: if Jesus was born in April or May of that year, he would have touched the start of his 40th year just before ascending to heaven, in the middle of May, in AD 33. That may or may not be significant, but whether God required his second Adam to be tested for forty years, God did send His parents to Bethlehem, because of a very unique set of circumstances, which included a census.

The (probable) real story is more complex than the fairy tale.

It is no less inspiring to me.

Did Luke err on Quirinius? Does it matter?

Mark Goodacre has an excellent podcast today on the year Jesus was born. Naturally, he gravitates towards Quirinius as he builds to a conclusion. His conclusion is that Luke probably just made a mistake, and "we should commend him for doing a pretty good job".

Mary Smallwood once made a similar comment* and said it well:

Is not the simplest explanation that quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus? ['the great Homer sometimes nods'] Knowing that the Nativity coincided with a census taken in Judaea on instructions from Rome, Luke erroneously attached the name of the Roman official responsible for the later, much more notorious, census, to the earlier one, with which Quirinius had had no connection; and having thus created two censuses conducted under the same man's auspices, he distinguished the earlier, obviously, as [prwth]. Tertullian then confirmed his date, while tacitly correcting the name.

Now let me be very clear: I agree with Mark and Mary about one thing, at least. The simplest explanation actually is to conclude that Luke just goofed. (It may not be the right explanation, but it is the simplest.) It could be as Smallwood says, or it could be what Mark says. Should we really expect Luke to get it all perfectly?

Regular readers know where I stand. If Luke' 2:2 is somehow accurate, we have to admit it doesn't mean what it seems to mean. So what does it mean? That's one question. My usual concern is to point out that I'd rather focus on a different question: When was Jesus born? And that's what I appreciate about Goodacre's podcast.

Smallwood had more to say about Tertullian and Saturninus, which I greatly appreciate, putting Jesus' birth in the later portion of his Governorship, which was 9-6 BC. Oddly, Goodacre gives no reason for his estimation of Jesus' birth year "to roundabout 4 BC, perhaps a little earlier, 5, 6 at the most. Something like that." To be fair, of course, it was just a podcast. ;-)

So, did Luke just make a mistake about Quirinius? As believers, we'll keep hoping he didn't. However, as I keep pointing out, that only matters if we're trying to defend scripture. Everything has a time and a place, and when we're trying to reconstruct events, Quirinius just doesn't matter. Every viable apologetic on Luke 2:2 still puts Jesus' birth before Herod's death. That makes Quirinius moot.

-----------------------------------------------
*The Jews under Roman Rule, Appendix E (1976)

Ten Books of my 2009

This is my 374th post for the year 2009. Celucien Joseph says that makes me prolific. Lou also tagged me to list my top ten books for 2009. Poor Lou. He really wants to believe that I read at least half as much as I write. (!) Well, let's see...

I had very few reservations about how much I enjoyed Allison's The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus. John P Meier's A Marginal Jew, Volume IV: Law and Love was wonderful from beginning to end, except for much of the middle. I tweeted about that dichotomy a bit, back when I was tweeting.

Reading Craig Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of the Gospels and then his Jesus and the Gospels was profoundly headache-inducing, but a conversation with Craig at SBL has me thinking Chronological ignorance may actually trump Theological preference as the main reason why Christian Scholars keep Jesus on the outer fringe of History. Because of that, these may be the most influential and important books I read all year long.

Richard Bacukham's Testimony of the Beloved Disciple had a chapter on Historiography in John's Gospel that was 97.8% wonderful. I'll always remember the day Nick recommended it. Thanks partly to that, I've recently started through Volumes 1 and 2 of the SBL's John, Jesus and History compilations. I'm counting them here because that's a big step for me. For all of us, really. I'm so glad liberal scholars are now willing to critique the fourth Gospel just as harshly as they've been critiquing the first three in recent centuries. ;-)

I'll list the last three without comment: Roger Beckwith's Calendar and Chronology, Thomas Lewin's Fasti Sacri (reprinted from 1865!), and the IVP's Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels.

Of course I picked through dozens of other new titles this year, but these were the top ten academic Biblical Studies books that influenced my thinking this year. I also spent more time in the Gospels this year than ever in my life, probably. I also did more of that study in Greek than ever before, thanks partly to the new USB Greek New Testament, A Reader's Edition which I saw several bloggers raving about early in 2009.

Oh, what to read next year? I don't know, but I'm sure to blog about it and Lou's sure to read it.

After all, I'm one of his top 15 most prolific. :-)

Ancient Jewish House found in Nazareth

The Israel Antiquities Authority is saying it dates to Jesus' time. At a minimum, this confirms the village is at least that old. Of that there should have been little doubt anyway, even without the New Testament.

Nazareth's valley may be a lousy place for a fortified city, but it's a perfect location for a small village (hidden from three sides on semi-high ground with good, sloping run off; midway between Sepphoris and the Lake; close to good farmland and other resources; probably at least one natural spring). I'd have loved to hear them say it was a hundred years older. As I suggested in August, a longstanding community would be more likely to have established a large collection of Hebrew scrolls and to have built a 'proper' Synagogue building. A younger village more likely would have met each Sabbath in somebody's house and may or may not have had scrolls.

As it is, the site could yield more clues to help reconstruct what Jesus' town was like and how many people lived there. Whatever we learn, it's a wonderful discovery. Read all about it: (IAA press release; AP article).

Angels are really smart

God's highest glory on Earth is when Peace comes inside of a people who please Him.

That's not my translation of Luke 2:14, but something really close to that might just be what the angels meant when they sang it. For some recent discussions on translating Luke 2:14, go here In my humble opinion, all of humanity has always been invited to find God, engage Him, and seek to please Him. Only one Man was ever successfully able to do so, but He has invited us to share in His success. So, therefore, the night the angels sang near Bethlehem was the night when the seed of that promise broke through.

God longs to see people contain His Life and live at peace together.

Nazareth "46"

loosely...

Father, my refuge and strength, you are present with me always. This loneliness is not too much trouble because I have You. I'm not afraid of what changes might come. Even if the mountains fall down on this valley, or the seas rose to drown us here, even if this whole town trembles at violent things that might come... You are the River whose constant flow makes me happy. Your kingdom is coming. As you are in me, you will be in the midst of your Kingdom. She will not be moved. She will finally Love you. You will help her when that morning dawns.

The gentiles may cause an uproar and the Kings of the earth will do battle, but when You raise Your voice, the whole Earth will melt. You've been here with me, Lord of Hosts, and you will be with them. You've been my stronghold, God of Jacob, and you will be for them. How I long to see that work of Yours - what you will leave desolate, what you will cease, what you will break and burn. Wars will not end, but oh that all Your children would quit striving and know that you are God. You are to be exalted among all nations. You are to be exalted across this land.

Almighty Father, how I love and live for you. Stay here with me until all Jacob is Your stronghold.

Selah

Let's Quarantine all the Defective People

I'm a big Pixar fan. Their storytelling is so tight, it turns coal into diamonds. Seriously, as digital film makers they have complete control over every second of every frame and every bit of every image. That means every detail in a Pixar film serves the film's purpose somehow. Figure out how, and you find new depths in the film's message.

Knowing this, I was surprised at how much time Wall-E gave to the defective robots in quarantine. It just didn't seem to fit the overall message, until I realized - to a robot, all humans are defective. Just like robots, the Buy-N-Large corporation that managed Earth built a life-ship designed to quarantine human error. But by doing that, they effectively quarantined humanity.

Hollywood artists are naturally anti-business and anti-authority, but we all need to find balance between sustaining life and actually living it. Just as importantly, we all have to decide whether to protect young pioneers from the perils of attempting to seize life... or whether to encourage them.

Overall, the movie Wall-E was about a defective robot, enamored with wonderful things, who acted like a human. His defective behavior was dangerous to himself and those around him, but it was also inspiring. Obviously our non-cartoon world isn't always so safe or rewarding, but we do see times when protocols written for survival actually destroy sources of life-renewing energy. Eventually, the status quo serves only itself. The question is, at what point does Life need to be about more than comfortable safety?

One of the more subtle messages of Wall-E is that humanity and defective behavior simply come as a package deal. Large systems can't quarantine everybody, and the more little defects they save us from the more we fall prey to the big defects of the system itself.

So which is worse? That depends. Who decides?

If we leave things up to the Buy N Large corporation, they'll decide what we can handle and what we cannot. If we prefer comfort and safety instead of adventure and experience, that might be okay. But then again... what if one reason God made human beings was to let us exercise?

What if the process really is more important than the end product? What if we wind up quarantining defective people, because they gummed up our plans, and yet that prevents them from bringing us wonderful and unexpected new sources of Life? We might wind up with a world where everyone keeps letting experts decide what's best for all of us.

In the movie, the Captain makes that decision for everyone on board his ship. "I don't want to survive, I want to live!" Happy ending ensues: everyone loves the results, hardship included. In your world, dear reader, the challenge will have more teeth. Still, the reward may be worth it. Do you want to survive? Or do you want to live?

And yet - that's not the big question. The big question isn't - can you trade in an easy life for the difficulties of pioneering experience? The big question is - can you deal with the inevitable failures of yourself and those who go with you?

Big Box Businesses (including the kind with white steeples) tend to cover up the fact that we are all defective people. Do you want more out of Church Life? Get ready for problems.

Real Life and problems are simply a package deal. That seems to have been true even in Eden, and I'm starting to think God intended for us to be less than perfect.

Hmmm...

The Christmas Story: Luke vs. Matthew?

If we did not have Luke's Gospel, christian tradition would probably hold that both Mary & Joseph were from Bethlehem. In such a parallel universe, the most careful skeptic would rightly suggest doubts about that tradition. In other words, it may be true that someone reading only Matthew's Gospel could well assume the young couple was first betrothed at Bethlehem, but the most careful readers would note that Matthew says no such thing. The first Gospel's first chapter is completely silent as to location.

It is Luke's Gospel that says Mary & Joseph went from Nazareth to Bethlehem because of a census. If we trust Luke, it is perfectly reasonable to reconcile Luke and Matthew's accounts of the period before Jesus' birth. This, from a historian's standpoint, is not a difficult problem. But Luke goes on to speak as if Mary & Joseph went back to Nazareth while Jesus was still a relative newborn. (Lk.2:39 - "When they had completed all that was according to the Law of the Lord, they returned... to Nazareth".) Now, this is the problem.

Does Luke's statement contradict Matthew's story about the massacre and flight to Egypt? James McGrath, Doug Chaplin, and others suggest that it does. Apologists, naturally, suggest that Luke's language is stretchy, that "when" ('ws') gives us enough wiggle room to squeeze in the rest of the story. Who's right? Who knows. I'll gladly stand with the apologists, but I don't care to defend them right now. This post has a different agenda.

Let's entertain skepticism for a few moments. If we take Luke and Matthew as contradictions, how much really has to be wrong? As I showed above, the hometown question is not a real problem. The difficult part comes after Jesus is born. Luke 2:39 seems to deny Matthew's entire second chapter. Any critical analyst now faces a choice. Should we doubt Luke or Matthew?

If we treated both writers with equal skepticism, it would seem more economical to doubt one verse of Luke instead of a whole chapter in Matthew. I know all the reasons why skeptical critics prefer doubting Matthew against Luke. I just think those critics aren't being skeptical enough. In theory, a true skeptic should suspend judgment on God, miracles, angels, dreams, and miraculous stars that stand still over houses. In theory, a true skeptic should point out that OT parallels (dreams, exodus) prove artfulness, but not outright fabrication. A true skeptic doubts their own criticism as much as they doubt the text itself.

Truly, Luke 2:39 does appear to preclude the events of Matthew 2:1-23. Therefore, if a skeptic choses to trust Matthew - for argument's sake - there are two options. Logically, it must be that Luke 2:39 is either incorrect or at least somewhat misleading. Those who wish to defend Luke on this point have got two separate battles to fight. Those who wish to reconstruct events only have this one hurdle to get over.

Skeptics can go on doubting Matthew and/or Luke while believers go on defending them, but I see no logical reason why all cannot agree on the following statement.

The events reported in Mt.2, if factual, must belong to the time spanned by Lk.2:39.

-----------------------------------
Update: You may also wish to read this later post - Mary Should Have Stayed Home.

Churches need Coaches

I carry a metaphor in my head that an apostle any christian worker who builds up a new church is a lot like the coach of a sports team. Don't misunderstand. Church Life and Sports is the weak part of the metaphor. Coaching and developing gifted persons to move together as a collection of individuals - that's the key point.

Yesterday, College Football Coach Brian Kelly just got announced as the new boss of Touchdown Jesus, Inc. He's also the NCAA FBS Coach of the year. At his Notre Dame introduction, he said this:

"It’s not just about getting bigger, stronger, faster," he said. "It’s getting your players to trust, to be accountable on a daily basis, it’s about developing them as young men. … To get people to do things that they would not normally do on their own."

Amen. Good Coach. I'd say he provides a strong contrast to most preachers. Here's what I mean.

How many church leaders develop the talent, and how many just focus on doing their job but complain because others don't do much themselves? Right. Biblically speaking, the worker's main duty is to get the whole church to do their 'jobs' as well. So I say, if some pew sitters like to think that their monthly tithing checks give them the right to be served all year long - then, christian workers, just stop cashing those particular checks! Keep taking money from everyone else, if they keep giving it. But don't accept money from those who expect their gifts to prevent you from doing your job. Please, remember. You don't work for them. And they don't give to you. Right? (Right?)

You've got the idea. Now let's make this practical. HOW does one Coach? The same way one parents. Exhaustively. Tirelessly. Constantly. Incrementally.

A Kindergarten teacher once told me the average child requires 1,000 hours of exposure to print materials before they can read their first word. Father Flanagan learned at Boys Town that teens raised in poverty had never been taught how to make eye contact, introduce themselves, or follow simple instructions. It doesn't get much more basic than that. Good parents, well-off ones at least, consistently demand and tirelessly reinforce the behaviors they know are in their children's best interests. Poor parents, without resources or know-how, muddle through and the kids simply learn what they learn, which ain't much.

We all need to be taught, if we're going to learn. We all need to be trained, to develop and master new skills. In a church, that's as true as in any place else. The little things need to be coached. So church leaders, if your people have done little more than attend and listen for most of their lives, you might need to get started with multiple repetitions of very simple tasks. Then expand as you can. If you're gentle, positive, slow and deliberate, they might not resist overly much. If they do, they're certainly free not to come. They might not like what you're doing, but you'll try to explain that it's for their own good. It is certainly NOT to their benefit to be served and to avoid exercise! So don't let that continue!

If they act like children about it, punish them. How? Refuse to keep taking their money. (That'll show 'em!) But whatever happens, keep straight. Do your job. Coach. Develop the talent.

The Hope of all the Earth is Christ working through His Whole Body. Not just one mouth and a whole bunch of ears. So keep preaching. But Coach. And Pray. Above all else, pray. But start doing what few ever try. For the sake of God's Hope, for the sake of Christ's Glory, for the sake of Him gaining a functional corporate expression of Himself on Earth... Preachers... (or anyone else)... PLEASE...

Coach the Body of Christ!

Seminarians on History and the Gospels

Dan Wallace's recent post at Parchment & Pen (still growing, with upwards of 500 comments) has now generated at least one YouTube response, which led me to some other videos related to Dallas Theological Seminary, which led me to this video featuring Dr. Dwight Pentecost, of the DTS "Biblical Exposition" Department. At the 2:20 mark, the professor says:

The Gospels were not viewed as History, but rather as means of teaching truths to believers. While the Gospel [writer]s are often referred to as the evangelists, they were written primarily to provide a foundation for the faith of those who had already believed.

The professor goes on to contrast the needs of those early believers against the need of winning unbelievers to the faith. Is it me, or does this not imply that the only reason to get into "History" would be for the sake of soul-winning and apologetics?

As it so happens, certain DTS persons in Dan's comment thread suggested the BE department may be part of what gives the NT Department's graduates a bad name around Universities. Purportedly, the BE department doesn't "engage with the world of critical scholarship" (or something like that) - at least, not like the NT and OT departments do. From what I can tell, that seems to be very true. But I'm curious. In what ways are they similar?

IMHO, Dr. Pentecost's false dichotomy was presented with bald-faced, almost stunning clarity. The question is, do the scholars in DTS' NT department engage with the critical literature for the sake of pursuing truth and knowledge, or do they engage for the purpose of soul-winning and (partly defensive) apologetics? I've complained about Darrell Bock's approach before, stating that as far as I can tell, it's 'Do just enough work to defend, then go back to what preaches.' Blaugh. Blech. Excuse me again, Dr. Bock and company, but I keep waiting to be proven wrong.

I ain't got no problem with engagement. Or evangelism. Or even with preaching, necessarily.

I'm simply frustrated (an emotion Dan Wallace can surely relate to) that so many of Christendom's experts seem content to leave History in the hands of the World.

-------------------------

PS: Yes, I've read the book "Words and Works of Jesus Christ", by Dr. Pentecost. I have no comment on that at this time.

Did Paul's Rhetorical Skills Develop?

Completely aside from the question of how often Paul had a secretary (anamnuesis) and how that might have affected his written vocabulary, I've previously considered that letter writing is a developing skill (actually a very involved process) which one generally improves at over time, in various ways. I've also suggested that IF Galatians shows less 'polish' than Romans, then we should argue that probably shows less effort and thought went into 'publishing' the 'final draft' (regardless of which one came 'first').

J.K. Gayle posted some thoughts about Literary development more broadly, but today I'm specifically wondering about Rhetorical technique. I've been skeptical of Rhetorical Criticism in the past, until a friend at SBL encouraged me to give it more consideration. So here goes...

Assuming the Rhetorical Critics are right, it occurs to me that the 'wildness' of Galatians (being fitted into a standard Aristotelian outline) could arguably make Paul seem like *even more* of an amateur. In other words, the less disciplined composition of each 'section' might still reveal a less experienced writer. I'm not sure, but if Galatians fits more 'obviously' into Aristotle's format, doesn't that smack of an amateur? And wouldn't Paul most likely pick up more sophistication with Rhetoric after living in Greece, or during his extended association with Tyranus of Ephesus?

Obviously, my own thinking is somewhat circular (because I already have firm opinions on Pauline Chronology) but I'm suddenly dying to know what others might think about this. Maybe one of our Biblioblogging NT Rhetoricians (BW3 or BWG - the G is for Georgia) or someone else who's read more on Paul's Rhetoric than I have might be kind enough to stop by and answer these four questions:

1) Does the rhetorical(ly structured) view of Galatians necessarily prevent it from having been a one-draft effort?

2) Granting a classically rhetorical outline for Galatians, is there anything else about the composition that reveals a more or less experienced writer?

3) Have any rhetorical scholars noted clear signs of ongoing development in Paul's rhetorical style and/or abilities?

4) Has anyone ever attempted to rank Paul's letters in order of their rhetorical skill, with or without considering chronological issues?

I'm guessing no, maybe, maybe, and no/yes, but the true scoop is probably more complicated. As always, my interest is to work towards reconstructing the True Story, no matter how challenging or difficult it may be.

So hey, Brandon, you got your ears on?

Academic Link Love

Tyler Williams, when you see this, please pretend it's an e-mail. :-)

Bill Thayer noted the launch of an upgraded Online Bible at NewAdvent.org, where every chapter comes up in Greek, English and Latin (sorry, no Hebrew). Bill likes it so much, he's updating the links on his world famous Lacus Curtius website. *BSC Nominations*.

Brant Pitre shared some very worthwhile thoughts on the first several hundred pages of Craig Keener's new book, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Brant believes this book "could be one of the most consequential books published on the historical Jesus in over a decade". That makes it worth a lookey-see, dontcha think? *BSC Nomination*

Phillip Long reflected on some of Gorden Fee's thoughts about 1st Timothy: the "pastorals" are mis-named, Tim & Titus weren't "pastors" (how refreshing), and the letters are more 'reformational' than (from scratch) 'organizational'. Best bit, quoting Fee: "It seems hard to believe that such a wide variety of church structures and styles would all call upon these letters to validate their ecclesiology..." *BSC Nomination*

-------------

To all my readers: there's a lot more good stuff in my shared items, but those are three of the more academically oriented posts (from December so far) that might deserve to get into the Biblical Studies Carnival this month. While Tyler's deciding if this is a good idea or not, I say let's at least try it out.

-------------

To my fellow Bibliobloggers, my suggestion is that we may as well begin blogging BSC submissions publicly, like I just did. Just flag the term *BSC Nomination* or something like that, with a link to the upcoming host. You'll get a post out of it, your submitted links will get more attention, and the host can scan trackbacks to get the submission. Besides, this could also be more fun - and suspenseful, like a month long playoff. Will Tyler approve my submissions? I don't mind saying again, I think they're good. But will Tyler declare them "the best of the best of the best"?

Wait and see...

Cassandrian Wall in Vergina, Greece

From the Athens News Agency (H/T June Samaras): Before you start scratching your head, this matters because Cassander also founded Thessalonica, in 314 BC. As some of you know, Thessalonica also holds a special place in my heart. It's the first reason I started researching NT Background as heavily as I did.

Discussing the city Paul visited requires reconstruction, but whatever we can put together is a darn sight more helpful than viewing photos of the later Imperial ruins which Paul never saw - even though that's what most publishers generally run in their textbooks and general interest titles on Paul.

Actually, the walls Paul walked within were probably Cassandrian to some extent with Roman style repair work in large patches, most likely dating to after the civil wars. Anyway, here's the item:

An excavation by the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH) at the archaeological site of Vergina has uncovered an exceptional fortification structure surrounding the ancient Macedonian city.

According to a university announcement, the architectural elements of the enclosure indicate that it dates back to the reign of Cassander, in the early 3rd century B.C, a period when Macedonia was plagued by major turmoil, including civil wars and attacks from outside.

The findings are of remarkable importance because the wall is preserved in perfect condition and its height reaches 1.90cm.

By the way, if you've never seen my 2005 effort on Thessalonica in 51 AD, you might enjoy checking it out. One more thing I'll finish "someday". Maybe.

Structure: Design vs. Longevity

The primary task of physical architecture is stability. All buildings need to stay up. Unfortunately, the sheer weight and straining against one another of pieces within the construction increases the already inherent drive towards self-destruction. All buildings want to fall down. Such is Physics on Earth.

Effectively designed structures redirect these destructive forces and channel them into the ground. Gravity is satiated. Stability depends on redirection of conflict and stress. (That should start your wheels turning...)

The primary challenge for physical architecture is longevity. Design to one set of standards and the building can last for a century. Design with less rigor and the place is going to be vacant much sooner, but suitable for a while. A house made of stone can be lived in for thousands of years. A tent made of leather and poles isn't meant to stay in one spot for so long. Either could work. It depends what the resident wants.

As with physical architecture, so with group dynamics. The way a group structures itself largely determines how long it remains stable. Experts report that large, long-lived, heterogeneous groups eventually institute some kind of permanent order... or else they die. Therefore, the question all groups churches struggle with is - Which of these four options is less tragic: being small, being short-lived, depending on commonalities, or fighting against institutionalism?

We all have to consider these options. Size is relative. Time gets away from us. Differences are always a struggle. Organizations are not always as strong as they seem to be. But the least challenged factor may be the all present one: Time. A question presents itself, perhaps rarely asked:

Does group structure have to be permanentized?

By the way, this is much more important than HC vs. IC. Whether House Churches pack up when the wet season ends or whether Institutional Churches embrace dry spells and constantly pray for revival [or whether we find some other mix, or some middle ground] we might all want to consider that longevity is strictly a variable, and stability is rarely infinite.

Any group practice repeated two times has been "instituted", but should all helpful habits become everlasting? Should any institutions become permanent?

If we permanentize institutions, do we not make them greater than God?

The only permanency on this earth is not of this earth. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, but his Spirit blows where it will. Does it help much to pray for a "fresh move" if your group won't let the Mover do any actual moving? We humans covet stability. God likes to shake every thing that can be shaken. We humans need institutions, but we need God Himself oh so very much more.

In this fleeting life, change is a constant. What, then, in the Spirit? What then, for the church?

Liturgy is good. Structure is good. Leadership is good. Oversight is good. Change itself can be bad or good. But following Jesus (by definition) requires some change. Such is Physics on Earth.

Assuming God wants to move, God therefore wants to create change in position and time. Successful Renewal occurs when a people stays fixed on God in the present. Those who attempt to safeguard established institutions for all future time are aiming straight at a rut. Protecting the church from all change may as well be protecting the church from God Himself.

The fact that a Temple stands for a long time does not mean God is there. He does not live in houses maintained by human hands.

In all types of churches, it seems a desire to permanentize institutions is what ratchets up the negative side-effects of institutionalism. Meanwhile, social stability continues to depend on constant redirection of conflict and stress. It is possible to maintain a church structure that is never threatened by interpersonal traumas, but then where shall we direct our destructive energy? If God Himself cannot move in our church, how can God be the one to absorb all our drama? We might wind up maintaining stability but destroying the key pieces in our well crafted construction.

All church groups must learn how to balance dynamics and structure. Unstable people need some degree of stability and some degree of institutional longevity. In most cases, extremes are probably to be avoided. But God's own vision appears to be Unique.

All buildings need to stay up. All buildings want to fall down.

The house in the heavens that God showed to Moses could do both!

Consider these things...