I made a decision years ago not to let bitterness consume me. Some days, it’s hard… really hard. Some days, it’s a challenge to remember the forgiveness He pours out on me, the forgiveness I’m expected to give others. But it’s the right way, the best way, the only way.  

I don’t remember the first time I heard the words “biblical theology.” I do, though, remember the first time hearing a professor trace a theme through the Scriptures and connect it to Christ and the church. I was mesmerized. I grew up in a dispensational environment, so it wasn’t natural for me to read the Bible as a whole, to read the Old Testament in view of Christ and his work. Perhaps this is why I’m so passionate about reading the two Testaments in concert. Biblical theology concerns the sweep of God’s plan of redemption from Genesis to Revelation. It studies the plotline of Scripture, taking inventory of its themes and watching how these themes intersect with one another eventually climaxing in Christ and the new creation. In the last three decades, there have been a plethora of books on biblical theology. But as much as I enjoy reading these books and listening to biblical-theological sermons, I don’t come across many resources that instruct the church on how to “do” biblical theology. Robust biblical theology is always wedded to Scripture, because biblical theology prevents artificial connections that can lead to odd or spurious theological conclusions. Good biblical theology is textual, always rooted in Scripture’s soil. A healthy way—perhaps the best way—to do biblical theology is to follow the lead of the apostles and examine how the apostles wed the Old Testament to their discourse. Once we discover these inner-biblical links, we can organically build on them. Let’s examine the well-known passage of Luke 2:32 as a case study for doing good biblical theology and discover four important principles. A healthy way—perhaps the best way—to do biblical theology is to follow the lead of the apostles and examine how the apostles wed the Old Testament to their discourse. 1. Look for Old Testament quotations and allusions. The apostles quote the Old Testament about 350 times and allude to it 3,000 to 4,000 times. With all these inner-biblical connections, we should be in the habit of reading the New Testament expectantly. When we consult the cross-references in the margins of our Bible, we discover that Luke 2:29–32 contains a battery of allusions to Isaiah: Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation [Isa. 40:5; 49:6; 52:10] that you have prepared [40:3] in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles [42:6; 49:6; 52:10], and for glory to your people Israel. Here in the hymn, known as the Nunc Dimittis, Simeon extols God and predicts that Jesus is the source of Israel’s “salvation” who will become “a light for revelation to the Gentiles” (Luke 2:32). For our purposes here, we’ll focus solely on Simeon’s allusion to Isaiah 49:6 (cf. 24:47). 2. Examine the Old Testament context. The second step is a tall task because we must consider the immediate and broad context of the Old Testament quotation or allusion. We must be patient and read through large chunks of Scripture. We discover Isaiah 49:6 is part of four “servant” songs in the book of Isaiah (42:1–9; 49:1–6; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12). The prophet predicts that, at the very end of history, God will redeem his people and the nations in a second exodus through the unique ministry of a servant. This individual, explicitly labeled “Israel” (49:3), suffers for the sake of God’s people. He becomes the catalyst for belief within Israel and the nations and leads them out of Babylonian exile. The individual servant then creates a community of little “servants,” a group of righteous Israelites and Gentiles (56:6; 63:17; 65:8–9, 13–15; 66:14). 3. Determine how the writer uses the Old Testament. This third step is critical yet often neglected. Once we’ve detected the Old Testament quotation or allusion and explored the Old Testament background, now we must take a step back and ask the million-dollar question: How is the apostle using the Old Testament? New Testament writers don’t interpret and apply the Old Testament the same way each time. Most contemporary readers assume the apostles only use the Old Testament along an axis of promise and fulfillment. While the apostles certainly read the entire sweep of the Old Testament as anticipating Christ (Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:39), they often use the Old Testament to undergird a moral principle or to make a simple analogy. One author suggests there are 12 different ways, often in combination with one another, in which the apostles read and apply the Old Testament. Twelve! Simeon alludes to Isaiah 49:6 to demonstrate that Isaiah’s prophecies of a second exodus and the new creation are coming to pass in the birth of Jesus. His life, death, and resurrection also establish a group of little “servants,” little “lights,” who shine brightly in the world. We already see hints of this phenomenon in Luke 2:29 when Simeon utters, “Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace.” Here Simeon tacitly acknowledges he’s a servant of the servant, a servant of the baby in his arms. 4. Relate these inner-biblical connections to Christ and his people. The fourth step is when we put all the pieces together—when we “do” biblical theology. Simeon’s allusion to Isaiah 49 sets us on a wonderful trajectory in carving out a biblical theology of servanthood. Are there precursors to the famous servant of Isaiah? Yes! The term “servant” is attached to prominent figures such as Abraham (Gen. 18:5), Jacob (32:4), Joseph (39:17), Moses (Ex. 4:10), Samuel (1 Sam. 3:10), and David (23:10). Servants serve, and God selects them for a unique and difficult purpose. These servants set the stage for the definitive, end-time servant who will serve in a way no one has ever served before. Jesus serves by bearing the sin and guilt of others. Like a good movie or novel that contains a surprising plot twist, the Bible’s story contains a host of exciting twists and turns, and good biblical theology pays attention to unexpected events. One of these plot twists is Christ’s identity as Isaiah’s servant (Mark 10:45). The Old Testament anticipates a clear progression from suffering to exaltation, but Jesus reigns while in the throes of suffering. The Old Testament anticipates a clear progression from suffering to exaltation, but Jesus reigns while in the throes of suffering. This gets at the heart of what John means that Jesus was “lifted up” (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34). He was physically lifted up on the cross, yet he was spiritually exalted or lifted up at the same time. The servant is king. Jesus fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecies and then passed these same prophecies to his disciples. Of course, they don’t suffer in precisely the same way or achieve atonement in their suffering, but they do carry on the ministry of Christ’s redemption. Jesus’s final words to the disciples end with a striking allusion to Isaiah 49:6: “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth [Isa. 49:6]” (Acts 1:8). Jesus commands his apostles to fulfill the same prophecy he inaugurated (see also Acts 13:47). They must be a “light” to a dark world and proclaim the gospel at all costs. We too, 2,000 years later, continue the servant’s mission when we share the good news of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection. Take heart, fellow servants, when we suffer, Christ is lifted up and his kingdom prevails.

The Story: Last week, Donald Trump announced a new proposal on IVF that would be a significant threat to both unborn life and religious liberty. The Background: In an interview with NBC News, former President Trump said his administration would not only protect access to in-vitro fertilization (IVF) but also would have either the government or insurance companies cover the cost for such treatments. “We are going to be, under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment,” Trump said. “We’re going to be mandating that the insurance company pay.” Asked by NBC News to clarify whether the government would pay for IVF services or whether insurance companies would do so, Trump reiterated that one option would be to have insurance companies pay “under a mandate, yes.” What It Means: Even in 2024, a year when political parties have abandoned long-held beliefs and policy radicalism has become the norm, Trump’s proposal is shocking. Had President Obama suggested that policy in 2010, it would’ve been denounced as too radical a left-wing shift. Even if we set aside the extraordinary cost to taxpayers (nearly $8 billion a year), Trump’s plan is to have the government subsidize the killing of hundreds of thousands of humans at the earliest stage of development. The willingness to support the destruction of children and force citizens to violate their consciences by paying for it shows that the GOP has quickly shifted from being a pro-choice party to being one that mirrors the anti-life policies of the Democrats. In many ways, Trump’s proposed IVF mandate is an even more far-reaching and anti-life version of a mandate issued by former president Obama. In 2010, as part of the universal health insurance reform (often referred to as “Obamacare”), all group health insurance plans were required to include coverage of sterilization, contraceptives, and abortifacient drugs. (“Abortifacient” refers to any drug or chemical preparation that induces abortion. The law requires coverage of ulipristal acetate, which is chemically similar to the abortion drug RU-486 (mifepristone) and has the same effect. In 2023, approximately 646,821 abortions—63 percent of all abortions—were the result of abortifacient drugs.) Two years after issuing the mandate, the Obama administration declared religious schools, colleges, hospitals, and charitable service organizations weren’t allowed an exemption from such coverage. Many organizations were forced to choose between covering drugs and services contrary to their religious beliefs and not offering health plans to their employees (which would incur substantial fines). The exemptions from the mandate were also extremely limited. As Becket Law noted, at the time, “Not even Jesus’ ministry would qualify for this exemption because He fed, healed, served, and taught non-Christians.” Because of the Supreme Court’s decision in Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, the contraception mandate no longer applies to nongovernmental employers who have sincere religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptives and related services. This exemption is broad, encompassing churches, nonprofit organizations, and for-profit companies of all sizes, including publicly traded corporations. Employers with sincere nonreligious, moral objections to such coverage are also exempt from the mandate, though it doesn’t extend to publicly traded companies. Presumably, Trump’s mandate would automatically include such exemptions for employers. But, like the abortifacient mandate, it’d still mean millions of pro-life Christians forced to subsidize the killing of innocent human life. A fundamental moral issue pro-life Christians have with IVF is the common practice of creating more embryos than will be implanted in a woman’s womb. Because the IVF process is expensive and intrusive, numerous eggs are often fertilized to increase the chances of a successful pregnancy. However, not all of these human embryos will be implanted. Many will be discarded, while others are frozen for future use or left indefinitely in storage. This raises a significant moral problem. Embryos that are not implanted can be thrown away or frozen (in a state of cryopreservation) with the intention of implantation. While some that are frozen will be implanted, the vast majority will be discarded when the parents stop paying the storage fees, which can typically run from $500 to $1,000 a year. A minuscule number are put up for adoption. From 2004 to 2019, there were 21,060 frozen donated embryo transfers in the United States, resulting in 8457 live births. This is out of the millions of embryos that have been abandoned, By subsidizing the process, the demand for IVF will increase and even more humans will be left to die at the embryonic stage of life. As Ronald Reagan once said, “Government does not solve problems. It subsidizes them.” That appears to be an approach taken by Trump. Despite once being hailed as the “most pro-life president,” Trump proposes using government power to increase the destruction of human life. Based on current estimates, the IVF industry already leads to more deaths of humans than abortion, with some calculations putting the figure somewhere between 600,000 to 900,000 more deaths annually. Unfortunately, no matter who wins the presidential election, Americans are likely to face a mandate to subsidize IVF. Having proposed the policy position, Trump has given cover for Vice President Harris to do the same. She can easily dismiss claims that this idea is too radically left-wing by pointing out it has already been embraced by so-called conservatives. Those of us who embrace the truly socially conservative position—which includes defending life from the moment of conception—cannot be silent about this advancement of injustice. We must speak out now and gird ourselves for the fight for life that’s coming next year. We must also be aware we’ll fight with fewer allies by our side. Since the fall of Roe, those committed to the pro-life cause have been steadily losing ground. We’ve seen our ranks shrink and the issue all but abandoned even by some national “pro-life” organizations. Both political parties have become officially “pro-choice,” and neither is likely to lose many votes because of it. Yet we’re in the same position today regarding IVF that evangelicals were on abortion in the early 1970s. For instance, before the 1970s, many Southern Baptists either took no position on abortion or accepted legal abortion under certain conditions. The same was true for many other Protestant groups. It was only after years of education by pro-life advocates that abortion’s true nature began to be recognized. Similarly, too many Christians—even those who oppose abortion—turn a blind eye to the destruction of unborn life outside the womb. We have encourage other Christians not to compromise on this cause. We have to be steadfast, even if we lose in the short term. And we have to do all we can to defend our unborn brothers and sisters because they cannot defend themselves. The fight for life in the age of IVF isn’t just about policy or politics—it’s about our fundamental values as a society. The choices we make today will echo through generations, shaping not only our laws but even our very understanding of human dignity and worth.

Two cremation burials of Vandal warriors have been unearthed at a previously-unknown archaeological site in the town of Glinka in southeastern Poland’s Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship. They contain the burned remains of iron weapons and armor. Based on the objects, the graves date to the late 3rd or 4th century A.D. The graves were discovered by accident during agricultural work in a field. The landowner stumbled on an iron sword, shield boss and spearhead and alerted the Provincial Office for the Protection of Monuments who dispatched archaeologists and a licensed metal detectorist to survey the site. The metal detector located a second group of iron weapons, and the excavation revealed a sword, shield boss, spearhead and a pair of scissors. Fragments of burned clay vessels and burned bones were also found. Traces of fire patina on all of the iron objects are evidence that the armaments were burned on a pyre with the clay pots and the body of the deceased. After the fire burned out, the remains placed in shallow pits. Both of the swords were deliberately bent before cremation, a ritual that “killed” the weapon, allowing the deceased to take it with him to the afterlife. The practice had the ancillary benefit of deterring looters who would desecrate the graves to steal the valuable swords. The cremation burials in pit graves and bent swords indicate the deceased belonged to the Iron Age Przeworsk culture identified with the Germanic Vandal people. They occupied a large parts of modern-day southern and central Poland, but only a few of their warrior graves have been found in the Sandomierska Highlands area, making these two burials particularly significant. Archaeological excavations are on hiatus now as crops have been sown on the field, but archaeologists will employ non-invasive methods like geophysical surveys to map the site in anticipation of a follow-up dig that they hope will reveal a whole Vandal cemetery from the Roman Imperial era. The objects recovered from the two pit graves are now undergoing conservation. Several museums have expressed interest in exhibiting them when conservation is complete, including the Historical and Archaeological Museum in Ostrowiec and the Castle Museum in Sandomierz.

Dick Cheney SURPRISE NEWS: Dick Cheney will be voting for Democrat Kamala Harris, according to his daughter Liz. Is anyone surprised the military-industrial complex is rallying behind the warhawk? Endless…

Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz “I am no longer a Democrat.” Lifelong Democrat Alan Dershowitz announces be has left the Democrat Party. pic.twitter.com/5q6B6A8Cuf — WorldNetDaily (@worldnetdaily)…

Sing As We Go: Britain Between the Wars, by Simon Heffer. Penguin Random House, London, 2023, 948 pp. Sing As We Go (the title of a popular film by Gracie Fields, one of England’s most popular stars…

An amateur historian—emphasis on “amateur”—made an assertion on a podcast that maybe Adolf Hitler wasn’t so bad after all, citing the Fuhrer’s stated desire for peace, and suggested that perhaps…

Donald Trump was listening intently as podcaster Lex Fridman pondered the “spiritual benefits” of psychedelic drugs. “I recently did ayahuasca,” admitted the ex-MIT researcher turned bigtime talker.…

Where would be the most ideal landing site for the Artemis III crew in SpaceX’s Human Landing System (HLS)? This is what a recent study submitted to Acta Astronautica hopes to address as an international team of scientists investigated plausible landing sites within the lunar south pole region, which comes after NASA selected 13 candidate landing regions in August 2022 and holds the potential to enable new methods in determining landing sites for future missions, as well. Here, Universe Today discusses this research with Dr. Juan Miguel Sánchez-Lozano from the Technical University of Cartagena and Dr. Eloy Peña-Asensio from the Politecnico di Milano regarding the motivation behind the study, significant findings, the reasons for determining the final landing site, location to Shackleton Crater, and if a lander smaller than HLS would have changed the outcome? Therefore, what was the motivation behind the study? Dr. Sánchez-Lozano tells Universe Today, “Our motivation was to contribute to the selection process for the Artemis III landing site by introducing methods that are well-established in other fields of study to the context of space exploration for the first time. Specifically, we identified that Geographic Information Systems combined with Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (GIS-MCDM) methodologies could provide significant value in evaluating and prioritizing the candidate landing sites. Therefore, we aimed to demonstrate the utility of these methods to NASA and apply them in practice by identifying and recommending the most suitable landing locations.” For the study, the researchers used these methods to analyze 1,247 locations within the 13 candidate landing regions near the lunar south pole previously identified by NASA to ascertain the most precise landing sites for HLS. They accomplished this by combining their GIS-MCDM methodologies with a Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) algorithm to analyze specific criteria: lunar surface visibility, line of sight for HLS astronauts, Permanently Shadows Regions (PSRs), sunlight exposure, direct communication with Earth, geological units, and abundance of mafic (volcanic rock high in iron or magnesium) materials. Therefore, what were the most significant findings from this study? Dr. Peña-Asensio tells Universe Today, “In addition to demonstrating the applicability of MCDM to these challenges, our analysis identified Site DM2 (Nobile Rim 2) as the optimal landing site based on criteria such as visibility, solar illumination, direct communication with Earth, geological diversity, and the presence of mafic materials. The best nine locations identified in our study are all situated within this region. Surprisingly, this site is not among the most favored regions within the scientific community.” Site DM2 is one of the furthest landing regions within the 13 candidate landing regions, located approximately 250 kilometers (150 miles) from Shackleton Crater, the latter of which has a portion located directly on the lunar south pole. The researchers identified the exact location of the optimal landing site being 84°12’5.61” S and 60°41’59.61” E, which is located near a PSR crater. The reason PSR craters are of exploration importance is due to the craters being so deep that no sunlight has reached their depths in possibly billions of years, potentially resulting in their potential housing of water ice deposits. Therefore, what were the specific reasons for selecting Site DM2 and what are some potential backup landing sites? Dr. Sánchez-Lozano tells Universe Today, “Site DM2 offers exceptional performance across several key criteria, including the highest percentage of solar illumination, optimal proportions of explorable ice-hosting areas, and extended communication windows with Earth. The strength of the decision-making methodology we employed, particularly the TOPSIS technique, lies in its compensatory nature. This approach allows criteria with merely acceptable values to be offset by others with excellent values, resulting in a comprehensive ranking of alternatives. Consequently, adjacent landing sites to the optimal location may also present highly viable options with a high degree of acceptability.” Regarding back sites, Dr. Peña-Asensio tells Universe Today, “As potential backup sites, we consider DM1 (Amundsen Rim) particularly compelling, as it offers locations with consistently high averages across all evaluated parameters. We also highlight Site 004, centered at the edge of the Shackleton Crater, which our analysis identifies as one of the best landing sites.” As noted, one of the primary criteria for determining the most optimal landing site is HLS, which will attempt to land the first humans on the lunar surface for the first time since Apollo 17 in 1972. However, the height of HLS is almost ten times greater than the Apollo lander at 50 meters (160 feet) and 5.5 meters (17.9 feet), respectively, which means landing a larger spacecraft carries its own benefits and challenges. For context, the original spacecraft design for Apollo called for landing a large spacecraft on the lunar surface known as direct ascent, which Wernher von Braun was initially in favor of using. However, the direct ascent technique was scrapped in favor of the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR) technique, which argued to be less risky due to a smaller spacecraft needing to land on the lunar surface. Therefore, if a smaller lander than HLS (i.e., Apollo-sized) was being used, how would this influence the landing site selection? Dr. Peña-Asensio tells Universe Today, “This would directly impact our results, as we considered criteria such as the lander’s solar illumination received for energy recharging, visibility from the lander windows to help astronaut extravehicular activities and to allow intravehicular science, and direct communication with Earth. A lower lander could intensify the challenges posed by local topography, obstructing sight lines and the sunlight. However, it might also offer increased stability for the lander (by reducing its center of mass height), potentially decreasing the terrain slope safety restrictions and thereby opening up new landing site options for exploration.”   As landing sites for the Artemis III mission continue to be debated, NASA is currently scheduled to launch Artemis II late next year with a four-person crew whose mission will be to orbit the Moon and return to the Earth like Apollo 8 in December 1968. Additionally, the commercial space industry is taking their own shots at landing near the lunar south pole with the upcoming IM-2 mission courtesy of Intuitive Machines, which earlier this year successfully landed the first American spacecraft on the Moon for the first time since 1972. This study demonstrates that a plethora of methods can be used to determine optimal landing sites for the Artemis missions and potentially other missions to other planetary bodies throughout the solar system, specifically the use of mapping and machine learning algorithms. Therefore, as we approach the Artemis III mission and the first human landing since Apollo 17, these methods will continue to evolve and improve to develop enhanced landing methods as humanity continues its journey into the cosmos. Dr. Sánchez-Lozano tells Universe Today, “This research demonstrates how methodologies from the field of engineering projects and the business world, such as multi-criteria decision-making techniques, can be applied to solve decision problems of interest to the international astronomical community, such as the proposed case study: the selection of the optimal landing site for the Artemis III mission.” Where will Artemis III ultimately land near the lunar south pole and how will landing site selection methods improve in the coming years and decades? Only time will tell, and this is why we science! As always, keep doing science & keep looking up! The post Artemis III Landing Sites Identified Using Mapping and Algorithm Techniques appeared first on Universe Today.