4 - 0 Last night I extended my incredible "Settlers of Catan" unbeaten streak. I must admit that I was very lucky this time. I had a settlement and a city on an ore hex with a "3." For you Catan players out there, you know that 3's don't get rolled much. I probably got it rolled 6 or 7 times after I built my city. :-)

Exegetical One Is Done

It is with extreme relief that I am now announcing that I have finished exegetical paper #1 on Romans 3:21-26. Feel free to ask me any questions about this passage, because boy-o-boy, I definitely qualify as an expert here now. :-) Actually, this was one of the more spiritually helpful papers I have done. The profound theological truths of redemption and reconciliation to God in the face of my utter failure as a person through Jesus was really a beautiful thing to meditate on for a couple of days...

... but please don't ask me to do it again for a while!

In the spirit of my last few posts, (grin) there's a section in here where the KJV uses a text that's almost certainly not original. (v. 22 - "in all who believe" v. KJV "unto all and upon all who believe") The textual variants give strong support for a non-KJV reading here. The earliest and a diverse geographical spread of copies translate it "in all", the Vulgate mistranslates this "upon all", and the Majority Text (Byzantine Text upon which the KJV is based) translates this "unto all and upon all." Almost certainly the MT is a conflation of these two seperate traditions.

Of course, the meaning is identical, either way. One just has a "double" emphasis! That being said, I'm really just glad I'm done with that paper. Only one more exegetical (Rom 12:3-8), and a sanctification paper to go!

A New Variant on John 3:16 Just Found

I just printed out 3,000,000,000 copies of John 3:16. It was a bit expensive but hey... Anyway I added a little bit to it. It now reads, "for God the Father so loved the world that he sent his only son, Jesus Christ, that whoever believes in Him, through the power of the Holy Spirit, will not perish but have eternal life with the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

Now, someone might argue that these words weren't in the Bible originally, but I'm actually upset with them. First of all, they are trying to take out references to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Clearly these people wish to deny the trinity and the identification of Jesus as the son of God. Furthermore, they are removing words from the Bible. God said that he would preserve his word. Who are they to question what is written as the Word of God? Is God not their final authority? Finally, they are more manuscripts of my variant(related to the Alexandrian - but actually the Dallas tradition) than there are of other variants. Since mine has the most copies, clearly it is what God desired to be preserved in the Scriptures.

If one might disagree with me, then they must disagree on other grounds. Because clearly my text is attested more times, is more spiritual, and does not remove words. "But you just now added those words. I know they weren't original." I ask, "How did you know that those weren't original?" They respond, "Because last year all those additions you made didn't exist." And they are right.

The right question is not which has more copies, or which has more references to God, or which removes words from the Bible. The right question is which one is original. Clearly mine is not. But this was solved by asking different questions than KJVers typically ask.

Fundamentalist Perspective

I've been reading several threads over on Chris's site where he and some of his friends have been debating with a couple of fundamentalists on KJV onlyism. What really surprises me is the blindness of these fundamentalists to any of the arguments being presented. It simply doesn't register to them that their arguments don't have a good logical foundation at all. They usually resort to asking "where is that found in the Bible" as if there are passages in the bible that speak to any issue that can be raised. (I've been tempted to ask them if they've found the bible passage for using the bathroom or turning on the air conditoner. Because a good case can be made that those things are NOT in the bible and thus shouldn't be practiced by their logic.) For a rousing good time, here's the link to one of these guy's sites.

The question I have isn't where they are wrong, because the logic used by this guy especially is just terrible. The question I have is how they can use such logic and yet feel so confident in their belief. The best thing I can come up with is that the feeling of concrete assurance which they find in holding to one "inspired" translation coupled with the feeling of being a part of the "righteous few" make this view attractive in our amoral and complex society today.

Romans Classtime Done

Well, my Romans class is now complete. I only have 3 more papers to do to have this one wrapped up.

In other good news, I found out today that I had made it off the waiting list into the "Topical Preaching" class at DTS for this fall. Who would have thought they'd have a class like that?

The Weaker Brother

We just went over Romans 14 in class. The challenge for us there is a great one that all "rules-driven" and "freedom-driven" Christians need to keep in mind. Honestly, I'm more of the latter. I'm certainly not legalistic. Romans 14 challenges me to be careful, though. Issues that aren't addressed by the bible as moral or immoral (food sacrificed to idols, dancing, tobacco, drinking, going to R-rated moves, etc.) are issues that some people don't feel free in their consciences to engage in.

Obviously these are complex issues at times. Tobacco in enough quantities causes cancer. But what about the occasional cigar? Some Christians feel that this is wrong for them to participate in. This passage challenges them to not judge their fellow brothers. I don't have a problem with the occasional cigar. But this passage challenges me to not look down on those who do have a problem. It also challenges me to be careful how I practice my freedom. If I were to be around a fellow believer who did have a problem with any smoking at all and my smoking encouraged him to do what he felt was wrong in his heart, then I would be hurting him and should refrain.

The tough thing for me is I tend to have some manner of contempt for those who have a "rules-driven" mindset. "Grow up!" is my mentality at times. Romans 14 is a great challenge for me to watch myself here and to love my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of their where they are on these issues.

New Perspective

My first exegetical paper is Romans 3:21-26. It starts "But now, apart from the law, a righteousness has been revealed..." In reading the commentaries, I've discovered that one key question is what it is exactly that the "law" refers to. It clearly goes back to v. 20 which references the "works of the law" but again the question is what that is. Many say that this refers to the inability of Israel (or anyone for that matter) to keep the Mosaic law (e.g. Cranfield says this). However the "new perspective" argues that Paul is making a straw man argument here if that is the case because Jews didn't see obedience to the law as salvific anyway. They simply believed that membership as part of God's people saved them. Hence, they argue that Paul must only be adressing aspects of the law here such as circumcision which they are failing to keep rather than the entirity of the Mosaic law.

I have to confess, the whole "new perspective" distinction and significance is still kinda fuzzy for me. Anyone have any clarifying insights or thoughts on this passage?

Relief

After my semester of "suicide" Hebrew ended over two weeks ago I haven't looked at a Hebrew letter since. However, today the overwhelming fear that I had already forgotton all my paradigms and vocabulary overtook me so I snatched up my trusty Biblia Hebraica. Much to my relief I was able to easily read the first few verses of Jonah. My vocabulary is still mostly there. (Of course at this point you could probably argue memorization.) Unfortunately I believe that my knowledge of the good 'ol paradigms are evaporating rather quickly. Qal stem? What's that?

Romans

Sorry for the lack of posts this last week. I'm in the middle of my summer session on Romans and really enjoying the class - but haven't had time for much else. I mentioned earlier that my Greek translation took quite a bit of time to do. I am happy to report that I am translating much faster now that I have brushed off a bit of the rust. It's great seeing Paul's argument unfold in the original language. We're up through ch. 7 now.

On another note I'd like to point out to all you faithful Mac-devoted readers that I am not "anti-Mac." I don't see myself getting one anytime soon because my current computer is doing alright and because I don't want to have to purchase new software. But apart from that, if I had money to invest right now I'd be real tempted to buy Apple stock because it seems that all my seminary classmates and everyone else are buying Macs. It'll be interesting to see how well Apple does overall (iPod's aside!) in the next few years. Their current run of well-designed products in eye-catching packaging with reasonable pricing is very impressive. But I'm still not buying a Mac anytime soon. :-)

iPod v. Cellphone

I saw an interesting news story today on CNN:

FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Microsoft founder Bill Gates sees mobile phones overtaking
MP3s as the top choice of portable music players, and views the raging
popularity of Apple's iPod player as unsustainable, he told a German newspaper.
"As good as Apple may be, I don't believe the success of the iPod is
sustainable in the long run," he said in an interview published in Thursday's
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
"You can make parallels with computers:
Apple was very strong in this field before, with its Macintosh and its graphics
user interface -- like the iPod today -- and then lost its position," Gates
said.

You can check out the rest of the article HERE. Knowing the rabid Mac readers of this blog I thought I'd ask your opinion just to rile you up. Obviously, it's difficult to imagine the iPod doing any better than it is right now. But can it hold more or less on to the market down the road? Say 5 years? I think I agree with Gates. The iPod is a swell piece of equipment right now, but long term I question how well it will do. It sure seems to me that the iPod has to seriously evolve soon or it will inevitably lose ground via competition and the integration of technology. At some point too, I wonder if you get a backlash against it simply because it was cool and edgy and trendy, but has started to become very commonplace.

Romans 1 & 2

Boy, these first two chapters of Romans are great. As a church, we so need to hear the point being driven home in this passage. It's just great the way chapter one sets up the moralistic person. It paints the picture of unrighteousness using homosexuality and idolatry as illustrations and then just runs through this vice list. These people are clearly very wicked and are guilty and should be condemned. It's "they/them" all the way through the chapter. But then in 2:1 it just turns on the moralistic reader. "But you are without excuse, you who judge, for when you judge the other, you yourselves are judged guilty." It goes on and points out that all are without excuse. It doesn't matter who you are or what group you belong to (i.e. Jew), you are still guilty.

Ouch. Now that's a message we really need to hear as a church. We're so quick to condemn the sins of others but so slow to realize that all of us are in the same boat apart from Christ.

One More Year

Today is graduation at DTS. Several of my friends will be walking up front and receiving their diplomas. It's exciting because one year from now, barring death or other extraordinary circumstances, I'll be graduating myself. I can't wait to apply regularly what I've learned in the classroom in real life situations.

On another note, this was a good semester for me. The level of work was about right overall and so I didn't have to cut corners on any of my classes. I was really able to do all my classes well and not have a massive amount of work at the end to swamp me.

My first summer class - Romans - starts next week. I'm looking forward to it, but am a bit nervous about translating the ENTIRE BOOK TWICE. I'm just not that fast of a translator. Working hard, it usually takes me 10-15 minutes to translate a verse well and there are a BUNCH of verses in Romans. Of course, the second translation should be much easier than the first, but it's still time consuming. Then of course, there are the three papers in three weeks...

Jonah in Hebrew

Dan made fun of my admittedly lame post yesterday so I've spent hours contemplating this one...

I finished my last final yesterday morning and I think being done with that has suddenly freed up my mind because I have a host of things I want to blog about now.

• How cool Jonah is in Hebrew.
• What does "husband of one wife" mean in regard to qualifications for eldership? (Thanks, Dan!)
• Why Macs are for losers (haha. Just kidding, Brian, Dan, Matt, Dad, and everyone else who has one - just thought I'd completely alienate myself in one sentence.)
• Something else that I was thinking was really interesting yesterday but has now completely slipped my mind.

I'll start with Jonah for today. I just finished my Hebrew class and we translated Jonah and discussed it for the last couple of weeks. I really enjoyed this a lot and was amazed at how much I got from the actual Hebrew text.

Now most of you guys know that I'm not big into languages. I'm not against the original Greek/Hebrew at all, but I think they need to be approached with caution. I think guys who study languages tend to elevate the benefit of the original language a bit too high. You could easily get the sense that you're missing most of the good stuff about a passage if you don't know the original language. I strongly disagree with this and even think that a pastor should avoid references to the original language from the pulpit unless absolutely necessary to make his point.

HOWEVER, in Jonah I was blown away by how much was there in the Hebrew that just couldn't come out in English. The main point is not lost in translation, but many of the literary features that emphasized the main point were. There's Jonah praying twice (a word used elsewhere almost exclusively for "interceding for someone else") for himself. There's the wordplay on "ra-ah" which can mean evil / calamity / distress. The people of Ninevah did "ra-ah" and so God was going to send "ra-ah" upon the city. Then Ninevah repents of their "ra-ah" and God relents from sending "ra-ah" on the city. But then in the next verse we find that Jonah now has the "ra-ah" as he is greatly distessed (ra-ah). The "ra-ah" went from the Ninevites to Jonah. Then God sends a worm to "smite" the little plant that had grown over Jonah. Iterestingly, this word is typically used in contexts of an army "beseiging" a city. Instead of Ninevah being beseiged, the plant is beseiged and then Jonah is beseiged by the sun. Then of course there's the end where the point is driven home as God contrasts Jonah's great concern for the little plant with God's great concern for the large city of Ninevah.

Anyway, I really enjoyed Jonah. In fact, despite my convictions on using languages from the pulpit, I think it would be hard for me to teach Jonah without referring to these really interesting literary aspects of the book that don't easily come out in English.

Blogging Brain-block

I think I've kind of mentally shut down these last few weeks. Normally I'd just say it's the result of finals but this semester most of my stuff was due earlier so these last few weeks have been relatively easy. So why the blogging block? It might be a brain tumor, but I expect it's something else. Perhaps it's Roy's morphing gravatar or maybe it's gearing up for Romans next week. Whatever the reason, I apologize to the hundreds of faithful readers out there for my lack of substantial blogging. Hopefully I'll be pulling oodles of great stuff from Romans to share with you.