Hebrew with Dr. Stuart

I have two classes with Dr. Douglas Stuart this semester -- Exegesis of Historical Books and Intermediate Hebrew. He is a phenomenal teacher and scholar, but he assigns massive loads of work. I'm spending almost half of the week just trying to finish his assignments. Also, I am just beginning to realize that translating Hebrew is probably 80% syntax and 20% morphology... meaning everything I learned in Hebrew 1 and 2 only gets me 20% of the way through translation, at least for the book of Micah, which is the hardest OT book to translate and which Stuart chose for us to decipher.

But lest you think I only have negative remarks, here's something awesome I learned from class last week. There is a phenomenon in Hebrew syntax called the repetition of endearment. When Hebrew repeats a name twice, it is a sign of emotion or intimate relationship. For example, 2 Samuel 19:1 says "בני בני" ("my son, my son" or "my dear son") when David is mourning for Absalom. Also 2 Kings 2:12.

Thus, when the NT authors used this same repetition with names, their Jewish listeners would have understood it to carry a meaning of emotion or endearment. When Jesus was dying on the cross, he called out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Those standing there and hearing it would have understood it to mean, "My beloved, dear Father..."

Dr. Stuart explained that you would only use this repetition of endearment with someone you are buddies with, someone with whom you have a close relationship. This becomes more significant when you consider how Jesus addresses Martha in Luke 10: "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things." To Western ears, hearing someone being called twice like that sounds somewhat condescending, but this would not have been how Martha heard it. Even more amazing is the context of Saul's conversion in Acts 9. When Jesus appears to him on the road to Damascus, he address Saul with, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" Jesus doesn't use a tone of condemnation but of endearment.

But the passage that, for me, opened up in a whole new light from understanding the use of the repetition of endearment was Matthew 7:21-23. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord', did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name? And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"

It's not enough to approach God on judgment day and simple say that you love him, even if you really mean it with all your emotions. There is only one way to the Father and it's through Jesus.

The Greeks

"Before the advent of Christianity, philosophy was needful to the Greeks for righteousness. Now it is useful to piety for those who attain faith through demonstration. Philosophy was a schoolmaster to the Greeks, as the law was to the Hebrews, preparing the way for those who are perfected by Christ." -Miscellanies, Clement of Alexandria.

In other words, philosophy paved the way for the Greeks to understand the gospel, because the gospel presented them with satisfying solutions to the questions they were asking in their philosophical discussions. Philosophy failed to provide an answer in the same way the law failed to provide salvation for the Hebrews. Both were catalysts for looking to the gospel for answers.

Sounds like Clement did some interesting work at Alexandria. He won over the young people of the educational centers of the classical world to Christianity by presenting the gospel as the ultimate answer. He started at a point of convergence with the current culture, taking what was good and useful from classical culture to point to theology. It never works to simply dismiss contemporary culture flat out. Rather than gaining an audience, it will only cause division from the outset. Clement's student, Origen, also recognized that in order to preserve Christianity, it couldn't simply appeal to the emotions but also to the intellect.

That's what I love about studying classical literature. You get to see how earnestly the Greeks were trying to figure out the big questions and problems of life. They give the best presentation of the human predicament in their literature and philosophy, but you can clearly see that there are no sensible, satisfying solutions. Antigone dies hoping the gods will be pleased since she forfeited her other way of escape. Orestes gets acquited for blood-guilt without any means of atonement. There is no hope of redemption, even for the repentant. Both Aeschylus and Sophocles conclude that you will never know a happy life until you come to the end of your life without misfortune. It is fascinating to read the classics with the perspective of one whose eyes have been opened to an all-satisfying solution. Clement and Origen were able to respond well with the gospel in that culture. But just because those questions came up in the 2nd century (or 5th cent. BC tragic poets) doesn't mean it's no longer applicable. The questions of the Greeks will essentially always be the same for those who are outside of the gospel because they ask the biggest philosophical questions that every human being will have to figure out for themselves: what happens in the afterlife, what is the purpose of suffering, who is God and how do we make peace with him, and what am I on earth for?

What a scary world.

"The more noise that we make, the easier it is to accept us." -David Silverman, president of American Atheists.

What a smart man. Isn't that how everything immoral gets accepted into current society? This new interfaith movement, gay marriage, bans on home education, just to name a few.

You just need to get enough people talking about it, get the media involved, and get the idea implanted into young people's heads so that they grow up with these concepts as the norm. Think of all the children who are growing up now thinking that gay marriage is just another aspect of everyday society.

Pretty soon, rhetoric, the skill of logical persuasion, will become obsolete and powerless in convincing an increasingly wishy-washy generation that blurs all the lines. It will be easy for anyone to brush off your argument as your own set of truth, because, after all, everyone has a little bit of truth so we're all right in our own way, right?

Dr. David Wells commented to me last semester how in our postmodern age, our strategy has to shift slightly toward appealing to pathos, real life experiences, and the question of suffering. That's what the new generation will listen to because there are no longer any standards to appeal to. I think Rob Bell recognized this shift when he wrote Love Wins. It's going to be a difficult battle because God is a God of truth. How do you teach truth to a blurry generation?

Even so, I refuse to abandon the teaching of logic and rhetoric as an ideal part of education. It may have taken a back seat in this generation, but it is still our responsibility to raise a new truth-seeking crop of folks to fix the mess we've left behind.

Creation Groans

I just read a very sobering column on CNN's Belief blog. A BU religion graduate observes that American Christianity has gone a long way from the days of the Puritans, when they would have interpreted the recent events of Hurricane Irene and the earthquake in Virginia as a sure sign of God's wrath on the world, and has now become "secularized" enough to think of it simply as a natural result of weather patterns and tectonic plate movement. Although I think his point that "secularization" has made us "better at predicting the course of hurricanes" is irrelevant and slightly illogical (weather prediction has become better as a result of scientific advancement, not secularization), his overall observation should still be alarming to God-fearing Christians.

Barring a number of theological errors in his column, it saddens me to read that even a non-believer can recognize this shift in Christianity. Have we really deviated so far from the example of the Puritans in their fear of God that even a non-believer can recognize how we have "tamed" our God and morphed him into a being our puny minds can better handle?

Stephen Prothero is right. Where at one time Christians would have stood in awe and trembling before the hurricane as a reminder of the holiness and sovereignty of God, the church now perceives the event through the eyes of meteorologists and news reporters -- a purely factual, spiritually insignificant event. Or at best, we have reduced it to an opportunity to comfort ourselves with the promise of God as our refuge in times of trouble.

What we fail to remember is that the Almighty Creator of the world is not satisfied with what he sees, that creation is not the way it should be. Disasters like these ought to wake the church up to the sobering reality that sin is the cause of all this destruction. The world does not simply need a weather forecast and efficient clean-up crews but a redeemer God to restore humanity and creation to the way it should be. And yet, we can worship in this catastrophe knowing that he has already provided that way of redemption and restoration through Jesus. So we eagerly await the day when God will return to restore the rest of creation anew.

I realize that this view of natural disaster is now highly unpopular. But how can I think otherwise?

The mountains quake before him; the hills melt;
the earth heaves before him, the world and all who dwell in it.

Who can stand before his indignation? Who can endure the heat of his anger? His wrath is poured out like fire, and the rocks are broken into pieces by him.

The Lord is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble;
he knows those who take refuge in him.

But with an overflowing flood
he will make a complete end of the adversaries,
and will pursue his enemies into darkness.

Nahum 1:5-8

Your voice it thunders
The ground is shaking
The mighty mountains now are trembling
Creation sees You
And starts composing
The fields and trees they start rejoicing.

-Michael Gungor

G.K Chesterton on the dislocation of humility

"A man was meant to be doubtful about himself but undoubting about the truth... we are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe the multiplication tables." -G.K. Chesteron

Alistair Begg quoted this in his sermon at Ocean Grove this past Sunday. It is a sad fact that we have arrived at the exact opposite of Chesterton's statement. Humility has nowadays evolved to doubting the truth but being sure about yourself. Begg says:

"We affirm.... religious tolerance, social tolerance, but that's where it stops, because the idea of intellectual tolerance, cultivating a mind so broad that it can tolerate every opinion without ever detecting anything in it to reject, is not actually a virtue. It's an indication of a simple mind."

He explains that the word "tolerance" has been redefined to mean acceptance of any opinion and belief as truth. However, what religious tolerance means is treating people who have differing religious beliefs with kindness, respect, and integrity, not accepting their beliefs as true. And social tolerance means treating others with the same kindness without accepting that their lifestyle choices are right or good. It's important to make that distinction otherwise our generation is slowly going to become a confused, wishy-washy lot of illogical people.

How refreshing to have Dr. Begg delineate that so clearly for us. It gives a new confidence in reaching people outside of my religious and social circles.

Best essay on the gospel by J.I. Packer

I am guilty of doing this:

"Preaching the gospel, he tells us, is not a matter of telling the congregation that God has set his love on each of them and Christ has died to save each of them, for these assertions, biblically understood, would imply that they will all infallibly be saved, and this cannot be known to be true. The knowledge of being the object of God's eternal love and Christ's redeeming death belongs to the individual's assurance, which in the nature of the case cannot precede faith's saving exercise; it is to be inferred from the fact that one has believed, not proposed as a reason why one should believe."

And here is John Owen's answer to the question, "How am I to go about believing on Christ and repenting if I have no natural ability to do these things?"

"...look to Christ, speak to Christ, cry to Christ, just as you are; confess your sin, your impenitence, your unbelief, and cast yourself on his mercy; ask him to give you a new heart, working in you true repentance and firm faith; ask him to take away your evil heart of unbelief and to write his law within you, that you may never henceforth stray from him. Turn to him and trust him as best you can, and pray for grace to turn and trust more thoroughly; use the means of grace expectantly, looking to Christ to draw near to you as you seek to draw near to him; watch, pray, and read and hear God's word, worship and commune with God's people, and so continue till you know in yourself beyond doubt that you are indeed a changed being, a penitent believer, and the new heart which you desired has been put within you... So do not postpone action till you think you are better, but honestly confess your badness and give yourself up here and now to the Christ who alone can make you better; and wait on him till his light rises in your soul, as scripture promises that it shall do. Anything less than this direct dealing with Christ is disobeying the gospel. Such is the exercise of spirit to which the old evangel summons its hearers. 'l believe - help thou mine unbelief': this must become their cry."

(J.I. Packer's Introduction to John Owens' The Death of Death in the Death of Christ)

Read the rest here!

Wish List

So after dreaming with Kathy today about music, I can't stop thinking about the gear I would buy if I had the money. Of course, the next best thing to buying gear is making a list of the gear I want. All that I've been taught about the "practice of discontentment" is going out the window.

Instruments:

Eric Clapton 000-28EC Signature Martin

Nord Stage EX 76

Gretsch G6119 Chet Atkins Hollowbody Electric

Korg microKORG

Software:

Apple Logic Studio

Synthogy Ivory Italian Grand

Okay, obviously this is just for starters. I haven't done enough research on the other stuff yet like guitar pedals, pad sounds, keyboard controller. It might be a better idea to just get a Nord Electro and another keyboard like a Yamaha or Korg Triton. All I really want in a keyboard is weighted keys, the ability to layer easily with sliding controllers, and ability to hook up to my Mac (assuming I have Logic studio, of course). The organ sounds would all come from the Nord so I won't have to look for that in the keyboard, and the piano sounds would come from the Synthogy patch. Ahhh dreams!! I am drooooling...

Nota bene: When God makes the new earth and new Jerusalem, I'm going to be a musician, not a professor.

For God [did not] SOOO love the world...

I am SERIOUSLY FEASTING here. The combination of Dr. McDonough's Exegesis of John class and Dr. Hafemann's Advanced Greek class today on John 3:14-18 have seriously opened a huge treasure mine on what is only the most famous verse of the Bible. Here’s a rough attempt to digest just a tidbit of what we discussed.

Introduction

The traditional interpretation of John 3:16 has always been, "For God so loved the world that He gave his only Son..." meaning that God loved the world SOOO much, to such a degree or extent, that he gave Jesus to die for us. Although this interpretation might make for great preaching or instill some warm, loving feelings in the congregation, it, fortunately, is not a correct interpretation of the text nor does it convey the depth of meaning found in this verse.

Finding the actual meaning of a word requires that one looks at three areas which can be thought of as 3 concentric circles. The largest would be the range of meanings as found in its lexical entry. The next would be the context in which it’s being used (referential meaning), and the innermost would be the way in which the author itself uses that word.

Lexical definition

The word used for “so” in the Greek is οὕτως, which can have three different meanings according to Liddel & Scott’s Greek lexicon. It can indicate 1. degree or extent 2. manner looking retrospectively 3. manner looking prospectively.

Context

John 3:16 can’t be properly understood without looking at its immediate context, John 3:14-18, where John talks about Moses lifting up the serpent in the desert so that all of Israel could look on it and be saved from the serpents. This is referring to Numbers 21. The Israelites were complaining in the desert so God cursed the people with serpents who bit and killed them, but when the people repented, God told Moses to put a bronze serpent on a pole (σημειον: a sign) and set it up so that when the Israelites looked at it, they would not die. The words καθως...ουτως “just as... thus” in vs. 14 set up the correlation between the story and Jesus’ sacrifice. In the same way that Moses lifted up the serpent, Jesus was lifted up on the cross. The word “lifted” here does not mean exaltation, but that Jesus, the Judge, who is supposed to condemn us to death, is put on the cross as a curse for us. The curse becomes cursed, just like how the curse of the serpents becomes the sign of salvation for the Israelites.

John’s use

So now we come to verse 16. In light of the preceding context, then, the ουτως is adding a second comparison (the first one came in vs. 14 with “ουτως υψωθηναι”) introduced by the καθως in vs. 14. The word ουτως is in correlation with ωστε. The key, then, to figuring out which of the three uses of ουτως John employs is to understand the use of ωστε. The word ωστε is used to show result. There are two kinds of result: actual result or automatic consequence (ωστε + indicative verb), and more often, hopeful result or automatic result (ωστε + infinitive). Here we have the rarer usage of ωστε + indicative showing an automatic consequence of a previous action. Since ωστε needs a reference to a previous action in order to bring about an actual result, we can conclude that ουτως is showing manner. In this way God loved the world... and so he gave his only Son”. But how do we know whether it is referring to what was previously mentioned or what is about to be mentioned? Lexically, out of the 21 uses of the word ουτως in John’s gospel, 20 of them are used to show manner retrospectively. More complicated evidence includes looking at the parallel thought and structure of the entire context, which I will save for my paper.


Conclusion

Thus, we get the translation, “For in this way God loved the world, and so he gave his only son...” In verse 15, there is a purpose clause (ινα) giving the reason for why the son of man must be lifted up: “in order that the one believing might have eternal life”. So how does one get to the point of believing? God has to lift Jesus up like Moses did the serpent. This is the essential point of the word ουτως.

Interestingly enough, we only have one English translation of the Bible in print that translates John 3:16 this way -- the Holman Christian Standard Bible. This Bible was commissioned by the Southern Baptists because they no longer wished to pay royalties to Zondervan for using the NIV. Since they only needed a translation for use within their own denomination and Sunday School curriculum, they did not need to worry about the number of sales. Thus, the translators were free to translate John 3:16 in a way that would reflect this meaning of the word. Think about it. If someone went to a Christian bookstore and picked up a Bible that didn’t say, “For God so loved...”, he’d probably conclude that the Bible was no good. Therefore, no translation would dare change the wording of the opening of that verse for fear that they would make no sales.

Additionally, there is an online resources called the Net Bible which contains an ongoing, open-source translation of the Bible with contributions and properly documented footnotes being made by scholars all over. http://net.bible.org/#!bible/John+3:13 This translation also reflects a more accurate meaning of the world “so”.

ὁ κοσμος - the world

Dr. McDonough pointed out in his exegesis class the connection between this verse and John 1. From the beginning of the chapter, John makes constant connections between Jesus’ creative and redemptive work. Since Jesus was there when he created the world, the world belongs to him. But it is now corrupt and fallen. He comes to redeem not just sinners but to restore all of creation to the way he created it to be.

When we read John 3:16, it’s easy to think, “Of course, God loves the world. He made it and he owns it.” But in John 1:10, John tells us that the world (ὁ κοσμος) was made through him, but the world did not know him. The κοσμος that does not know God is the same κοσμος that God loves in John 3:16. The view of the world in John 3:16 then, is not a positive view but a negative one. The world is not the way it was originally created to be and it even rejects its Creator. John 3:16 is all the more awesome in light of this view. God loved the fallen, God-rejecting, God-unrecognizing world that he made and owns.

There is so much more I could say about this loaded passage, but I’m gonna save it all for my exegesis paper. All the pain of learning Greek is nothing in comparison to what you gain from it. I cannot be more grateful for the scholar-servants God has granted me the privilege to study under.

That Clever Augustine

"semel et simul et semper velle omnia quae vult" -Confessions 12.15.18

Once for all, all at once, and always, He wills everything he wishes.