One Monk's Journey Through Faith

This blog has moved!

2010-12-22T01:28:00.000-06:00

That's right, folks. You've been waiting long enough. I finally decided to open shop on Wordpress.

I've actually had http://garysimmons.wordpress.com/ registered for a while, but I never bothered to move. You know, what with packing and all and pushing my way through cyberspace.

Merry Christmas!

Studybible.info

2010-12-18T19:19:00.000-06:00

Is an interesting reference site. Check it out here. They've got several translations to use, mainly of the more ancient word-for-word variety. At present, I am unsure how much of this is because of a conservative mindset on what makes a good translation, and how much is based on the fact that those things are public domain.

In addition to that, you'll find the Greek text of the LXX, older critical editions (again: public domain) such as the Wescott-Hort text, and even the brand-new SBL Greek New Testament! There's Greek and Hebrew interlinears, if you're into using Greek/Hebrew with training wheels. Strong's Concordance (again: public domain) is also accessible. There's also versions in Latin and other languages.

I find the question and answer section interesting. I might participate in that.

I'm also interested in the contest to get a free hardcover 1611 KJV -- 400th anniversary edition. The contest ends tonight at midnight, and this blog post is my entry. Yay!

To Stop Atrocities in Africa

2010-11-21T17:27:00.002-06:00

The Lord's Resistance Army has terrorized three countries in Africa for 25 years now. They've raided whole villages at times. This involves killing or raping the adults while abducting the children. Boys become soldiers while girls become sex slaves, or if there's a shortage of boys, they become soldiers too. So far the number of abducted, not including those killed, is 66,000 children.

If you've seen LOST, then the flashbacks of Mr. Ecko's past are somewhat reminiscent of the LRA's atrocities. They seek only to devour whatever they can and cause suffering. Their very name comes from the claim that the Holy Spirit has inspired their actions.

In March, there was a bill in congress called the LRA Disarmament and Recovery Act. There was one senator who placed a hold on the bill, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. In response to this, many of my friends slept outside his office and many from around the country came to the "Holdout" as it was called. Although I couldn't be there in person I sent my encouragement and prayers. If you want an on-the-ground diary of the event, my friend Jessica wrote of her experiences over the course of a few days.

Eventually the hold was lifted and the bill went through. The President was tasked with coming up with a strategy for disarming the LRA and also helping Uganda to recover from this devastation. On May 24th, President Obama promised to come with a strategy by signing this bill into law.

Please sign the pledge to remind Obama of his promise to carry out this bill. We're shooting for ten thousand signatures and this link has been on my FB news feed pretty much non-stop for six weeks now.

Please sign the pledge and keep this issue in prayer. This is why government officials have the sword: to punish wrongdoing and promote welfare. The strategy includes economic, humanitarian, military, and diplomatic elements designed to stop the LRA, cut off their influence, and rehabilitate former and current child soldiers. We have a suggested blueprint for the strategy here.

Thank you for reading this. Please sign and pray. It's time for Obama to unveil his strategy. The due date was my birthday, September 20th, and he's yet to release his strategy. No doubt the oil spill and what-not threw him off, but it's still time to do this.

The Gender Language Debate in Biblical Translation: A Plea for Reasonableness

2010-11-13T21:23:00.001-06:00

Recently, Zondervan released the text of the updated NIV on Biblegateway. If you don't keep up with the politics of Bible translation, then I'll fill you in on what you've missed the past ten or so years. The Committee on Bible Translation for the original NIV released a gender-inclusive version in the UK, but since it was copyrighted by name in the UK, the US release was renamed the TNIV. The TNIV updated scholarship and fixed some things that made the English simply better styled English. However, the idea of using gender-inclusive language in a Bible was something of a minefield.

For the most part, Evangelical churches were not very thrilled with it, though some mainline churches adopted it. Honestly, though, most mainline churches prefer the NRSV (as would I). In fact, some conservative pastors got together and marketed a Bible that was specifically anti-TNIV: the ESV. I received the ESV the same way John received the scroll in Revelation 10. It was good at first, but now that I really sit back and digest it, I'm none too thrilled. The ESV is essentially the same as the REB of the 1930s with just a few touch-ups here and there. It's really nothing extraordinary, in that respect.

So, now the Committee on Bible Translation for the NIV has released an updated NIV, which they call the NIV2011. The confusing part is that it's copyrighted to 2010 since they've released it electronically. They intend to release it in print next year, since next year is the 400th anniversary of the KJV. This new NIV retains very much from the TNIV, but they did something very interesting in determining how to approach gender issues in language.

You see, they actually did a statistical search of English usage from a very WIDE body of contemporary literature among English speakers all across the globe, including nonnative speakers. In doing so, they found that the singular use of "they" is rather common and acceptable, yet in some cases "man" and "mankind" can be used generically. So, the new NIV is a slight compromise by toning down on the "human beings" and "mortals" for what used to be translated as "man" and "mankind."

Forgive me for oversimplifying, but I'm going to pretend the only two types of people are those who support singular they and those who don't. To those of you who don't support it, let me ask you this: what concern might lead someone to want to clearly spell out "brothers and sisters" or to use "they" as a singular?

The reason is clarity. Specifically, they [plural] don't want to give the false impression that God only ever addresses men. Any biblical scholar worth his [this generic masculine was written unconsciously] salt knows that when Paul uses adelphoi he refers not just to brothers but to sisters also (most of the time, anyway). But not everyone is a biblical scholar. What about the first-time reader? First impressions are important, and if the first impression people get is that women are excluded from anything of substance, that's definitely gonna turn them off to the Gospel. Clarity reduces the number of possible interpretations you could give a passage, with the specific purpose of reducing someone's chances of an erroneous interpretation. To some people's ears, it can be just downright frustrating to hear someone in the Bible always speak as if the major movers and shakers of the world were predominately male.

One translation gaffe this clears up is the ESV's wording of Philippians 2.29: "So receive [Epaphroditus] in the Lord with all joy, and honor such men." (Thanks Sue for pointing this out.) There is no particular reason for them to use men here. My translation is: "So receive him in the Lord joyfully, and honor those like him." There's no reason logically to consider this male-only, and there is no word "men" here in Greek. The problem is that we can't just say "honor such as him" in English today. If we use "such," we have to supply some noun there. The NIV uses "people," but I still like my own translation better, to be honest. It gets across the comparative aspect better.

Now, I ask: what reason might there be to prefer the use of generic "he" constructions in English?

Well, the summary word for this side of the debate is concordance. If the entire Bible is rendered fairly consistently in gender constructions, then that helps experienced readers see the connection between different verses or passages of Scripture. Keeping the original form of the wording can allow a reader to see multiple interpretations for a passage. It's one thing to take Psalm 1 and say "blessed is the one who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked," as the new NIV does. However, since we Christians don't conventionally use "the one" with reference to Jesus, this closes the door on any Jesus-centered interpretation of the text. Even if the immediate context is referring to a man generically and not Jesus, it's a poor idea to close the door to Christological interpretations. We should be able to see Jesus on every page of the Bible, not just in the red letters.

The TNIV lost serious points on Psalm 8:4 by saying "What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?" and then rendering Hebrews 2's quote of Psalm 8 quite differently. The updated NIV is only marginally better. The fact is, there's no way to read this and see how the Hebrews author came up with a Jesus-centered interpretation unless you look at the footnotes. Or if you read the ESV, then both Psalm 8:4 and Hebrews 2:6-8 make sense together. The ESV there has another issue, but that's unrelated to this.

What're the main differences between these two approaches?

One approach restricts options to avoid obvious misconceptions, but in the process loses some coherence. Not just coherence between how the NT uses the OT, but coherence with the tradition of English Bible translation and with how interpreters through the centuries have read things with a Jesus-centered interpretation. The masculinist approach seeks to remain faithful to how open the Bible is to several interpretations [technical term: polyvalence]. Nobody on either side (I hope) wants to make people think women don't matter. Nobody on either side (hopefully) wants to cut down your ability to read the OT with Christ's fulfillment in mind and/or see how the NT uses the OT.

Gender-neutral translations seem geared more toward beginner readers whereas the masculinist translations are more geared toward advanced readers, as found in this nice chart. The reason for this is simple: Bibles that are concerned more with clarity will of course drift toward avoiding masculinist language, lest they give the impression that the Bible means only men when it sometimes/often means both men and women. Likewise, translations on a higher reading level will expect you to struggle with not having everything spelled out for you.

So, what's the answer?

Uh, answer to what? Which should you choose? Choose whichever you feel comfortable with, but I would suggest keeping a few different translations with you of both types. Personally, I favor the NRSV, NET, ESV, and some form of the NIV -- not sure which yet. I've heard wonderful things about the Holman Christian Standard Bible, and as far as paraphrases go, God's Word is excellent.

What we need to do is increase general literacy and most especially Biblical literacy. If we did that well enough that people could be equally able to use translations of either gender approach, then the disadvantage of each side would cancel out while retaining the advantage. That is, you could read your KJV for concordance with the history of English tradition and Bible usage but also use your NRSV for understanding what is intended to address both genders.

Of course, it's not completely that simple. There are texts involving gender roles in which using gender-inclusive terms would be highly debatable. That causes problems. There's no easy answer to clearing that up for everybody. Unfortunately, people may just end up picking and choosing solely based off hearing 1 Timothy 2 rendered the way they'd want to hear it. People on both sides are guilty of that. So, unfortunately, my plea might go unheeded. Short of teaching everyone Greek and Hebrew, I don't know an answer other than just telling everyone to interpret it how I say it should be interpreted. :)

Quote of the Day

2010-10-17T15:45:00.002-05:00

‎"People often say that motivation doesn't last. Well, neither does bathing - that's why we recommend it daily." - Zig Ziglar

HT: Jessica Walizer on Facebook

Philippians 1:1-2:11 read aloud

2010-10-07T20:32:00.002-05:00

I don't really have much time to run a blog lately. Consider this a late notice that I'm on hiatus! Enjoy the video, though.

Salvation history as explained to robots: Genesis to the end of Matthew

2010-09-03T00:42:00.000-05:00

Christ set aside his divine nature to live among us. He came and died for us when we had gone astray like sheep. There is no way to fully convey how overwhelming this is. But this parable is the closest analogy I can make.

There was once an engineer known as the General Operations Designer, or "GOD" for short. He made robots and lived in the North Pole. As a human, he is obviously far more advanced than robots. Whereas they can only do simple things, he could actually be in three places at once. He was at once the Programmer, the Designer, and the Broadcaster of instructions. So, GOD made several simple robots, and then worked on the blueprint of his masterpiece. He fine-tuned the programming and saw that it is good, and so he started production on the HU-MAN series of robots.

They worked well, and he saw that it was very good. These robots were made to run indefinitely – which is good, since he wanted them to spread out and maintain the entire earth. Sure, the batteries needed recharging, but the batteries would never need replacing. The programming allowed the robots to do everything they were supposed to, and the Designer occasionally broadcasted updates that would allow them to perform new tasks, or do old ones better.

But one day, something went wrong: one of the robots tripped over a chord it did not see, and got damaged. Somehow, it became infected with a virus, and the virus spread to other robots. They began to act disorderly and go against their original purpose. You see, the virus fooled the robots into thinking they were receiving updates when they actually weren't. Sometimes, these fake updates would make the robots shut down to "install" them, but there was nothing new to install. They stayed shut down, and would never restart.

Now, the Designer was very fond of HU-MANs and refused to destroy them all and start over. So, he continued sending updates with the new orders that he wanted them to carry out. But the robots just weren't working properly. They were receiving mixed signals and conflicting orders, because they couldn't tell which updates were real and which ones were not.

And so, the situation called for more drastic measures. Fortunately, the Designer noticed one particular model, designated N0AH, who seemed to be able to know which updates are real and which ones are not. N0AH properly carried out the Designer's orders. And so, the Designer decided to wipe out all the current models except for N0AH, seven of the ones N0AH worked with, and a handful of all the lesser robots.

Even N0AH eventually took false updates and he shut down. The continuing generations of robots kept getting worse. They spread out over the whole earth and they produced at a faster rate, just as the Designer had wanted. Unfortunately, the virus contaminated the robots so completely now that they could not even receive updates from the Designer at all. They also began to shut down more quickly than before N0AH's time.

Since near-complete destruction didn't work, and complete destruction is an option the Designer refused to entertain, he did his best to maintain the HU-MAN series despite their system failure. But deep down, he wanted to completely fix them. So, he created the perfect anti-virus software, the T0RAH. In theory, it would eradicate the virus. But since the robots had come to take updates from the virus rather than the true updates that the Designer was broadcasting, he decided to upload this software manually – something he hadn't done in a very long time. Besides, this was a beta version, so he had to start with only a small group. The Designer picked one factory line and found one model he liked right off the assembly: M08E8. He then manually uploaded the beta version of the T0RAH into M08E8.

The Designer thought that all would be well. The T0RAH was successfully downloaded by M08E8 and transmitted from him to others produced in the same factory. But there was still a problem: the software did not install properly because the coding was too complicated and was foreign to the coding of the original HU-MAN blueprint. It could detect the virus in the robots, but not eliminate it. That was the part that continually needed reinstallation. And then, of course, there were the other factories who didn't even get to try this beta version of the software yet. A few models from other factories came in contact with someone who broadcasted the T0RAH, but the effect was the same.

The Designer was not satisfied. He was furious with the virus, and with his creations for ignoring the updates he directly broadcasted. He continued manually appearing to a few robots and sending them instructions, but the others would not listen for very long. Eventually the virus would again wipe most of their memories away. Yet one thing the Designer said was that he would make a new version of the T0RAH with less complicated coding and would interact better with the original HU-MAN systems.

In order to fulfill that promise, GOD came up with a plan. He would create one HU-MAN who would be able to open the T0RAH files, install them, and update them. Since no robot could do this, GOD would have to take on their nature and become a robot himself. He would be subject to recharging, parts malfunctions, and even oil leakage. How demeaning!

Nonetheless, he made some very, very complicated plans to transform into a HU-MAN. GOD went to the same factory where he found N0AH and M08E8, and there he picked one model whose number was 1E8U8. He was exactly like all the other HU-MAN models in every way, parts coming from the same assembly line as the rest of them. The key difference is that GOD merged his consciousness with the programming of the CPU.

If everything went according to plan (which so far, it hadn't!), GOD would intercept the virus signal and analyze it while manually updating the T0RAH software. So GOD (the Programmer) took on robotic nature and became 1E8U8. And yet, GOD still maintained his consciousness apart from 1E8U8 and lived as both the Designer and the Broadcaster.

1E8U8 managed to update the T0RAH and broadcast it, but many other robots refused to receive the signal. And so, as GOD had anticipated, they shut him down. But unlike all the other robots, 1E8U8 managed to... managed to... reboot.

1E8U8 then became the Prototype for a new HU-MAN series which has the T0RAH properly installed. He passed on the modified T0RAH to twelve robots who sought to preserve and pass down the T0RAH for the rest of us.

God is our Refuge and Strength

2010-08-18T11:40:00.002-05:00

I've decided that I'm going to eventually make the move to Wordpress.

Two things led me not to do this before:
1. I liked the ads program that was supposed to generate a little money (google owes me $2.50 for that, btw)
2. I wanted to import all of my blogspot posts. I'm no longer sure if I want to do that.

When/if I make the big leap, I'll make sure to let you guys know.

In the meantime, let's talk about Psalm 46. Here's the NIV text.

1 God is our refuge and strength,
an ever-present help in trouble.

2 Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way
and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea,

3 though its waters roar and foam
and the mountains quake with their surging.
Selah

4 There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,
the holy place where the Most High dwells.

5 God is within her, she will not fall;
God will help her at break of day.

6 Nations are in uproar, kingdoms fall;
he lifts his voice, the earth melts.

7 The LORD Almighty is with us;
the God of Jacob is our fortress.
Selah

8 Come and see the works of the LORD,
the desolations he has brought on the earth.

9 He makes wars cease to the ends of the earth;
he breaks the bow and shatters the spear,
he burns the shields with fire.

10 "Be still, and know that I am God;
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth."

11 The LORD Almighty is with us;
the God of Jacob is our fortress.
Selah

General thoughts on the structure of the Psalm
This happens to be my favorite psalm. I roughly divide the structure into two parts:
1-7: Communal declaration of faith: God is present to protect us, even if the world is falling around our ears.
8-11: Call to worship.

Several ideas really jump off the page in this psalm. Fire, waters, mountains, and warfare. I almost have to ask why tornadoes aren't mentioned -- I guess that element wasn't really an issue for the Israelites. But regardless of that, all of these things are elemental calamities, things too great for any one person or even a small village to stop. In fact, even mighty kings don't always win wars, so we have to remember that these items: fire, water, earthquakes, and war; are scary primal forces of destruction that we are ultimately helpless against.

But God is not helpless against them. You think those things are "desolations?" That's nothing compared to what God can actively cause. He is the Lord. He has mastery over all of these primal forces, and can even turn them against one another, breaking spears and burning shields.

On a theological level, we can take this psalm at face value as showing us God's mastery over the elemental forces, his ability to protect us, and also his worthiness for worship. An attempt to reconstruct the situation that prompted this psalm will confirm that face-value interpretation.

The Story behind the Psalm: my Interpretation
When your city is under siege, the most important thing you could do is call on God for protection. And so, we have this communal declaration of faith. Even when surrounded by a pagan army that seeks only to rape, pillage, and slaughter, we affirm that God will protect us. Although the elemental imagery of fire, earthquakes, and water can be read at face-value to show God's mastery over the elements, if we read this at the literary level, these images basically represent all hell breaking loose. Verses 6 and 9 make it clear that the major issue is warfare.

Imagine for a moment that you are a priest in Jerusalem. You're under siege from, say, Babylon. Whenever two armies clash in the physical realm, it is thought that the gods themselves also clash in the metaphysical realm on behalf of their armies. That is, unless you have displeased your gods. Because then you're SOL.

So you, as a priest, you worship before the Lord, offer sacrifices, and you prostrate yourself and pray. You join in affirming this creed declaring God's protection, roughly similar to 46:1-7. "Our God is our fortress. He will save when the going gets tough and our lives are in danger. Even though no actual river passes through Jerusalem, there is always the 'river' of God's faithfulness to his promise to our forefather, Abraham (Gen 12:2-3). God is within his holy city -- he won't let it fall to the siege. Nations come and go -- they act in confused, godless, disarray. But God makes His decree, and the land itself melts. Our God is our fortress."

And then, you hear the charge of the Babylonian army. You can't help but look out across the area surrounding Jerusalem. A charging army is a spectacle in and of itself, but something truly extraordinary is happening. For just a second, the land starts shaking and the waters foam. The shields of the charging army are suddenly set ablaze. Spears snap just below the head. Bowstrings suddenly snap. As the halted army looks at their equipment in horror and seeks to unstrap their now-flaming shields, the heavens open, and a voice echoes forth: "STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING! ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NO OTHER."

From the Babylonian perspective
How surprising it must be for an army to be suddenly stopped due to natural disaster and a widespread case of equipment failure -- not to mention spontaneous combustion!

Clearly, your gods have failed you. The voice of the gods that comes out of heaven says he is God. There's no one like him. There's only one god. He calls you to "be still" [i.e. "halt" or "stop"] and acknowledge that very fact -- that he alone is God. Even though you came to rape and pillage and destroy his people, God is calling you to stop and worship. While your gods failed you -- or, apparently, don't exist -- this God who stopped your charge and broke your equipment now calls you to join his people in worshiping him.

The Israelite Perspective: After the Event
Now you take this creed about God's protection on his people (the paraphrase I made up above) and you work it into a complete psalm. You change the wording of the hymn so that it reflects elemental language (fire, earth, water). You add verses 8-10 to the creed in memory of God's saving power when he answered your cry. Then you end with verse 11, which repeats verse 7. You decide to repeat that verse as if to end the psalm by saying "that's who our God is," much in the way of a child showing off how amazing his daddy is. (Of course, the Holy Spirit inspires this reworking of a basic hymn into a scriptural psalm, but I won't try to explain it because I can't imagine it).

In Summary
This psalm is a communal declaration of faith in God's deliverance. It is also (as I imagine it) a testimony to God's saving power. This psalm is a declaration of God's mastery over the primal forces of earth, water, and fire. It is also an indictment against the aimless and vain ways of nations not in submission to God (compare 46:6 with Psalm 2) -- which is to say, every nation.

And also, this psalm is a call to worship. It is even an evangelistic call to worship. Those who came pillage are called to pray alongside those who they sought to destroy. I'm not sure if we really give this enough thought, but God is evangelistic in the OT as well as the NT. He's constantly reminding his own people that he alone is God (e.g. Exodus 20:2). Yet he also concerns himself with revealing himself to all the nations.

In the New Testament we have the principle of "First to the Jew, then to the Gentile." It was no different in the Old Testament. First, you have to get a small segment of people to get things right, and only then can you get the whole world to get things right. That's why God focused on the Hebrews in particular. But really, there was nobody who could "get things right" and be an example. Fortunately, we have Christ to be our example. He got things right.

From now on, I hope you'll never use the phrase "Be still and know that I am God" as a meek little devotional mantra. It is actually quite forceful and awe-inspiring. Not just is it a call for God's people to worship him because of his deliverance, but it's also a call for unbelievers to start worshiping the Lord.

An amazing opportunity

2010-07-27T21:49:00.002-05:00

So, it's been forever since I've written a note, right? Not one since about when I picked up carving. Let me fill you guys in on what's been going on.

I've learned how to comfortably carve wooden spoons that are not just functional but beautiful to look at. I deeply enjoy being able to craft something with my own hands. At some point, I'll make videos and/or a note as a how-to guide. But that's not what I'm going to talk about now.

I've been out of a job for ten months now. With three years' college experience, no degree, and no car, it's been very difficult to find work. Just a few days ago, Home Depot called in response to my application from several weeks ago. I apparently did well on the surprise phone interview, but they said they'd call in a week or two if they were interested in hiring me. So, I passed the first obstacle on my attempt to become a cashier.

Yeah, that's pretty cool. But even more interesting was what happened today. You see, I've been wanting to get involved in mission work/ministry for a while but due to certain factors it's not been an option. However, I know of an excellent ministry in the Philippines called Give a Goat. Their goal is to break the cycle of poverty in the Philippines by giving people goats. The goats provide milk, and they breed to make more goats after a year or two. In return, the people give one or two of the kids from the first litter to repay for the goats they were given in the first place. Then Give a Goat gives these repaid baby goats to other people who could use goats. It's a great ministry, so check it out.

The founder of Give a Goat is Salvador Cariaga. I know his son, Peter, from OC. Now, I've been talking with Salvador through facebook for a while about helping out, particularly because Salvador is in Fort Worth often. I got to have lunch with him today and I told him about my work with spoons. His face brightened because he came up with a few ideas as to how that could be helpful in the Philippines. You see, not just do they give goats, but Give a Goat and related ministries also do micro-lending to help poor people get on their feet and become self-sufficient. I have been using carving as sort of a way of micro-lending to myself, haha.

One problem Sal has encountered, though, is that many of his fellow Filipinos cut down trees. This is a waste. (I don't remember his exact reason, but deforestation is a problem in and of itself!) But with spoon carving, you can make a great spoon just by finding the right branch. You don't have to use the trunk. And if trees, as renewable sources of branches, become too valuable to cut down, then the deforestation will stop.

And then they could make spoons or forks or something which could be sold in other countries for a pretty decent price. Well... maybe. We first have to determine if there would be a market interested in buying wooden spoons. Considering all the positive comments I've gotten for my work so far, I'd say there is. The second issue would be figuring out what kinds of wood in the Philippines could be used for carving. You can't use really hard wood like cherry wood all the time because it would take very long to make even one spoon. But you also shouldn't use scented woods like pine, cedar, or redwood. Scented woods add an odd flavor to food, so that's a no-go. SO, whether this can work depends on the availability of carvable wood. Honestly, I'd suspect that there are at least a few types of trees there that would work fine.

Those are the drawbacks. The bonuses, however, make this very appealing. For one thing, this is a very simple craft. I picked this up and started doing well in about a month. I only had online help and about five minutes of guidance from a carpenter in person. Also, there are no power tools involved. You only need a few hand tools ($100 for the high-quality stuff sold in American stores). And what's more, the base materials (a tree branch) cost practically nothing. There will be plenty of wood shavings from the branches, so there is still wood to use for mulch, and there will also be some sawdust to use in gardening.

Now, I find this opportunity to go to the Philippines very appealing. Not just is there the opportunity to help people, teach, and encourage, but I'd get to learn about another culture and learn another language. And there's more to it than that. I could teach English -- good English. It's very helpful on a student's resume to be able to say you know fluent English. And I could also help teach Bible. Plus, Sal has connections to a Bible college or two down there where my OC credits could transfer and the tuition is very little. And yes, they can give a legitimate B.A.

Although I can't immediately commit to this, I am very excited about this opportunity. If this works out, I will end up being very enriched in learning a new culture/language, very educated from finally getting my degree, and very tan from being out in the sun a lot. Sounds great. In the process, I'll be able to help teach carpentry, English, and the Bible, plus help make disciples and serve as Jesus did. The cost of this opportunity would be separation from friends and family and at least $500 a month. But the gain from this would be beyond measure in my life and the lives of others.

Everyone, I ask you to pray about this with me, OK? May God open doors and grant discernment so that I would be shaped into an effective servant.

Explanation of my Translation Philosophy

2010-07-19T15:29:00.003-05:00

Here I put forth my philosophy for how and how not to translate Philippians. I intend this book to be for a general audience, and I would like to make an explanation that is thorough but not over most people's heads. But because of its technical character, I think it would be better to put it as an appendix in the back since I don't want the technicalness of this section to give the readers a first impression that the whole commentary will be too technical to follow. It's a bit long, but hopefully the illustrations make it worthwhile.

Some people are very strong towards dynamic equivalence while others are very strong towards essentially literal translations. If you're a die-hard member of either camp, you'll find plenty of reason to complain about this translation since I try to maximize the benefits of both and minimize the disadvantages of both.
_______

Put bluntly, it would be a mistake to render the book of Philippians (or any book) word-for-word (W4W) from Greek to English. Doing so often leads to stilted or awkward English. This begs the question: was Paul writing in a way that was stilted or awkward? If he was not, then that is not how he should be translated.

All translation concerns fall under the umbrella of accuracy. "Is the translation accurate?" Sadly, that statement is rather vague. What constitutes accuracy? Perhaps you'd say that accuracy is whatever translates W4W. Unfortunately, languages are too complex to really work that way. This is because of how meaning works in languages. Meaning exists not just at the level of individual words, but in how words fit together in sentences. The primary unit of meaning is the sentence and not the individual word.

For instance, take the word "tear." This actually could be any of four different words:
1A) the noun "tear," referring to the wet stuff that comes out of your eyes
1B) the verb "to tear (up)," meaning to produce tears (in the sense of 1A)
2A) the noun "tear," as a synonym for rip
2B) the verb "to tear (up)," which means to produce a tear (in the sense of 2A)

If you see the word "tear" in a sentence rather than by itself, then you will automatically be able to tell if it's a verb or a noun by looking at the other parts of speech. If nothing else in the sentence is a verb, then it's likely that this "tear" is a verb and not a noun -- but which verb? You'd have to see what's going on in the previous sentences to figure that out.

So, picture for a moment a connect-the-dots puzzle for kids. Notice how the lines just form a very simple outline and the different dots only connect to the ones right next to them. That's what it's like to take words individually. Language is more complex than that. Instead, it is more like a spider web where all the strands interconnect and reinforce each other. That is how it works: each individual contributes to the overall pattern, and the overall pattern limits and defines where each individual strand should be placed and which other strands it needs to intersect with.

So, since meaning primarily exists at the level of the overall thought, maybe you'd recommend that I instead take a thought-for-thought (T4T) approach like the NIV does. That still doesn't do perfect justice, though, since some meaning can be found not just at the level of the thought itself, but also in the specific word choice used to express the thought.

I'm going to pick on the NLT for a moment. Let's look at 1 Kings 18. Here we have an epic fire-breathing match between The Lord and Baal. In one corner is Elijah, who alone represents the Lord against 450 priests of Baal. When their fervent prayers do not elicit any response from Baal, Elijah taunts them in verse 27: “You’ll have to shout louder, for surely he is a god! Perhaps he is daydreaming, or is relieving himself. Or maybe he is away on a trip, or is asleep and needs to be wakened!” Clearly Elijah is making Baal out to be much less than a god. He seeks to embarrass the priests of Baal.

I want zero in specifically on the words "relieving himself." This is a euphemism in English. But would someone really use a euphemism in this situation? Euphemisms are polite, but insulting someone is not polite. So, wouldn't it generally make sense that you wouldn't use a euphemism when you're insulting someone? If Elijah is being impolite, then we need to use an impolite expression in order for it to carry the flavor across. While the NLT is bland here, a more flavorful translation would be "taking a dump."

[The reason translations do not do this is because of the concern for acceptability. Some people would be offended to hear "take a dump" in the Bible. Their reasoning is that Bible is holy, and therefore it certainly can't have anything unholy in it. However, that doesn't make sense. There are unholy things in the Bible, such as lies (e.g. Genesis 3:4-5), murder (Genesis 4:8), greed (Genesis 13:10-11), insubordination/intimidation (Genesis 16:5-6), incest (Genesis 19:30-34), rape (Genesis 34:3), and adultery (Genesis 39:6-7) -- and all that is in just ONE book. The Bible is not just a book of flowers and butterflies, folks. It reflects real life, and crude language is a part of real life just as much as any of the other things I just mentioned. To try and deny that is to diminish accuracy and give a false impression of dishonest politeness.]

W4W translations seek to be objective in translating with what they think is only a minimal amount of their own interpretation. This fails because all translation is interpretation. They have already stacked the deck by translating in a manner that results in unnatural and awkward English. This gives the impression that the language of the Bible is inherently awkward. The translators don't intend to give that impression, but it is an inevitable side effect.

This reminds me of a friend who wanted to be objective by not swaying her children to any particular religion, so she just didn't introduce them to any religions so that they would be completely objective and untouched by her influence. The problem with this logic is that this stacks the deck by giving an overwhelming exposure to the absolute absence of all religions. In both her case and in the case of W4W translators, it is utterly impossible to be objective.

By not exposing her child to the list of options, her inaction teaches her child that taking action in making a religious choice is not a pressing issue. If it was important, why didn't she mention it? In the same way, W4W translators try to leave the interpretive options up to you, but if you don't even know what the list of options looks like, how can you make a choice?! How would you even know that there's any need to choose?

On the other hand, T4T does not even try to claim complete objectivity in their translations. Yet they stack the deck by consistently emphasizing clarity and readability of the basic thought of a passage. They make the basic point more readable by eliminating or rewording the details that are relevant, yet not central to the main meaning.

Yet the T4T approach does not go far enough in breaking from objectivity. Both of these styles rigidly pick one consistent priority over the other. In areas where minor details like word order are nothing but a distraction from the main point, the W4W approach falls short. In areas where the nuances actually rather crucial, the T4T falls short.

The best approach, I argue, is just to be openly subjective and not set hard and fast rules. Focus on getting across the facets of meaning that you, the translator, consider the most important in any given sentence. The hard-and-fast rules of either W4W or T4T are necessary for translations made by teams, since semi-objective rules help reduce the bias of everybody's (different) subjective opinions. If not for hard-and-fast rules, translation committees would never reach enough consensus to make any decisions and the translation would never get made.

I don't want to come down too hard on other translations. My translation approach is best applied when only one to three people collaborate on the translation. Since I am doing this independently, the only things keeping my personal bias in check are the valuable feedback I received for revising the first draft and my constant comparison to other translations. So, my translation and commentary will have less regulation to keep my personal bias in check, but at least I'm honest about it. Since I'm just one guy working with no hard and fast rules, people from both camps will likely have mixed feelings about this work.

I keep four loose rules:
1. Try to translate the same Greek word as the same English word. Really try not to have more than two renderings for each Greek word. (For φρονέω I had to have three: "think," "have mindset," and "show concern.")
2. Try to bring out style and flavor when this can be done without significantly detracting from the basic meaning. Making the basic meaning somewhat more difficult is fine. The translation will be explained by a commentary, so it doesn't
3. The Bible isn't always clear/poetic/polite, so I don't have to always be clear. The NIV translates at the 8th-grade reading level. Since I am writing a commentary right along with it, I feel free to use longer sentences and a higher vocab (if that captures Paul).
4. Italics and bold (used sparingly) indicate emphasis, as God intended.

Additions to my blog roll

2010-07-16T23:07:00.000-05:00

I'm adding a few blogs I've followed to the roll.

Vine and Fig by Jim Swindle. This guy is an excellent poet (didn't you know it?!). Jim and I follow each other off and on. Definitely check out his work, and buy his book!

I've followed T.C. Robinson's New Leaven for a while now, and it's about time to give him credit by making an official place for him in the blog roll. Hurray.

Today I discovered Romanos Gorny (HT to Jim Swindle), a linguist of the Eastern Orthodox Church. His blogs include Cost of Discipleship and Η Καινή Διαθήκη. The first one is a blog of theological reflection whereas the second one has recordings of some of the NT in Greek. I've personally recorded Philippians and Philemon, but my microphone is terrible. Also my pronunciation. I can't help it, though. I was taught the traditional seminary pronunciation, which apparently is a far cry from the authentic way to speak Greek. My pronunciation may be wrong, but I am at least fluently wrong. And it's unlikely that I'll change. After memorizing Philippians, it would be confusing for my muscle memory if I started pronouncing it differently. Anyway, if you're a student of biblical Greek, I suggest at that second one.

Coming Soon: Philippians Translation with Commentary v0.6

All Things Are Better in Koiné

2010-07-14T23:09:00.000-05:00

The World of Spooncraft

2010-07-07T16:41:00.004-05:00

Yes, I've picked up the amazing hobby of making wooden spoons. Here's my first eight:

The first one turned out usable, luckily.

Number two? Not so much. But it still works for stirring or scooping. I don't know what I was going for with the handle there.

An adorable baby spoon was my third project.

I tried to make another one, but I cut through the bowl. "Perfection is when there's nothing to take away, but disaster is a hole in your bowl." Ain't THAT the truth?

A sugar spoon for a young lady in Oklahoma City. I am most certainly not putting my thumb in the way to conspicuously cover up her engraved initials.

A sugar spoon for my mom. I most definitely am not putting my thumb in the way to conspicuously make the previous spoon look less conspicuous.

Now things start looking *really* good. This one's a stirring spoon for a young lady in Portland, whom I miss oh so much. Since I didn't mess up the engraving that I didn't make on the spoon two spoons ago, this spoon has no engraving.

An attempt to replicate the one for Miceala. This one's quite good, too.

In comparison, you can see that Miceala's is more round, but the second one has prettier stripes. I can't control the stripe factor. The reason these turned out so well is because stirring spoons require only a shallow bowl. Making an eating spoon with a smooth bowl is something I don't have the tools for. All of these are made from basswood and treated with four coats of mineral oil so that they're food safe. I'm out of wood, but I've ordered more. I guess I'll spend the next two weeks doing more reading/writing!

Prisoners: future terrorists or future Christians?

2010-07-06T00:23:00.000-05:00

See The Washington Times on this issue. It's good to hear someone push for conversion to Christianity now and then.

Remodeling the Philippians Translation

2010-06-25T16:32:00.001-05:00

I managed to move things to MS Word finally, so I don't have to do my editing here. I've improved things a bit, and I've at least gotten a rough draft through chapter 4. I'm nearly finished with the first revision up to chapter three, also. Currently, I'm going through to check for

1. Awkwardness in wording. I want things to sound as normal as possible.
2. Concordance. I want for the same Greek word to (usually) be translated as the same English word. Sometimes I have no choice but to use two different translations based on context. That's OK, though. That's what footnotes are for.
3. Checking for phrases accidentally omitted. I've found three so far. How embarrassing!
4. Checking my wording vs. several other translations. The TNIV and NRSV have been extremely helpful for wording choices. God's Word, a paraphrase of higher quality than The Message, is helpful sometimes, too.
5. Lyrical quality. I had all along intended this to be a major feature of my translation.

By God's wondrous providence and the supply of the spirit of Jesus Christ, I am gaining both progress and joy in this endeavor.

Other news:
1. I've put down my work on Genesis 1-11. It's been at a stand-still for 2 months now. Second draft is almost complete. I do intend to finish that sometime this or next year, though.
2. I've applied for a job at three local Walmarts. Prayers, please!
3. Putting memorization on hold for a while. I still intend to finish Joel and perhaps also Matthew 1-4 this year.
4. I've started learning carpentry! So far I've carved two spoons, and I'm very proud. I do this to spite the article which says that men's trade jobs are vulnerable. And also to prove that I can work with my hands. And, yes, to show that I don't hate carpentry! :)

I have a tendency to start projects, bite off more than I can chew, and never finish them. Bah. These are attainable goals. Even if I have to push deadlines back a bit, the truth is I am young. I have time. With God, nothing is impossible!

Philippians 3:12-4:1 What Lies Ahead

2010-06-21T21:59:00.001-05:00

Not that I've already gotten a handle on everything or that I've fully matured. I seek that I may take hold, since Christ took hold of me. Brothers, I don't consider myself to have taken hold of but one thing: forgetting what lies behind and reaching for what lies ahead. Fixated on the goal, I run toward the prize of God's heavenly calling in Christ Jesus. For those of us who are "mature," let us think this. And if you think something to the contrary, God will reveal that to you. Nevertheless: let us live by what we've attained.

Imitate me, brothers, and observe those who conduct themselves in accordance with the example we've set for you. For many conduct themselves in a way that -- I've told you several times about them, and now I say this in tears -- makes them enemies of the cross of Christ. Their final destination is destruction, their god is the belly, their glory is in their shame; they think of early things. Yet our citizenship is in Heaven, from whence we await a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. He will transform our meager bodies in conformity with his glorious body, in accordance with the power by which he is able even to subject everything to himself. So then, my beloved and longed-for brothers, stand firm in the Lord in this way.

___ Translation Notes
1. "Gotten a handle... take hold." These verbs, along with the idea of maturity, refer to mastery. Paul is saying that he hasn't mastered everything there is in Christ, but he knows that Christ is his master. The one thing he has gotten a handle on is that he needs to let go of the past and reach for what's soon to come.
2. "Mature." I think this fits teleios better than "perfect" here. People don't often delude themselves into thinking they're absolutely perfect, but we sure have a habit of thinking we have the hang of things when we don't.
3. "the belly." This is better English than "their belly" or "their stomach." It's actually more literal, too. Since the belly is a body part, and therefore an inalienable possession, a possessive pronoun is not always necessary. I think it looks better without it.
4. "meager." Elsewhere in the letter, similar words are translated as "humble." I may change this word to "humble" for the sake of concordance, but meager is more idiomatic and still conveys the idea of lowliness, so I may keep it this way.
5. The inclusion of 4:1. This transition could start the beginning of the next section, or be tagged on here at the end of chapter 3. I follow the UBS text here in putting it with chapter 3.

___Commentary
Verses 12-16 give us the example of how to view our own identity: the past is left behind. Our identity, the center of our thoughts, is concentrated on "what lies ahead." The simplicity and commonality of this precludes any attempt at self-glorification or foolish pride. Throughout this letter, pride has been subverted. Instead of boasting (in ourselves), we boast in Christ and what he has accomplished for us. If we all take this mindset, then we will have unity in purpose and identity.

Now that Paul set an example in 12-16, in verse 17 Paul calls us to imitate that example. Suddenly, Paul switches his thoughts to some unnamed others who have fallen from the Way and have become enemies of the Cross. Indeed, he mourns for those lost and paints a depression picture of their condition and their fate. He clings close to the Philippians, warning them against the same fate because of how much he longs for them (1:8, 4:1).

____
Right now, I'm only making the bare bones of commentary and translation notes. The main point, for now, is to practice my translation skills. And also, I want feedback. If you have any comments about the way I've translated things, or about anything else I've said, let me know. As much as I love to read what I type, I'm doing this so I can interact with others.

Philippians 3:1-11 Loss and Gain

2010-06-21T17:14:00.000-05:00

Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord. It is no trouble for me to write this to you; it is a safeguard for you.

Behold the dogs! Behold the evil-doers! Behold the mutilation!

For we are the circumcision, we who serve God by the Spirit and boast in Christ Jesus and who do not put confidence in flesh -- although I have confidence also in flesh. If anyone else has grounds for confidence in flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of Israel's lineage, of Benjamin's tribe -- A Hebrew among Hebrews, I was! -- by law, a Pharisee; by zeal, a persecutor of the church; by righteousness in the Law I was blameless.

But all this which was to my gain, I deemed it loss. Moreover, rather, I deem everything to be loss because of that which is worth more: the knowledge of Jesus Christ, my Lord, because of whom I lost everything and deem everything to be offal, so that I may gain Christ, so that I may be found in him. Not with my own righteousness from the Law, but the one which comes from Jesus Christ, the righteousness which comes from God in faith. Oh, to know him and the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, to be conformed to his death, that I may somehow attain to the resurrection from the dead!

___Translation Notes
1. "mutilation." This word looks a lot like the word for circumcision, and there is a word play here. It wouldn't surprise me if Gentiles often referring to circumcision ("cutting around") as mutilation ("cutting off") as an antisemitic slur.
2. "in flesh." I'm experimenting with "in flesh" as opposed to "in the flesh" here. It seems Paul is using these nouns as as qualitative instead of definite, so it seems appropriate to translate this way.
3. "by law... by zeal... by righteousness." I tried to capture the triple-repetition of found in Greek, which uses the same preposition. It's a little strange-sounding, I admit.
4. "offal." To be blunt, the word means sh*t. It's not just "dung." It's crap. Offal is what the body gives off. It is your impurities. It's worse than "rubbish." "Rubbish" is a left over aluminum can that you can leave in the trash can indoors until it's time to take out the trash. Offal is something you get rid of immediately.

___ Commentary
It almost feels as if 3:1 is a closing. Indeed, the last section felt like a closing. That's normally where you expect to find an explanation of the courier. The switch from 3:1 to 3:2 is quite striking. Some people believe that Philippians is two letters spliced together. While I can sympathize with that theory, there is a method to this madness. This section is intensely passionate, much like 1:15-30. Most other parts of the letter feel either soft and warm, or else the default voice a preacher has. 3:1-11, however, is a sudden burst of energy that slowly levels off by the beginning of chapter 4.

Continuing our chronicle of thematic development, Pride makes a serious appearance here. Indeed, our very identity is that we boast in Christ Jesus and not in flesh. He is our great treasure and our hope. We seek conformity with his example, his sufferings, and his resurrection. Note also the fiscal language of gain and loss. Christ is our gain, and our loss is everything else.

"The End of Men"

2010-06-17T19:28:00.000-05:00

In the The Atlantic there is another article concerning the disadvantageous status of boys in education today. And it's not just at the level of grade school education: for every 2 boys earning a B.A. this year, it is expected there will be three girls earning the same. There's more there, too.

If there's one marital status demographic that has significantly fallen behind, it is the single male (regardless of educational level). To put it another way:

Honestly, I have to agree that the erosion of marriage (and prevalence of eros) is due to women now setting the terms. Why should a single woman marry? It's a downgrade to personal power unless he's at least as educated. You don't need him for financial stability. You don't need him for legal representation. You don't need him for physical protection. No; men now only represent the luxury of sexual gratification. Since it comes down to sex, the religious choose to abstain (or try) and the secular choose non-committal relationships.

Whereas for single men without a degree, we have no financial stability. Marriage is profitable for us regardless of a woman's educational status (which will likely be higher, except in the case of males with PhDs). There has been an erosion in family values replaced with an emphasis on individual liberation. Yet, we humans are not made for individual self-sufficiency. We are made for a relationship of interdependence. And if women have power over men economically, but men have no equivalent power over women, then there is no true interdependence. And thus marriage and the nuclear family, as the backbone unit of which society is formed, is now eroding.

But if the gender social dynamic indeed no longer contains interdependence and women are given extreme benefits for being single while males are not, then it would make sense why certain young Christian women would aim for celibacy (and non-Christian ones just avoid marriage). Christian young women seem to feel hesitant about the commitment of marriage, which they interpret as (possibly) a call to celibacy, when it is in fact a matter of our American cherished virtue of personal freedom from interdependence.

I do lay this quite strongly (though perhaps not solely) at the feet of radical feminism's emphasis on individual freedom from constraints set by the social level of existence. Note that I am not giving a broad brush of condemnation to egalitarianism, since those two -isms are overlapping but not synonymous.

New Layout

2010-06-10T04:08:00.000-05:00

Yeah! I'm using an amazing scroll template. Any thoughts? Ever since my original beautiful template became unavailable, I've been in limbo over this.

Boys, Girls, Education, and How Feminists Fight Yesterday's Battles

2010-06-04T15:40:00.002-05:00

There seems to be evidence that our educational approach in the West is structured in a way that is more advantageous to girls than to boys. An excellent study may be found here through the Independent Women's Forum.

At present, females are more likely to graduate from both high school and college. Males, on average, seem to make more money. The reason for this is that trade-crafts (I can make up words whenever I want!) such as construction are still male-dominated. They require less education and more brawn. It is little surprise that the gender distribution there is pretty far from the mean.

While this may give men an economic advantage in a booming economy, it sure doesn't help when all those jobs are hurting because of a bad economy. While being a professor or teacher may not earn the same amount as certain male-dominated jobs requiring less education, the fact that information-based jobs require education gives women insulation against being laid off.

My father worked for many years as an engineer who drafted sprinkler system blueprints for buildings. He got laid off pretty darned often, and we had to move. This had very unpleasant effects on my family.

Hat tip to John Hobbins. John provides an article from the NY Times on the issue, also. It's anecdotal based on the experience of three schools for gifted and talented children. Still, it helps to see how things look on the ground.

John strongly puts the blame on feminism for this. I feel bad for him sometimes. Not unlike myself, he is radically moderate in a world where people are either far right or far left. Though he acknowledges that feminism has done some good (as do I, though I don't grant it as freely as he does), he is also quick to point out its failures. He does so because like in any other extreme group, there are some feminists who fail to engage in self-critique.

Wag of the finger to Suzanne McCarthy. Men and women are simply geared differently. Biologically, this is rather obvious. Due to difference in muscle density, men are more suited to certain trade-crafts on average. Yet, this should not exclude women from trying to learn the craft -- I highly doubt there is any job that no woman in the world is capable of. The thing that comes closest, however, is being an announcer for a T.V. show (such as "LIVE from New York, it's Saturday Night!"). You just expect a baritone voice there.

Alright, but in all seriousness. We need to admit that differences exist between men and women that create what could be called tendencies. Males (or so I hear) have a greater tendency to be mathematically-oriented whereas females (or so I hear) tend to be language-oriented. Of course, exceptions exist. I know a female with a math degree, and I'll bet she can do math better than I can. She is quite good with languages, also. And you know what? She's not alone for taking the math-and-science path, or so the NY Times says. In fact, it may be completely incorrect to say that there is a tendency for women to be good at this and men at that. Perhaps, rather than literature itself, it is simply the way literacy is taught that females are more adept at.

As for a specific response to Sue: she feels that women are still disadvantaged because men make more money. In this situation, I would have to say that wisdom is worth far more than gold. I would far rather be an educated educator than a rich carpenter. Oh, and not just because education is a safer profession, but because it changes the world by changing people. And for one's own personal benefit, education is superior to money. After all, feminism didn't develop by women earning significant amounts of money; feminism gained momentum through influential writing, which is itself a product of good education. In other words, no education = no feminism. Yet between having an educated job with less pay and a less educated job with more pay, who really has the disadvantage?

In conclusion: look at the IWF's report and see how far behind boys are in education. This is too serious to ignore.

Philippians 2:19-30: Exemplary Service

2010-05-27T19:27:00.000-05:00

I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, so that I may find relief in learning your circumstances. For I have no one like him: he truly cares about your well-being. The rest of them all seek their own concerns, not the concerns of Christ. But you know his credentials, how he served with me as a child with his father for the sake of the Gospel.

So then, I hope to send him as soon as I know my immediate circumstances.

I am confident in the Lord that I, too, shall come soon.

However, I considered it more necessary to send to you Epaphroditus. He is a brother, coworker, and comrade to me; to you he is a messenger and the servant who tends to my needs. I sent him because he was longing for all of you, greatly distressed, because you heard that he had fallen ill. Indeed he had fall fatally ill, but God had mercy on him -- and not only him but me also, lest I have grief upon grief.

So then, I sent him all the more swiftly, so that by seeing him again you may rejoice and I may be relieved. So then, welcome him in the Lord with all joy and treat those like him with high esteem. For it was for the work of Christ that he came near to the point of death, risking his very life, so that he could compensate for what was lacking in your service to me.

___ Translation Notes
1. "find relief." This word in Greek only appears here in the NT. Its meaning is simple enough: to take heart. It means to become encouraged (as opposed to despair). I think "relief" is serviceable, and it's just better English than "that I may be of good cheer."
2. "cares about." In Greek this is the "future tense." The TNIV and NKJV both interpret it as a straightforward future. I think this is not good. The Message and NIV both get it right by translating it as a timeless fact that is a simply a part of Timothy's unchanging character.
3. "your circumstances... your well-being." The same expression in Greek, but this sounds better than using either English phrase twice.
4. "The rest of them all..." Literally just "they all," but I felt it would be good to expand it a bit. It just begs the question "who are 'the rest of them?'" without answering it. The Greek text doesn't answer it, either, so I think that's fair. The other reason I translate this way is so I can get rid of the conjunction "for." Had I just said "they all," that would almost demand a conjunction, I think.
5. "credentials." This is referring to the thing that makes Timothy legit and credible. His credentials are not a piece of paper, but his apparently well-known track record of faithful service.
6. I get the feeling Paul paused after talking about Timothy. Then he learned something about his immediate circumstances, so he knew he could come, too. And then he paused again and changed his mind, sending E-Rod instead.
7. Verses 25-26 are one sentence in Greek, but I had to split them up. Verse 25 is a reintroduction of Epaphroditus, and I think my translation looks awkward here. The Message puts it well: "You sent him to help me, I'm sending him to help you." (I'm paraphrasing The Message there.)
8. "Compensate." To make up for what was lacking. To fulfill what is lacking is to compensate, so I basically took the ESV and made it look like slightly better English. I can't say the ending looks good, but I have no idea how to say it better. As a side note, it's possible to see Paul as condescending here. Well, it's not my job to defend him and say he's not. If you read the rest of the letter carefully, it's clear that if he's being condescending here, it's only in the same sense a teacher expects students to realize they are just students and still need to learn from good examples.

___ Commentary
Paul's hope is in the Lord Jesus. Paul's confidence is in the Lord Jesus. His trust is undoubtedly in Timothy and Epaphroditus, who do a wonderful job as role models of Christlike living. Timothy served with the obedience of a child with his father. Note the word "serve" there. It's the same as the word for servant/slave used of Paul and TImothy in the opening (1:1) and of Jesus in the hymn (2:7). Epaphroditus served even "to the point of death," which parallels Jesus in 2:8.
Through both his words and his specific word choice, Paul links both Timothy and Epaphroditus to Jesus as examples of godly attitude.

Once again, death makes an appearance. This time, death is not viewed as a gain but as a loss. The difference is that death means absence from the land of the living, and Paul and others would miss Epaphroditus if he died. For Paul, to live is Christ. For Epaphroditus, to live is to put one's life on the line (2:30). Sacrifice is the point of life. That's not to say that we should adopt a masochistic view of things, but we must have priorities higher than our own comfort.

The joy that comes from being saved from something you feared would happen is one of the greatest joys there is. Being able to see a friend face-to-face that you heard was dying -- seeing him in perfect health -- is a relief that words can't express. Joy in this book is not always a grimace with pain looking forward. God has not abandoned our present circumstances.

As for v. 30, it's interesting that he's gone this far in the letter and still hasn't outright mentioned the Philippians' monetary contribution. Apparently there was something he needed more than the money. What was lacking? Was it that the Philippians didn't have the right attitude for the Gospel to match their financial contribution? Let's read on and find out.

Philippians 2:12-18: Solidarity, Shame, Sacrifice

2010-05-27T14:59:00.003-05:00

So then, friends, just as you've always obeyed (not only in my presence but now much more in my absence), work out your salvation with fear and dread. For it is Deity who works in you both the motivation and the ability to do what pleases him. Do everything without grumbling or disputation, so that you may be blameless and guileless -- faultless children amid this twisted and warped generation, among whom you shine like the stars in orbit. Hold on dearly to the Word of Life, so that in the Day of Christ I may boast that I did not run in vain nor labor in vain. But if I am poured out as the sacrifice for your faithful worship service, then I rejoice, I rejoice with all of you. At the same time, you rejoice, rejoice with me.

___ Translation Comments
1. This is the first time agapetoi appears here. This word has been variously rendered "beloved," "dear friends," etc. Honestly, I have no strong argument one way or the other, but I am inclined to think of it as "friend."
2. "Fear and dread." This is the same pair of words used in Genesis 9:2 for the "fear and dread" that falls upon all the beasts who are now in submission to humanity. I'm thinking he's purposefully using those words to refer to Genesis 9:2.
3. "the motivation and the ability." Literally, "Deity is working in you both the to will and the to work." Since the infinitives are being used as nouns (the article substantizes), it's best to translate them as nouns.
4. "Deity." I'm going on a limb here. Paul's point is not identifying specifically that it is the entity known as God who is doing the work. His point is that the worker is divine, and therefore powerful. To be technical, I'm saying that theos is a qualitative noun here rather than definite. It's also emphatic because it's out in front.
5. "Do everything without..." this is tricky to translate. I chose, like most translations, to translate this literally. The problem with this is, it's bad English. Good English would instead say "do nothing with..." However, "do nothing" implies a passivity that this passage won't allow. It just said that God's working in us the ability and motivation [to work], so we can't just "do nothing." If I were to paraphrase Paul here: "Do everything -- and let none of it be done with..."
6. "blameless and guileless -- faultless children..." Guileless is an unusual word, but all three of them in Greek fit the pattern of -less or un-. The goal of this literary translation is to preserve both meaning and poetry. Note also that "blameless and guileless" is one statement, and "faultless children amid this..." is a second thought that expands on the first one. It's difficult to show on paper when someone is doing that, but I hope the punctuation does it well enough.
7. "twisted and warped." These words are a good modern update for "crooked and perverse."
8. "stars in orbit." This phrase could also mean "lights in the world." The double-entendre is purposeful.
9. "Hold on dearly to the Word of Life." Hold the Word of Life intensely close. The difference between this word and simply holding something is like the difference between wearing your wedding ring and simply keeping it in the attic somewhere. The preacher in me is tempted to translate this as "Hold on to the Word for dear life," but that's a bit of a stretch.
10. "As the sacrifice for your faithful worship service." I'm going out on a limb here. Rendering it this way makes it clear that Paul is poured out (as a drink offering) without me inserting the words "as a drink offering" for clarification. Faithfulness unto death seems to be a theme here, so "faithful" fits, and "worship service" works decently for leitourgia.
11. "I rejoice, I rejoice with all of you. At the same time, you rejoice, rejoice with me." The emphasis is on "you" in the second statement. I'm thinking the verbs in the second half are both commands to rejoice and rejoice with him. I couldn't render this verse without it looking redundant in English, and that's because it's redundant in Greek. Redundancy is not useless; Paul has his reasons.

____ Commentary
The main word connecting this passage to the previous one is the word "obey." Christ's death (loss) brought gain. Now regardless of whether Paul is present or absent (i.e. lives or dies), the Philippians must work out their own salvation "with fear and dread." Due to its use in Genesis 9:2, I am inclined to think that "fear and dread" refers to submission to authority -- specifically God's authority, since he is the One working in them.

So, they must do everything they can -- and none of that with grumbling or disputation. These were the problems in the Exodus. Grumbling about lack of meat. Disputing Moses' authority. These two problems break unity, and unity (which includes submission to authority) is the very thing Paul has been trying to encourage throughout this chapter.

If the Philippians continue their work without grumbling, then they will be pure and innocent. This is practically synonymous with the words in 1:10. Just like stars in orbit are tiny oases of light scattered in a desert of darkness, so too are we amid this totally fallen and depraved generation. The reason the generation in the Exodus was "twisted and warped" is because they were disobedient and did not hold on dearly to the Word of Life. It is conforming to the example of Christ that will allow us to shine. It is God who works in us both the motivation and the ability to shine.

Pride makes an appearance now. Paul wants them to prosper, so that he may be proud rather than ashamed in the Day of Christ. This pride, this boast, is a type of vindication or salvation for Paul. Throughout this letter, his thoughts hum with the question: "Am I a faithful servant?" His "boast" in the Day of Christ is this: when he sees Jesus face to face again, he wants Jesus to answer that question with an emphatic "yes, Saul. You have." And then, he will break down crying in sweet relief. Paul is motivated by an intense desire to serve, and nothing less will satisfy his godly motivation. Paul in Philippians is slowly redeeming the concept of boasting. Whereas we generally boast out of strife and selfish ambition, Paul shows us how to boast out of godly motivation instead. Of course, the boast is completely future-oriented and nobody may boast now. Only in the Day of Christ.

In verses 17 and 18, Paul switches seamlessly into the language of sacrifice. Sacrifice ties together the themes of death and worship. As Paul thought of the Day of Christ in verse 16, his mind inevitably drifted back to the topic of his own death as a martyr. If he dies a martyr's death, then he does so for the benefit of the Philippians. He envisions execution by the Romans as if it were a Temple service in which he is the lamb offered for the Philippians. Not that he takes away their sins, mind you, but he brings them benefit by setting an example for them.

At the same time, he wants them to rejoice in having an example from Paul. Yes, he even wants them to "rejoice" in his death, because death to him is gain (1:21). No doubt it was with a heavy heart that he told them to rejoice. The joy in Philippians is a mix of emotions, suffering today but worshiping with joy because of the vindication on the Day of Christ. Philippians is not a book for when everything is going right. It is a book for persevering when everything is going wrong. Everything will be made right.

Will I soon be an official biblioblogger?

2010-05-25T02:39:00.002-05:00

I hope so. Since I've applied to join the official Biblioblog list, I suppose I should reintroduce myself. My name's Gary. I'm a 24-year-old American white guy with an intense love for studying Scripture and for memorization. Theologically and politically, I am moderate bordering on conservative. I cannot stand the far left nor the far right in politics or theology. I find pacifism and the gender debate to be issues of interest. I'm a soft complementarian, and I will occasionally post exegesis/reflection from that standpoint. Honestly, I don't feel motivated to try and persuade others to this view -- especially females. A lesson I've learned is that you can't argue with suffering, and so I don't want to waste my time. That said, I'm more than willing to interact with female bibliobloggers, although if the gender debate is the nexus of their interest, I will not feel inclined to interact much.

I don't care much for systematic theology and I haven't read many influential theologians. I don't have a degree, although I did attend a pastoral school for three years. I focused very heavily on studying Greek. I can match most master's students who went to that university (in fact, I've tutored some).

While I may not have a degree (yet), I do have several skills that I've polished over the past five years: exegesis, translation, memorization, comfort with Koine Greek, a basic working knowledge of biblical Hebrew, and a mind that analyzes the heck out of things while still maintaining an openness to the relational/artistic side of life.

I have experience that goes beyond my years. I can recite several chapters of the Bible from memory in Greek, as well as a few in Hebrew. I will not give a full listing, but I do know Philippians, Psalm 23, and the Sermon on the Mount by heart. My goal for this year is to memorize LXX Joel and Matthew 1-4. Next year I will learn LXX Jonah and Matthew 8-14. The next two years will hopefully entail the complete memorization of Matthew's Gospel.

If I continue an academic education, which I hope to do, I may either focus on NT textual criticism or Greek linguistics. As my above goal would imply, I intend to specialize in Matthew. I wonder what my favorite professor, Curt Niccum, would recommend.

As an example of my translation practice, I'd point you to my recent post on Philippians 2. You see, now that I've memorized the book, I'm going through and trying to make a literary translation. I may not know Hellenistic Greek beyond the LXX and NT, but I do know a thing or two about writing with style. Although, I haven't been getting comments on my Philippians series since the opening post, so I hope my readership (whoever that is) has been interested in reading it.

Side note: apparently there was a malfunction with my previous template. For some reason it picked today. So, I had to switch. This may be temporary -- we'll see what comes along later.

Philippians 2:1-11: The Mind of Christ

2010-05-15T21:25:00.002-05:00

So, if you find any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from God's love, any mercy or compassion, then fulfill my joy that you would have common purpose: a common love, unity in spirit, unity in thought.

Let nothing be done for self-empowerment, nor for self-exaltation. Rather, in humility consider others better than yourselves. Do not look to your own interests, but to those of others.

Take this mindset to heart -- the mindset of Christ Jesus, who,

"Though He was divine in form,
He did not consider equality with God
A thing to be exploited.
Rather, He emptied himself;
A servant's form He assumed.
Taking human likeness,
He was perceived to have
A man's appearance.
He humbled Himself,
Became obedient
To the point of death
-- death on a cross.

Wherefore God highly exalted Him
And conferred upon Him the Name
which is above every name,
That at the name of Jesus
Every knee would bow
In heaven,
On earth,
And below the earth,
And every tongue confess
That Jesus Christ is Lord,
To the glory of God the Father."

____Translation Notes
1. "if you find..." It's difficult for me to choose whether to say "if there is," "if you have," or "if you find" any encouragement in Christ. The meaning is pretty much the same, but "if you find" (i.e. if you experience) is more personally grabbing. I believe that is how Paul would say it in English.
2. "Encouragement in Christ." Is this encouragement from Jesus supernaturally, or from other Christians because of Christ? Both the Greek and the English are open to either possibility.
3. "Any comfort from God's love." This is interpretive. "Comfort of love" could also mean "loving comfort" [from God or from other Christians], or it could mean compassion for another person (due to either God's love or being loved by the community or due to one's love for the community). This phrase is open to many understandings, and I don't think there's any avoiding the need to make an interpretive choice when translating it.
4. In verse 2, I made a parallel that made it more lyrical than it is in Greek. I would not dare say I "improved" Paul. I think the "common...common...unity...unity" works well. Note that Paul first puts forth the idea of "common purpose," and then the other three parts of this are expansions on that idea.
5. I likewise stylized the "self-empowerment" and "self-exaltation" in verse 3. The self-empowerment idea is more literally "strife," but the two are often one and the same thing, are they not? I think poetic license allows for this, although this could be misunderstood to mean that you should never try to better yourself. However, I would not be responsible for that misunderstanding. I think the context makes it clear it's talking about rivalry (especially paired with self-exaltation).
6. Note that italics indicates minor emphasis and bold is major emphasis.
7. For verse 5: "Let this mindset be in you, which is also in Christ Jesus" just is strange English. As far as I know, it may also be strange Greek. If it is strange Greek, then a translation that focuses on accuracy only would do well to translate it that way. However, this is a literary translation, and so I'm giving myself enough poetic liberty with regards to making the text flow better than it does in other translations.
8. Verses 6-11 constitute a hymn, though it's hard to say if it's composed by Paul or someone else. One thing that will jump out at you is that I start it with "though He was divine in form" rather than "was in very nature God (NIV)." I don't know if the Greek word should be translated as form or nature, but form sounds more natural. I may change my mind there. The Greek does allow for "divine form" rather than "God's form." I would argue this is what it means. HOWEVER, don't think I am anti-trinitarian. The rest of the sentence makes it clear he had God's power, so he is God.
9. Note also that I capitalize pronouns related to Jesus because it's a hymn and that's something we do in our hymns. I also used two archaic words, because our hymns are always old-sounding in English. "Wherefore" means "consequently" or "as a result," and "to confer" means to grant, such as a king bestowing a gift upon someone (I tried "bestow" already but it didn't feel right).
10. "A thing to be exploited." This could also be interpreted as "robbery" (KJV, NKJV) or "a thing to be grasped" (NIV, Message, etc.). By "grasp," it would mean "a thing to be physically touched." I do not think "grasp" works here, especially since I always understood "grasp" to mean "understand" here, but the Greek does not allow that. I do not think "robbery" fits the context, and "grasp" is misunderstood, even if it might be technically correct. My reading follows wording of the NRSV and the sense of the TNIV.

____Commentary
This passage starts off with an appeal for humility and cooperation based on the workings of the Holy Spirit among the Philippians. The ultimate example of this humility is Christ himself. It is Christ's self-surrender that led to his exaltation, and it is this trait that Paul wants the Philippians to emulate.

Note how the word "joy" functions in this section. He's using it to refer to his hope that the Philippians would be united. If they fulfill this hope, he will have joy. Why did he use the word "joy" instead? Joy is a theme of this book and it is given a very particular definition. I'm not going to explain further just yet -- you'll have to tune in next time!

The theme of death makes yet another appearance. Paul connected his own (potential) death with immeasurable gain back in chapter one, and now he connects Christ's sacrificial death with his immeasurable gain, also. Note also the phrase "to the point of death." It will appear again.

The meta-theme of unity/conformity/obedience makes an appearance here. Remember that it first manifested at the end of chapter one, in that we are only to measure our patriotism by how patriotic we are for the Gospel (rather than for racial/national patriotism). Now we are to conform to Christ's obedience to God. This is our example. Note also the term "servant." Paul referred to himself and Timothy as "servants" in the opening rather than calling himself an apostle as usual.

Although no words along the line of "gain" or "abundance" appear in the text of this passage, it is clear that by refusing self-empowerment and self-exaltation, Christ made gain by his obedience and death. So the theme is represented nonetheless.

Allow me to Reintroduce the Christ

2010-05-09T21:35:00.000-05:00

I'm stealing this from Apolojedi on Theologica. The best rap I've ever heard. Seriously. I nearly cried.

Philippians 1:21-30: Fruitful Labor

2010-05-08T18:32:00.006-05:00

Because, to me, life is Christ, and death is gain. If I am to continue physically living, this is fruitful labor to me. I do not know which I will choose, for I am torn between the two. On the one hand, I desire to depart and be with Christ (because that would be so much better!)...

But it is more necessary for me to remain here physically because of you. Since I am confident of this, I know that I will refrain and remain with all of you for your progress and joy in the faith, so that your boast in Christ may abound because of me, because of my presence again with you.

Measure your citizenship solely by living worthily of the Gospel of Christ. Do this regardless of whether I come and see you or just hear about you in my absence, so that you would stand in one spirit. Strive together with one mind in the faith of the Gospel (and don't be shaken by anything set forth by our opponents), which to them signifies destruction, but it actually is your salvation -- this is from God.

For you have been given this task on behalf of Christ: not only to believe in him, but also to suffer on his account, to have the same struggle which you saw in me before and hear of from me now.

_____Translation notes
- "Life is Christ, and death is gain." We tend to be slavish about parts of speech. Just because they're infinitives ("to live" and "to die") in Greek doesn't mean that makes good English. Greek loves infinitives and participles. English doesn't.

- "But it is more necessary." I am not sure if it's good to do a paragraph break here. I feel that Paul paused his thoughts between 23 and 24. He found the inner resolve to make up his mind (mostly) that he is going to choose to continue living. It seems that he did not completely write off the possibility of martyrdom, as evidenced later in the epistle, but his immediate choice is to continue. I want to try and bring out the implication that he paused, hence the ellipsis at the end of verse 23.

- "Refrain and remain." It's literally "remain and stay with," but it has alliteration. I tried to get across the basic point "I will choose to continue physically living [and thus refrain from the opposite choice] so that I can remain with you all" and I tried to make the poetry come through. I think this was a moderate success. Unfortunate that I couldn't work in the alliteration of "through my presence again with you" in Greek (διὰ τῆς ἐμῆς παρουσίας πάλιν πρὸς ὑμᾶς), which repeats eta, alpha, and especially sigma.

- "Measure your citizenship solely..." I have never in my life come across a Greek sentence starting with the word "only," except here. I don't have a wide range of texts under my belt (1/2 the NT and a tiny amount of the Septuagint, plus the Didache), but this seems to be rare. In English, it's almost unheard of. It seems to be emphatic enough to deserve italics. As for "measure your citizenship," the verb is related to the idea of loyalty, conduct, and citizenship. It is a rare verb with only one other occurence in the NT. Since I do not have an in-depth lexicon, I may be reading my Pacifist beliefs into this by emphasizing the citizenship thing. The meaning I give makes sense, but someone with a better lexicon might be able to shed light on this.

- "which you saw in me before and hear of from me now." Literally "which you saw in me and now hear in (=hear of through) me." The "in" with regard to "hear" doesn't work in English, so the double-use of "in" won't work. Since that poetic element is lost, I tried to restore balance by adding a "before" to correspond to the "now."

____Commentary: tracing themes
Life is connected with service in this passage, while death is profitable. To live is Christ. This means to live a life of service and the suffering that comes as part and parcel to that life of service. To die, however, is gain. Death rather than life would be the thing profitable for oneself. (Paul later develops "death" in another direction. Stay tuned.) And then, Paul immediately turns around and calls life fruitful (i.e. profitable/gainful) labor. Labor is hard work. It entails suffering, yet also has gain. This is why he is torn between the two. Both life and death can be persuasively argued to be profitable. Which kind of profit will he choose? He makes a choice by talking things out.

We see another example of confidence in this passage. Now Paul is confident about the proper task: that he is to remain here with the Philippians to serve them.

Boasting also appears again here. Paul wants them to have pride in Christ Jesus and attribute praise to Christ as thanksgiving for allowing Paul to return to them.

Citizenship makes its first appearance here. Since we are all fellow-citizens, we are to measure ourselves by one standard only. That standard is the one thing we all have in common: the Gospel. As to what other standards one might hold oneself to, that will be revealed later on.

Also, unity as a theme makes its first appearance here. Paul admonishes them to stand like soldiers drawn for battle. He wants for them to "advance" in faith, like front line soldiers whose morale suddenly spikes when the field commander visits and remains with them. With his continued presence, he hopes, they will be reminded of the common purpose that holds them together.

Note that "joy" is connected here with progress/advance and unity. Joy as a theme has appeared before but Paul has not elaborated on that theme yet. We're still in the dark as to what he's talking about, but the pieces are ever-so-slowly coming together to show us that it has to do with unity.

I'd appreciate comments on this. What of this translation feels awkward? Does it speak to you? Is it clear or unclear? What are your thoughts on the themes I'm trying to trace out? I hope this study is helpful to someone.

Deep Thoughts... by Gary Simmons

2010-05-08T03:24:00.001-05:00

I never understood the phrase "the short end of the stick." I mean, it still hurts if you get hit by the other end of the stick, too. This is a phrase that I sometimes get but never understand.

Resources on the New Perspective on Paul

2010-05-05T23:46:00.000-05:00

HT: Todd Pruitt on this one. A wealth of resources for critically analyzing the New Perspective on Paul, and in particular the works of N.T. Wright, the (former) Archbishop of Durham. See here.

As to his character and general demeanor, I look up to N.T. Wright. As for his theology, I haven't gotten into it too much yet. I have a few of his books but I've not gotten around to reading them. Now that I'm translating Philippians and memorizing Matthew 2-4 as well as Joel, I've got plenty to do. I'll get around to Wright in due time though.

This was a weird dream

2010-05-05T11:44:00.003-05:00

Alright. I promise I'll do the next episode of Philippians soon. But for now, I want to write down what I remember of my dream last night.

It started off pretty regular, with Obi-Wan Kenobi battling General Grievous. But then it switched to a scene with me watching TV. Satan appeared on TV with blazing eyes, a blazing aura, and pretty mean horns. Red skin, and for reasons I'll never understand, he was wearing a black turtleneck. Someone else was with me in the room who did not perceive the demonic moment. Another demonic occurrence occurs. Since I'm the only one that perceives them, I am clearly possessed or at least haunted in this dream. I'm too terrified to speak in those moments. My protests are pitiful and unvoiced.

But then the scene switches. I am now with two other people in a living room. I look to my left and for no apparent reason I see a hidden message spelled out in sweet peas. Yes, sweet peas. It says "I'm going to possess him next" or something like that, referring to one of the others in the room. The guy in the room with me then starts to turn into a demon physically, almost. You know, blazing eyes and horns and what-not. So I say "I banish you in the name of Jesus!" Really, I was freaking out at the sight, but I knew who to call. And it worked.

The scene switches. I'm at my Grandma's old house with this guy and his son. Satan's at the screen door, still dressed in that stupid turtleneck. I tell the guy to take his son and run. He does so. So, I think about how Jesus is my light and I run toward the screen door and cock my right arm back for a major punch to the prince of darkness's face. In the middle of the dramatic jump, with me poised to give the devil the face-punching of his life, the alarm goes off and I wake up. He won't be so lucky tonight.

Michael Patton on Depression

2010-05-03T23:56:00.003-05:00

Here's an update on Michael Patton's depression. He's a Bible/preaching/apologetics teacher who dwells in Norman, Oklahoma. Apparently the stress of ministry got to him about 2 months ago and he just sort of... "snapped." You think you know depression when you see it in others and you give them the stock lines you learned in your counseling classes. Heh. Maybe you'd exemplify What not to say to those who are suffering. We've all done that.

Until you experience it yourself, you have no idea. Trust me on that one. I may not know Michael's experience, but I know how the "After-Depression" feels. I took medicine for several years. Now, I do not take anti-depressants. As long as I have my ADHD medicine, I get through the day just fine. Without it, I can't concentrate. And I feel somewhat ashamed for being unable to focus on serious mental tasks, but it's an annoyance I accept as a part of who I am.

But there was a time when I did not have this sort of self-acceptance. Those were dark days and endless nights. But that is not who I am now. Praise God. Perhaps I have a thorn in my flesh, but it is not some gaping wound. I am pressed, but not crushed. Persecuted, not abandoned.

Some great cats

2010-05-03T17:33:00.001-05:00

Here is a cat who is a very bad mystic.

Also, my very own Persian, Crystal.

How to stop a catfight.

Lastly we have Maru, the funniest cat ever.

Philippians 1:12-20: His Truth is Marching On

2010-04-22T16:57:00.007-05:00

I want you to understand, brothers, that my circumstances have taken place, rather, for the advance of the Gospel. The result is that my bonds in Christ have become apparent to the entire palace guard, and everyone else, too. Also, the majority of the brothers in the Lord, through my bonds, are made confident to dare all the more abundantly to declare the Word fearlessly.

Some proclaim Christ out of envy and strife; others, however, do so because it is pleasing to God. The latter do so out of love, knowing that I stand for the defense of the Gospel; the former proclaim Christ due to selfish ambition -- not sincerely -- intending to cause distress while I am in bonds. So what?! Regardless, in every way, be it in pretense or truth, Christ is proclaimed! In this I rejoice.

And yes -- I will indeed rejoice! For I know that this will result in salvation for me through your petition and the supply of the spirit of Christ Jesus. This accords with my hope and eager longing that I not be ashamed, but with full boldness, now as always, Christ be magnified in my body, whether through life or through death.

____Translation Notes
- I'm trying to think of a better way to say "to become apparent" in verse 13. The idea is that the palace guard all know him now; he's somewhat famous. However, "famous" implies he's a super-star of some sort, which is not accurate. "Notorious" would also be misleading because of its negative connotation. Any ideas?

- I'd appreciate feedback on verse 14. It sort of flows in Greek and the word order is strange. I didn't purposefully try to make the word order strange in English, but I tried to capture the structure. Hopefully it's poetic, even if a bit awkward.

- I'm rendering two different words as "proclaim" because I can't think of an alternate that works. Traditionally the first word, kerusso, is rendered "preach," but I don't think "preach" gets the right idea across. Paul is referring to evangelism, not sermons in the pulpit.

- Concerning "petition" in v 19... I have to wonder if anyone petitioned the emperor or a governor on Paul's behalf. No doubt Paul mostly has the idea of prayer (a petition to God) in view, but perhaps he also might be thinking of a petition for his release. I don't know if people even did that in the Roman Empire, though. Who knows.

- Concerning "salvation" in v 19... This word can often be used in a non-theological sense to refer to "deliverance," though it's also the word used for "salvation" in theological jargon. I go against most translators here (following my professor, Curt Niccum) in saying that every day, in Paul's thought, is full of salvation moments. The other occurrences of this word (1:28, 2:12) definitely disturb some theologies, but it is what it is. He is not referring to mere "deliverance" here.

- In verse 20 it says "that in no way would I be ashamed," but that is not good English. The "in no way" is emphatically in front, so a bolded "not" fits English style and also conveys the emphasis.

_____Commentary
In accordance with missionary thank-you letters, Paul follows up his thank-you by explaining to the Philippians how things are going. At the moment he has deemphasized mention of how their gift has made the difference and has instead attributed things to God's implicit providence in superintending Paul's current circumstances. House arrest has not reduced his opportunities for outreach. Actually, it's increased them and he also is an encouraging example for the fellow believers in Rome.

Confidence so far has been used in conjunction with God's work in sanctifying the Philippians (1:6) and God's work through Paul as an example of faith under fire (1:14). Paul also shows confidence that God will provide salvation for him through the power of prayer (1:19). His confidence is based on a fervent hope that he will have a clear conscience in knowing he did everything possible to give Christ glory (1:20). Compared to that, it doesn't matter if some people seem to be acting out of selfish conceit (1:15-17). Yes, it's wrong. But it doesn't stop God from acting. If chains and Roman guards can't stop the Gospel, then neither can selfish preachers.

Thus far, Paul's joy and hope are always looking forward to the Day of Christ. This future hope energizes and motivates for present action. He is not afraid he will be shamed by Jesus for committing sin; his highest longing is to work diligently and unswervingly so that he may hear "Well done, good and faithful servant."

Philippians 1:1-11

2010-04-16T16:26:00.004-05:00

Today I start my translation work for Philippians. The goal is to make a poetic translation. Here goes...

From: Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus
To: All the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, particularly the overseers and deacons.

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

I thank my God every time you cross my mind, always in my every prayer for all of you, because of your participation in the Gospel from day one to today.

I am confident of this: that he who began in you a good work will carry through on it to the Day of Christ Jesus. For it is right for me to think this about all of you, because you have me in your heart, both in my bonds and in the defense and confirmation of the Gospel; you all are my partners in this calling.

For God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus.
And this I pray: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, for you to prove what is superior -- namely, that you be pure and blameless until the Day of Christ, filled with the product of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ, to God's glory and my praise.

_____Commentary
Philippians is a missionary thank-you letter. When the original audience first heard it, they were expecting Paul to be saying "thanks so much for this gift you sent." He's under house arrest in Rome (or Ephesus?) at the moment. Having an income is difficult when you can't leave home, so he was reliant on churches to fund him. So far, nothing has occurred that will particularly shock the readers. Oh, but the letter will have its surprises for them, don't you doubt!

The one major note I have to make is concerning "what is superior." This is a term from Stoic philosophy that refers to the things that are most crucial. In other words, "the basics" of Christianity. And the basics are that you be "pure and blameless" (or, alternatively, the words could mean "sincere and inoffensive").

Also, I'm taking Papyrus 46's variant in verse 11. Most manuscripts say "to God's glory and praise," but I've heard good arguments for saying that P46's variant is original.

The next sections will be more fun. I promise.

Journey through Philippians: Some Preliminaries

2010-04-14T16:26:00.006-05:00

I've decided I'm going to run through Philippians. This book has always been one of my favorite of Paul's letters. Currently I'm reading Jeffrey Reed's Discourse Analysis on Philippians, which is rather difficult for me. I never formally learned discourse analysis, so I'm trying to work through the basic terminology.

After this post, I'll post my translation, a section or two at a time, with some commentary. This will be a short enough study that I expect to finish it. Even if you don't know Greek, you'll be able to gain from the study, since the point is to practice my translation. However, for those of you who are learning Greek, I think you will gain more from this. For the purposes of translation, italics means minor emphasis. Bold means major emphasis. Key terms will be placed in parenthesis after they occur.

I intend to make this a stylish, literary translation. That is, I hope it will convey style like Paul's in intelligible English. At the same time, though, I'm going to try to render key terms concordantly (same Greek word->same English word). The difficulty is working out how the readers, assuming this was one single letter and not a compilation, interpret chapter 1 in light of chapters 2-4. I have chapter 1 basically done, but I need to fine-tune it.

Now, as to the book itself: Philippians is not simply a harmless book about thinking about pretty things in life and just being happy. This is a book of life and death. We stand together or fall alone. Yet if we stand together, we will not be put to shame in the Day of Christ. There's my (purposefully short) intro to Philippians.

Just for reference, I'm listing some key terms in the text, grouped by theme. I'll comment on them as the letter unfolds.

Confidence/pride/humility
πέποιθα to be confident; this is the perfect passive of πείθω, to persuade. However, it is conventionally used in the perfect passive as "to be confident" (a state of being). It does not mean "to be convinced." This is obvious because the related noun πεποίθησις (3:4) means "confidence" and not "having-been-convinced-ness."
δοῦλος slave
δουλεύω to serve (as a slave)
δόξα glory
κενοδοξία vain glory
καύχημα bragging right; the thing you pride yourself on
καυχάομαι to boast/brag/put one's pride in
ἐριθεία selfish ambition
ταπείνωσις lowliness/humility
ταπεινόω to lower/humiliate

Cooperation/participation/getting along
εἰρήνη peace
χαίρω to rejoice
χαρά joy
συγχαίρω to rejoice with
κοινωνία participation/fellowship
κοινωνέω to share/participate
συγκοινωνέω to share/participate with
συγκοινωνός sharer/participant
ὑπερέχω to surpass (object in genitive or accusative case). This word is used for something that is of greater prominence, authority, or value.

Mindset/attitude
φρονέω to think/consider
ταπεινοφρωσύνη lowly/humble thought, i.e. humility.
ἡγέομαι to deem; to lead
οἶμαι to suppose
εἰληκρινής & ἀπρόσκοπος this pair of words either means "sincere and inoffensive" or it means "pure and blameless."
ἐπιποθέω to long for
ἐπιπόθητος longed-for

Loyalty/Unity/Conformity
πολίτευμα citizenship (one's status as a citizen); commonwealth/government
πολιτεύομαι to be a citizen. There is no easy way to explain this word. Generally, "to live" misses the point.
συν- Very noticeably, Paul often uses the prefix sun- on his verbs and nouns. This suggests either doing something *with* someone (thus, camaraderie or cooperation), or with some verbs it means conformity to something, such as with the next word.
συμμορφίζομαι to conform, i.e. to transform A so that it matches B
διώκω to doggedly follow/seek/pursue; to persecute
σχῆμα form
μετασχηματίζω to transform

Abundance/prosperity
πληρόω to fill
ἀναπληρόω to compensate. This verb only appears in 2:30. Compensation is not a theme in Philippians, really, but since it is a derivative of πληρόω, it contributes to how πληρόω is a key term. 2:30
περισσεύω to abound (i.e. to be plentiful); to have plenty
κέρδος gain/profit.
κερδάω to gain or profit.
καρπός fruit/product. When used in a financial sense, it refers to accumulated interest on a bank account.
πλεονάζω to increase; to accrue (of interest in a bank account)

Loss/Poverty
ὑστέρημα lacking. Can be used of the part of something that is still not sufficient, can be used specifically of the lacking of a person's presence, i.e. a person's absence, or can be used to refer to being in want/need/poverty. 2:30
ζημία loss. The opposite of κέρδος.
ζημιόω to lose. The opposite of
σκύβαλον This word refers either to trash, or more specifically to feces. Its emotional use in 3:8 argues more for Paul using this as a certain four-letter word. I choose to politely reduce it to "crap" so as not to offend the audience.

Mastery
λαμβάνω literally, "to take hold of" or "grasp," or simply "take." Used in 2:7 to refer to Christ "taking" the nature of a servant. The word is used figuratively in 3:12 to refer to mastering the Christian lifestyle.
καταλαμβάνω virtually synonymous with λαμβάνω. Also used figuratively twice in 3:12 and once 3:13 to refer to "getting the hang of" what it means to be a Christian.
τελειόω (passive): to be complete/mature. Used in 3:12 to refer to complete understanding of what it means to follow Christ.

Spread/Defense/Confirmation
προκοπή advancement/progress. Here, specifically of either the spread of the Gospel or of one's progress in faith.
βεβαιώσις confirmation.
ἀπολογία defense. Specifically, a logical explanation (not military defense).
Misc words
σωτηρία salvation/deliverance
θάνατος death

Gary's (Post)Modern Life

2010-04-09T23:18:00.002-05:00

I'm in Oklahoma now visiting friends for 2-3 weeks. In that time, I'll still be able to post just as (in)frequently as always.

I'm currently focusing on memorization, working my way through the Greek version of Joel. At the same time, I'm still learning Genesis 1-11 (though not for memorization). I was thinking of writing a book, but without access to a library, I really don't have the resources to do the necessary research. Instead, I can make a fairly good essay. Current length is about 25 pgs single-spaced. I felt compelled to write on Genesis 1-11 since November and I'm not going to simply abandon the project! It's been great.

Thank you Jim and Jeff for your prayers about my family. Mom's doing a whole lot better now, and my stress level is back in manageable range. That week a while ago in seclusion was like a spiritual sauna. I just shed off everything that was weighing me down. God is so good!

As far as posts go, I'm going to try my hand at making a literary translation of Philippians. There's still several things to work out, but I should have the first post up by Monday.

Thought for the Day

2010-04-07T15:01:00.002-05:00

I would like to try Chinese food with an Egyptian twist. Do you know anyone who can wok like an Egyptian?

Two wonderful Pro-Life moments

2010-04-01T16:28:00.002-05:00

Both of these come from Pro-Life Tribe.

First, Mississippi is voting on including a Personhood amendment in their state constitution. At present, they have enough signatures to put it up for a state-wide vote, if I understand correctly. Article here.

Second, April is Abortion Recovery Awareness Month. You can read the story here. The National Help Line for Abortion Recovery can be dialed at 1-866-482-LIFE. There you will find someone to talk to who has experienced abortion and is willing to help. What a wonderful resource that is to have!

Gao Zhisheng is alive!

2010-03-30T18:25:00.001-05:00

The Chinese Human Rights lawyer, Gao Zhisheng, is confirmed to still be alive after several months of his status being unknown. The Communist Party had captured him and tortured him again, with the one-year anniversary of his capture being February 4th.

Here is an email I received from China Aid today.
ChinaAid
March 29, 2010

On Sunday, March 28, 2010, missing human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng spoke to his wife and children for the first time in over a year - confirming he is still alive! False rumors of his death, torture, and escape from the custody of the Chinese Government have shrouded Gao's absence with mystery for over a year. Gao's brief phone conversations with western media mark the first official contact the public has had with him since his abduction by police on February 4, 2009.

Yesterday, Gao informed reporters that he had been released from detention six months ago, and had taken up residence at Wutai Shan mountain, a Buddhist landmark in northern Shanxi province. He refused to give details on his condition or whereabouts, saying he could not legally give interviews.

Close friend and fellow human rights lawyer Li Heping confirmed he had also spoken with Gao on Sunday. Gao told him he had "friends around him" - indicating he was being held under close surveillance by Chinese authorities.

Gao's wife Geng He and their children were overwhelmed with emotion as they spoke with Gao on Sunday morning. The children could not stop crying. In a statement released on Monday morning, Geng He appealed to the Chinese government to allow Gao Zhisheng to join the family in New York. Gao's family has suffered greatly in his absence. Geng He's parents have been severely harassed in recent months, for which Gao feels guilty.

He told the Associated Press, "I just want to be in peace and quiet for a while and be reunited with my family. Most people belong with family. I have not been with mine for a long time. This is a mistake and I want to correct this mistake."

While on his campaign in Europe to promote awareness of Gao's cause, ChinaAid President Bob Fu attributed the breakthrough to increased international pressure. "Thanks to the more than 124,000 supporters in over 180 countries around the world who have signed the petition to Free Gao, the Chinese Government has been forced to respond and to allow Gao Zhisheng to reconnect with his loved ones."

ChinaAid thanks you for your continued support and urges you to continue to take action. From Argentina to Zimbabwe, you, the international community have answered the call. And this is just the beginning.

Gao is not free yet. His movements are still being watched and monitored. He is not free to speak publicly or without surveillance. We must continue to press the Chinese government to free Gao Zhisheng, to uncensor his movements, and to allow him to reunite with his family.

Get involved. Go to www.freegao.com and sign the petition to free Gao. Call your local congressperson to let them know this concern is on your heart. It's vital that we put political pressure to free those who are suffering for the sake of the Gospel. He is currently in chains for standing up for human rights, but most especially with regard to Christianity. He has on more than one occasion suffered unspeakable torture and brutality, as have many for the sake of the Gospel. So many people in America say "pray for our troops." But few indeed are those who think to pray for those who are dying for the Faith once and for all entrusted to the saints.

Micah 4 in the Septuagint

2010-03-28T01:07:00.001-05:00

"In that day," declares the Lord, "I will gather the broken and I will welcome the expelled, even those I sent away. I will make the broken into a remnant and the expelled into a mighty nation, and the Lord shall reign over them from within Mt. Zion from that day and henceforth." (Micah 4:6-7, LXX)

Excellent articles on how to react to friends suffering

2010-03-21T20:44:00.000-05:00

Hat tip to Jeff.

What Not to Say to Those who are Suffering Part I and Part II. These quick posts also coincidentally cover what to say when someone is suffering.

Prayer Request Update II

2010-03-15T20:09:00.003-05:00

1. My mother just got back home from the hospital on Tuesday. The sleeve gastrectomy went reasonably well. They had trouble keeping her blood pressure high enough, so it wasn't smooth sailing, but they did successfully complete the operation. The tube they stuck down her throat may have hurt one of her teeth, but that's the only (lasting) complication we know of. I am relieved she is well.

2. My best friend Robbie's sister, Jessica Miller, was in a car crash a few weeks ago and was hospitalized. According to the caringbridge journal:

We got the results from Jessica's MRI [Tuesday]... She has significant brain damage. With the amount of brain damage she has it is impossible for her to recover from this.... We don't know how much longer she has to live, but the remainder of it will be spent at home. Jessica is going to be a Hospice patient and will be getting cared for at home to be as comfortable as possible for however longer she has left. This will also make it easier for her family and friends to visit her.

A later entry elaborates that her brain functions as that of a newborn in that she can blink and breathe without conscious thought, but she is unable to consciously control her basic functions. Currently there is no medical treatment to prevent this condition from degrading further, so family and friends are packed to visit her around the clock. And God bless the hospice nurses, too.

I talked to Robbie on the phone for several hours on Saturday. It was so great to catch up! He is doing well, all things considered.

3. My friend who did commit suicide recently, Ellie, will be missed. I talked to her sister Vanessa on Saturday also, and their family is doing OK.

4. M is feeling better emotionally, but she's not made any progress toward having a more social lifestyle. If you know depression, you know the feeling: everyone else's life is on "play" but your life is on "pause." That's how I described it, once upon a time. I'm just glad she's alive. I was so shocked and I felt so powerless and scared, that hour and a half on the phone with her. Having lost one friend recently, I didn't want to lose another. I cannot take credit for talking her out of suicide, but by God's grace, she is alive and (reasonably) well. I got a few friends of mine in Oklahoma to call her and keep her company.

5. As for my financial/academic situation, it's complicated. I do not know when I will be able to return to school. I've had far too much going on this past 6 weeks to worry about getting finances straightened out. So, I've decided to drop out of the running for Abilene Christian University this fall.

However, my stepfather just started a job (after a year unemployed) at the University of North Texas. Since he works in their financial dept, I'm eligible for one free semester. However, since I'm already 24, I only have this summer and this fall to choose from. I think I'll apply for summer and take basics, then move to Oklahoma hopefully in the fall.

During the past few weeks, I have prayed like never before. I have also learned that "mixing bread with tears" means "often refusing food at mealtime and crying uncontrollably instead." What a painful lesson. But God has gotten me through this and worse. And I will make it back to school and finish my degree. I have what it takes to be part of the biblical studies guild, and with good tutelage, I will be an excellent and durable vessel for God to work through. All I want to do is write, read, study, and teach. And encourage. Someday soon, I will be doing those things for the Kingdom.

Amazing Inspirational Video about Depression

2010-03-09T00:17:00.001-06:00

Oh my gosh. My Skype-friend in China, Jaer, shared this video with me. The video is in English, even if the website isn't. I *highly* recommend this to everyone.

Nick Vujicic speaks on how to overcome depression and difficulties in life. Jeff, I want to give you a special shout-out on this one.

Jesus the Politician

2010-03-08T18:46:00.000-06:00

My professor and friend, Chip Kooi, blogs about Jesus the Politician.

Why is it people automatically assume that there's nothing political in what Jesus said? Does the word "kingdom" not sound political? How about dying in a political execution because of political pressure set forth by a special interest group? Seriously?

Anyway, check out what he has to say.

As for prayer request updates: My family is doing fine. Mom will have surgery in the morning.

Apparently the transcript request I faxed a month ago didn't go through, so I am 3 weeks late in getting my transcript in for Abilene Christian University. How frustrating. Especially because I can't fix this issue today or tomorrow because my parents will be at the hospital.

Have I mentioned how much I don't like fax machines?

Review: Brian Houston's "You Need More Money"

2010-03-07T17:45:00.003-06:00

Brian Houston, the lead pastor of the Hillsong mega-church in Australia, published You Need More Money in 1999 through his own ministry, Brian Houston Ministries. First, I must ask: who names a ministry after himself? Really?

Second question: why is this book not on his own website? [Update: he no longer endorses it, as this article shows.] I found it on Amazon by searching for "Hillsong" in my last note on Hillsong. Now that I've actually ordered this book, I have physical evidence in my hands of his teachings. Let the reader note that I bought this paperback used through Amazon for less than a dollar (before shipping).

The purpose of this book is to re-frame your understanding of money. "One of the enemy's greatest strategies is to stop God's people desiring more money" (17). Brian says that if you tell yourself all you need is enough money to put food on the table, then you're being selfish. You could try to gain money so you could put food on hundreds of tables. If you say you only need a car that gets you from A to B, then that's selfish too; what if God wants you to go to C, D, E, and F, but you only have a car that gets you from A to B?

Brian wants you to get comfortable with wealth. One exercise to help in doing this is to put on your best clothes and go to a nice restaurant to buy a cup of coffee. Just get comfortable with the thought of luxury. Though the book later develops the theme of how wealth can lead to making a real impact on the world (see below), this suggestion only breeds private comfort with having wealth and does not in any way connect to how one can use wealth for God's purposes.

The mindset Brian seeks to implant in the reader is one of grandiose ambition, in which by making more money one can impact hundreds of lives instead of a few. He stresses the necessity of money in a missionary's line of work, and applauds a missionary couple who went to China, because they started a small business in Australia and made enough money to finance their mission work. (Behold, the harvest is plentiful, but the workers need to wait 20 years to fund themselves!)

He tries to re-frame one's understanding of money as that of a neutral tool that can be good or evil, depending on its use. While there is some truth to that, money is actually a power of this world and not of God. Not just does he frame it as a neutral and necessary tool, but sees it as God's divine promise to us. Page 8 says it clearly:

Money can accomplish tremendous things for the Kingdom of God. In order to do this, we have to become comfortable with wealth, and break the bondage, guilt and condemnation of impoverished thinking. Poverty is definitely not God's will for His people. In fact, all His promises talk of blessing and prosperity.

How is the reader to respond? This reader would respond with Matthew 24:3-14, or even the Discipleship Guide (Matthew 10). Following Jesus is not a way to worldly success; indeed, properly done, such discipleship may lead to a very uncomfortable death.

Page 12 interprets 2 Cor 8:9 as saying that Jesus forsook his heavenly wealth and came to earth to be poor so that Christians may be rich, i.e. free of poverty. This is, without a doubt, another gospel. I cannot stomach this teaching.

If I were to thoroughly explain every misuse of Scripture in this book, I would have to write a book of at least equal length. In short: Brian Houston, the lead pastor of Hillsong, is an excellent motivational speaker. His church offers extravagant tithes at Mammon's altar, but what does a book like this do for the Kingdom? It fulfills Matthew 24:11.

What should our reaction be to Hillsong? There's no doubt that their songs, such as "Shout to the Lord" are popular. Ousting their low-on-theology, high-on-excitement pop songs is a rather difficult task; but what can we do to stop ~~feeding this ravenous lion~~ funding this ministry? A Christian cannot, in good conscience, support this ministry in any way, shape, or form.

If you do not believe me that this guy is a con artist, you can currently buy a copy of the book on Amazon used for 52 cents (American) plus shipping. I am happy to discuss further if anyone wants details.

Things Jesus Can't Do: A Comprehensive List

2010-03-06T22:26:00.002-06:00

Book Review: Essential Guide

2010-02-27T16:06:00.002-06:00

Yes! Last night I finished Philip Comfort's Essential Guide to Bible Versions. He covers a lot of ground and intends to show how we got the Bible in English today. His starting point is the history of OT manuscripts, then NT manuscripts. Next his focus lingers on the theory of Bible translation and how different scholars approach it. Next, early translations prior to English. After this comes history of pre-KJV English translations, the KJV itself, from KJV to today's, today's translations, and finally a discussion of the 27 verses in the KJV that don't appear in more recent translations.

Overall impressions: Comfort is a well-learned and able textual critic. His job is to look at manuscripts and compare them to find what is most likely the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic wording of the Bible (his focus is the Greek New Testament). In this capacity, he is superb. I express a few doubts on his abilities as a translator, but that's not his primary job anyway. He knows the letter and the spirit (and the Spirit) of the text.

This book is a compact reference suitable for a somewhat general audience. I would expect college graduates to be able to gain from it, though it is not written for a fully general audience. The book has an excellent glossary which teaches the reader technical terms used in his field. This is why I hesitate to recommend it for the general audience.

In short: it's very good for preachers, elders, and translators as a reference. Some who are not in biblical studies may gain from it also, but it's not for a completely general audience. Comfort attempts to introduce the technical field to the nontechnical folk, but it is still technical in nature. I'm glad it's on my shelf, though.

Prayer Request Update

2010-02-26T23:03:00.000-06:00

M seems to be doing alright. She's still living, which is a relief. Seems cheered for the moment. Will update again before long.

My best friend's sister, Jessica, seems to be stable and they may be able to perform surgery on her and heal her. We'll know for sure tomorrow. The journal of her status can be found here.

Yep. Things seem to be calming down. Wednesday night I got no sleep and didn't eat until about 6 pm so I could fast, as I promised. But after that point I had some dinner and wound down. I think I got 6-7 hrs of sleep, but it didn't feel very restful. So I napped in the afternoon and now I'm better emotionally and physically.

I've had several spiritual ups and downs. Thank God for His grace. For SOOO many things. Jesus has given us grace upon grace -- the Word is full of grace and truth.

Urgent prayer request

2010-02-25T08:48:00.003-06:00

At one in the morning last night, a friend of mine called me and asked me to give her a reason not to take her life. Please pray for her. We'll call her M to keep her anonymous.

It's now almost 9 in the morning. I spent the night tossing and turning and I feel sick to my stomach.

I already promised my best friend yesterday that I'd spend today in prayer and fasting for his sister, Jessica, who is in a coma and may die in the next two days.

And my mother is having a gastric sleeve operation on the 9th.

And I will know whether I've been accepted to Abilene Christian University for the fall on the 7th. I still don't have any scholarships, and it's $27,000 a year.

Psalm 80. Kyrie, Eleson. Lord, have mercy.

Woman in Creation: Genesis 2 compared to Hesiod's Theogony

2010-02-24T19:11:00.000-06:00

Dehumanizing the Vulnerable ends with a section pleading for the use of more humanizing terminology, terms of endearment to replace objectifying language. What's most effective, though, is language that ties an oppressed group (be it women, blacks, or whatever) to the image of God. God-language works better than mere terms of endearment.

"You are women. In Creation, noble; in redemption, gracious; in use, most blessed." ~Esther Sowerman, 1617.

I intend to expand on that particular quote.

Hesiod's Theogony
In the Greek creation myth, Prometheus stole Zeus' sacred fire and gave it to mortal men (males) on the earth. Zeus punished Prometheus, then turned to devise a scheme to punish men. He consulted his daughter Athena and together they crafted the perfect plague to send among mankind. Something that men could never get rid of; a source of constant misery. You guessed it. Women are a plague, in classic Greek thought. "No helpmeets in wretched poverty, but only in wealth."

Women are very ironically compared to bee drones (the males!) which do no work and are only useful for reproductive purposes, whereas the workers (females!) are the men that women leech from. And even if you find a "good" wife, you never know what kind of children she will bear you. If you get mischievous children, then you have to deal with that for life. But if you don't marry, you won't get children to care for you in your old age. This myth has examples of both the disease epithet as well as parasite. The moral of the story: can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.

The Bible
In Genesis 2, woman is given a few unique characteristics that tell a very different story.

She is the only being crafted from flesh. She does not have the connection to the earth that man and the other creatures have. Does this make women impractical as a general rule? No. That's not something the Bible proscribes about women. What this does mean is that women are unique and set apart by God from the rest of creation. (As a bonus, she is softer and more graceful than any other creature!)

One cannot, from Genesis 2, classify creation as males of all species vs. females of all species. Genesis makes it clear that the categories are man (male humans), woman (female humans), and animals (of both sexes). What holds true for the males and females of other species does not apply to humanity. Therefore, the pattern for human interaction cannot be drawn from the way other creatures such as lion, wasps, ants, bees, praying mantises, and spiders tend to act. We are different.

However, positive comparisons to animals are allowable, such as Mary Jane calling Spiderman "Tiger," That appeals to strength, grace, and/or passion. Song of Solomon 4:1 is excellent, also: "your hair is like a flock of goats descending from Mount Gilead." To put that in straightforward English: "I love the way your hair flows off the curves of your breasts." Again, some comparisons are positive.

She brings man joy, and is made for that purpose. Adam's response to seeing her in the flesh should set a pattern for man's general attitude toward women. Admittedly, if I had never heard of woman before and then God made a woman and I saw her naked right away, I'd be pretty thrilled, too. The first thing the man does is very much what I would do: make a pun. "I will call her isshah (woman), for she was taken out of ish (man)."

She is truly a playmate, not a plaything. Playboy magazine calls women playmates, but treats them as playthings. This is not the way it should be. A mate is a friend and companion to enjoy, not an object to exploit. What we find in Genesis 2 is innocent, harmonic paradise and not some coercive, threatening show of dominance. A wise woman wrote this today: "Really loving someone is doing what is best for them, no matter the cost to you. That's a very conscious decision, and it shows that you truly love that person."

She produces good fruit. Genesis shows man having two intimate feminine relationships: one with the earth, and the other with woman. Through his relationship with the earth, he and she (Mother Earth) produce a tomato. This is analogous to men working outside the home as provider. Now, the other relationship: he and she (woman) produce something far more valuable than a tomato. Without woman this would be impossible, and it is inextricably tied to her identity as woman. This is analogous to men working inside the home as father and husband.

I will point out that nowhere is woman given any particular duty or task to perform. She is not explicitly told to help work the ground the way man does, but she is a helper who is like him. Determining the meaning of "helper" in this context is tricky; I might give it a separate post sometime later. What I get from the text is that it makes no evaluative statement about women working outside the home, but does speak highly of woman as a homemaker. (For women working "outside the home," see Proverbs 31.)

Her reproductive abilities play a vital role in not just creation, but redemption. Here I have to go outside Genesis 2. In Genesis 3:15, woman's reproductive abilities will produce the means for destroying the snake. The Christian interpretation of this passage as referring to the birth of Jesus actually goes back very far. The Greek translation of the Old Testament says without any doubt that *he* will crush the snake's head. So, this is a passage about redemption, and woman plays a role in it. This was fulfilled in Luke 1-2.

The Faith of the Centurion

2010-02-20T23:25:00.003-06:00

This passage is one people seem to use often in defense of the idea of a pro-military Jesus. As one example, we've got this reply to my first student opinion article. But enough of that. Let's look at what the text of Luke 7:1-10 (NIV) says:

When Jesus had finished saying all this in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. There a centurion's servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, "This man deserves to have you do this, because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue." So Jesus went with them.

He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: "Lord, don't trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, "I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel." Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well.

Pretty surprising that Jesus would say that to a Roman centurion. He never seems to praise Jewish freedom fighting guerrilla groups. In fact, the New Testament almost never mentions any of those groups. But Jesus says a good thing about a Roman soldier. And Luke specifically writes favorably about the Romans.

In chapter 7 Jesus helps a Roman soldier with a sick slave. Immediately after that incident Jesus raises a widow's son. In short, Jesus is exemplifying what it means to live by Leviticus 19:32-34 (NIV),

Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the LORD. When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Thus, we see a very inclusive concern for others in Jesus' actions. The centurion also serves as an ironic contrast in faith with John the Baptist later in the chapter. Luke uses the lowly for ironic contrasts often enough, such as in Luke 18. That chapter has a widow seeking justice and an apathetic judge. Justice happens because of a poor helpless old woman. The Pharisee and tax collector is yet another such contrast. The following episodes about the little children and the rich ruler both have their own contrasts, but they're less obvious.

Note that nowhere is the centurion said to become a disciple. Jesus heals those who turn to him, and that's that. In Luke 5:12-26 we have two episodes of healings that did not necessarily lead to discipleship. The man possessed by Legion in Mark 5 was not allowed to be a disciple, but was told to go back and be with his family (5:18-20).

Healing/miracle stories do not concern themselves with whether a healed person ends up living "happily ever after." The focus is on what Jesus said and did. As far as what happened to the person healed, the only things reported are (usually) the fact that healing did happen and that people were amazed in response. Therefore, we can't really say at all that this centurion became a disciple. Besides, a Roman centurion can't just quit his job and convert to Judaism and follow a Rabbi around. Going AWOL (or just displaying cowardice at all) was punishable by death.

And lastly, let me add this. People are willing to use this as a prooftext for saying Jesus approves of soldier-disciples, but nobody seems to notice the same logic could use this passage to approve of slavery. This slaveholder was not told to free his newly-healed slave either, as the text has it. So, if this passage proves that Jesus was not non-violent, it also "proves" slavery is perfectly acceptable in God's eyes.

I don't like slippery slopes, but I dislike double standards even more. People are inconsistent and use whichever interpretive style fits the point they want the text to make. Ugh.

And God Said...

2010-02-19T13:49:00.000-06:00

Dr. Joel Hoffman has released his new book, And God Said! The blog for the book has a drawing to win a free copy! Woohoo! Go leave a comment to enter. Add the blog to your blog roll for a second entry, and make a blog post with the same link as "leave a comment" to double your chances yet again (4 entries)!

I think I may have been first. We all know that some of the first will be last. But maybe this time, one of the first will still be first. We'll see! :)

Also check out his other blog, God Didn't Say That.

Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: An Overview (Part II)

2010-02-16T17:22:00.002-06:00

It's simply too much to try and define all eight categories of hate speech within one post. As heavy as it is on the heart, let's continue.

5. Disease. A disease is a threat that must be eradicated. This image of a disease or cancer is most commonly a political metaphor to justify extermination. Although infrequently used of those who do have a certain disease (AIDS) or are mentally handicapped, often this dehumanizing language is aimed at perfectly healthy human beings whose only "defect" is being unwanted.

The Native Americans didn't have much resistance to European diseases. Smallpox was especially a bane to them. When Europeans started coming into contact with them, the Native Americans contracted European diseases and in some sense looked pretty weak to settlers because of that. So, the settlers deemed them inferior on the assumption that they were always struggling with those diseases and were always carriers of contagion.

6. Inanimate object. This category likewise does double duty. Sometimes this is a step down from the insignificant animal subcategory, making the victims even less significant and therefore even easier to exploit. Sometimes objectifying people makes the cyanide pill of mass extermination a little easier to swallow.

The Nazi and Soviet regimes both used those they oppressed as experiment subjects, both alive and dead. Organs were harvested. The Soviets mixed the bones of the dead in concrete. People consigned to concentration camps and on the way there were called "transit material," that is to say, they were a "shipment of cargo used for industrial purposes." The bodies of gassed Jews were likewise called "pieces" that needed to be incinerated.

7. Waste product. The phrase "scum of the earth" comes to mind. This epithet is quite common, I can most readily remember this in association with the poor. They are "white trash." It is because of our depraved disposition to referring to the poor as "trash" that God emphatically commands protection of the poor in both the Old and New Testaments.

When people tried to immigrate children from Britain to Canada during the Industrial Revolution, some Canadians opposed it. Despite the fact that Britain exploited children for labor in unspeakable ways, Canadians were not willing to help out, because the immigration of these poor children was "a wholesale dumping of moral refuse on [Canada's] shores." One should not abhor the exploited for being physically or emotionally scarred by abuse. Detest the abusers instead.

8. Non-person. This is perhaps the worst category of all. Personhood is a legal and psychological category that (theoretically) transcends humanity itself. This category exists apart from eugenics and is based on an idea of rating the value of a person by measuring how much they can contribute to society.

Corporations are persons before the law and can sue. Ships, if they have had a maiden voyage, are persons before the law also. The rationale is grounded in the immense amount of money and resources that go into the construction and stability of a company or a ship. Some would argue for personhood on behalf of rivers and forests, thus allowing naturalists to advocate on their behalf in court. Some even would give animals varying degrees of personhood. And yet, certain bioethicists consider the elderly and disabled as nonpersons so we can kill them off because they are not cost-effective.

And what about the children? The premise of Brennan's entire book is that the same objectifying language is used today to dehumanize our own children. In a world where some people define ships and corporations as "persons," where people put forth a philosophical theory of robots with personhood (a la Isaac Asimov's Bicentennial Man)... in this sort of "progressive" world, our own children are not persons before the law.

In conclusion, all of these designations reinforce violent behavior and create a hostile environment that encourages others to join in the oppression of the vulnerable. It's a vicious cycle, and if we're going to stop it, we're going to need humanizing language. We will need to expand the appreciation for groups that are currently despised, and restore their human dignity through speech that affirms their value and advocates on their behalf.

I highly encourage you to get this book. The knowledge contained in this book is difficult to bear, but it is a necessary burden. If you are interested in matters of social justice, this is a must-read.

Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: An Overview (Part I)

2010-02-16T17:20:00.005-06:00

William Brennan wrote an excellent and insightful book that draws out 8 main themes used in hate speech. He covers these 8 themes as they've been used in reference to blacks, Native Americans, victims of Soviet and Nazi oppression, women, and children. I highly recommend his book, Dehumanizing the Vulnerable, with a solemn warning. The first two thirds of the book depict the uses and destructive effects of hate speech, and it made me want to break down and cry. Once I felt nauseous. The examples he gives are chilling, and they only scratch the surface.

Brennan does a wonderful job of supplying historical examples of how the different themes were used, but he doesn't always do a thorough job elaborating on the themes themselves. I intend to correct that. I supply one or two examples for each theme, but my focus is simply to help give a clear picture of the themes. This note is meant to expand on the book rather than summarize it. I will do a specific post on women and one on the unborn in the following two weeks, so I'm downplaying reference to that for now. This note will not be joyful, and it is twice as long as my last major note, just to warn you.

1. Barely human. Brennan explains this category very well. He says of this theme: "although they are acknowledged as official members of the human species, it is an ambiguous and questionable status that is subject to constant scrutiny and endless qualifications. The image consistently projected is that of hopelessly flawed human beings whose lives are so insignificant that they can be exploited at will, or so devoid of value that their very existence is placed in severe jeopardy."

Also under this theme is the idea of deficient humans. Defective models. Damaged goods. Today, retarded persons and the handicapped are at serious risk for this categorization. I have had over ten surgeries in my life. I was born with fairly serious heart problems and if I had not had a loving mother, I could have been aborted. But I am human. I am worthy of life.

In Nazi Germany, sick people were ostracized. For my low physical stamina and potentially life-shortening or life-threatening heart problems, I would have been seen as a burden. My eye problems don't help things, either. People would look at me incredulously as if it was terribly inconsiderate for me to continue drawing breath. Nobody would care that my intellectual development more than compensates for my former physical problems. Perhaps for none of these reasons -- perhaps simply because I am lefthanded -- I would be sent to a concentration camp.

2. Not human. This category creates further distance and hostility. Anyone convinced that a group of people are "not human" cannot possibly have any emotional bond with those non-humans. The author notes well that calling someone even barely human still conveys some shred of humanity, and that is a dangerous thing if you wish to inspire hatred and discord.

In 1907 Hitler said, "Wherever I went, I began to see Jews, and the more I saw, the more sharply they became distinguished in my eyes from the rest of humanity." By 1923 this spiraled down to an assertion of nonhumanity: "The Jews are undoubtedly a race, but not human."

3. Animal. This theme does double duty. At times people may be compared to lower animals in order to make their lives seem insignificant, and thus rationalize their victimization. The other use is to classify someone as a dangerous beast, either to be subdued (blacks; women) or hunted down and destroyed (Native Americans; Jews).

It was said that the Negroe was a beast of burden. Uncle Tom's Cabin affirms this imagery. Negroes were bred like pedigreed animals for strength and stamina, but not brains. This stereotype about blacks persists to this day, and is patently false. Due to the slow maturation rate of humans, it would take considerably longer to selectively breed humans than it takes to breed cattle or household pets.

4. Parasite. Biologically speaking, a parasite is a creature that has a one-way dependency on another creature, and does not in any way compensate its host. I am not satisfied with Brennan's treatment of this category, because he just leaves the "parasite" image at the biological definition. To the contrary, referring to a person as a parasite evokes an image of a malicious creature. Deceitful. Sneaky. It relishes the thought of draining your blood. It's not just innocently trying to survive, it is actively and sadistically contemplating the joy it will experience at causing you to suffer.

The difference between this image and the previous is that the "animal" category labels someone as an unreasoning beast that needs either a firm-handed master or destruction; this category brings to mind a cunning and tricky animal that is inherently evil.

A character fitting this archetype of "tricky parasite/predator," as I understand it, is Tolkien's Shelob, the giant she-spider. Though she often relied on webs to capture prey, she would creep around and stalk particularly tasty morsels for the thrill of surprise and direct combat. Frodo in this clip was one such victim. Spiders uniquely form a middle line between parasite and predator, and Shelob encompasses both the "dangerous beast" and the "tricky parasite" because she mixes brute force with cunning and guile.

Note especially when Sam strikes one of her good eyes in 2:30. She tries to make him lower his guard by exaggerating the handicap and pretending to be more hurt than she actually is.

It would be very easy (though incredibly inaccurate) to try and make a metaphor of that youtube clip. Frodo is the unsuspecting average German, and Shelob is the sneaky Jew. Loyal Sam is Adolf Hitler, and the Light of Galadriel (the glowing thingy) is Nazi teaching. Now, these connections have nothing to do with the clip, but Nazi propaganda could easily lift this clip from its context and use it as an illustration. Especially with the heroic line, "Let him go you filth. You will not touch him again."

Love is a Verb?

2010-02-14T18:36:00.000-06:00

No it's not. At least, not always. Love is a noun, and it has specific character qualities.

I'm going to steal this from First Things, since I just "love" it that much.

Insert your own name and the right pronoun. See if this works for you.

______ is patient and kind;
______ does not envy or boast;
______ is not arrogant or rude.
______ does not insist on ___ own way;
______ is not irritable or resentful;
______ does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.
______ bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love is a name, and that name is Jesus, not Gary. I've got a lot of work to do.

On the Necessity of Relationships (Part II)

2010-02-13T00:55:00.065-06:00

Last time we covered the necessity of social context for our self-image. Now, I'd like us to consider how meaning develops for words. Actually, it's pretty much the same. Words, in a vacuum, have no definition. They must be studied in connection with other words. Basically, the human mind can't grasp words until they're used in a sentence.

Power.

On its own, it's hard to figure out what this word means. It's a pretty common English word, and it can mean: angelic being, authority, superhero ability, political influence, control, allure/charm, electricity, etc., etc.

Without context, there's no way to define exactly what "power" means. If I introduced a foreign word into a sentence, like some fancy Greek word you've never heard before, you probably won't be able to figure out what it means even though it's used in a sentence. Words have to be explained using other words, which is why words mean nothing on their own. In linguistics, a word's meaning exists in two parts: content is what a word says, and framing is how you should feel about it. Killing, murdering, assassinating, and executing all have the same content: making someone dead. The framing is how you should feel about it: killing is neutral; murdering/assassinating is terrible; and executing is... tolerable.

Since words only exist in relation to other words, their meanings can be stretched. Let's examine how the trick of content and framing works in reference to abortion arguments. How can anyone make the idea of killing babies for convenience palatable? You can popularize an idea by drawing upon the preexisting tradition of what is considered virtuous (i.e. words that give the idea a positive framing). For America, nothing is more sacred than personal freedom of individual choice. We will die for it, and we will kill for it. Hell, we'll even bomb civilians for it. If you can frame pro-choice arguments in the context of "American freedoms," then it sounds like a good deal. Sounds pretty American.

As an example of pro-choice wording bias: NARAL Pro-Choice America says this about themselves:

For 40 years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the nation's leading advocate for privacy and a woman's right to choose.

All of these words have a particular flavor to them. "Advocate" brings to mind a sense of bravely speaking out on behalf of what's right. We sure love our "privacy." "Right" suggests something that is morally necessary (and, for Americans, something worth dying for). "Choice" is, well, the golden calf of American thought. We live our lives as consumers of ever more stuff. Convenience is what makes us happy. (Well, actually, it makes us empty, but that's for another post.) When something displeases us, we throw it away. When we're unhappy with our marriage, we think s/he's not really "the one," so we get a divorce and try again.

According to Family Guy, the Emperor in Star Wars found out the formula for good Star Wars dialogue: "something, something, something, Dark Side. Something, something, something, complete." Let me give you the formula for good "pro-choice" dialogue. The sentence goes like this:
1. Start with "it is." Make the sentence an affirmation.
2. "HER." Use the third-personal singular possessive pronoun.
3. Follow up with an adjective that further indicates possession. "Own," "personal," or "individual" works great.
4. Finally, top it off with "body" or "choice."

In short, you must make sure you individualize the statement. The classic statement from this recipe is "it's her own body." Here's one I've heard when I objected to a friend's sexual misconduct: "she'll make the choice that's best...(pause for emphasis) for her." I'm sorry, but no. Sin is sin, and friends do not let friends screw around.

The points I hope to make with this post are:
1. Words must always be evaluated very carefully. The meaning of a word is slippery, since it takes its meaning from how it interacts with other words.
2. Words are the ammunition fired in the war to influence people's thoughts. People employ rhetoric of "freedom" and "choice" and other high-sounding words to make killing babies sound like something it's not.

Now, it must be said that pro-choice and pro-life are both high-sounding words, and both sides will label the other as anti-choice and anti-life. Words are the ammunition on both sides. It is because of communication gaps like this that two people can see the same thing and understand it completely differently. Ultimately, we can't just object to abortion because our side may be better at making ourselves look good and making them look bad. We have to base ourselves off of better reasons to believe as we do.

My next post in this series will cover the 8 different themes of hate speech. These same categories have been used to demean blacks, Native Americans, victims of Nazi and Soviet oppression, women, and children (both before and after birth). It's disturbing to think that the same basic way people dehumanized German Jews is the same way people dehumanize the unborn. Biology has always, up until recently, accepted life as beginning at conception. The zygote fits all the qualifications required for a thing to be alive. It also is of the species homo sapiens. Therefore, it is a living human being, as biologically defined. No fancy word games can refute this, but repeatedly telling lies will convince people that they are true.

Top 10 Valentines bloopers

2010-02-11T02:13:00.001-06:00

If you head to the right place, you can find some of the hilarious things people unwittingly say when they are learning a new language. Cruel as I am, I thought I'd post some. Keep in mind we all make mistakes, and that's how we learn. (But... it's also how other people laugh at us.)

10. I fell in love with her the first time I sawed her.

9. He had such a worm heart.

8. We were two sheeps passing in the night.

7. We have hated each other for so long. I want to borrow the hatchet.

6. My dentist makes me blush twice a day.

5. I don’t know if he will propose, but I am expecting.

4. I have something exciting to tell you. My girlfriend and I got enraged last night!

3. The groom was wearing a very nice croissant.

2. He lifted the veal off her face and gave her a big kiss.

1. I think she is really glad she got marinated.

Some other innocent mistakes from new English from the pages of InnocentEnglish:

Recipes: Next, chop all the vegetarians into little pieces.

Health: It is dangerous to smoke while you are becoming pregnant.

Sports: It was so exciting to watch! The cheerleaders threw up high into the air.

Politics: The President got off the plane and gave a big kiss to the first ladder.

Grammar: Should I have a coma in the middle of this sentence?

Music: When he was through singing he had a standing ovulation.

Food: Do you like this food? I made it from scratching!

Parents: My bed has three blankets and a large guilt my parents gave me.

Weather: Rain makes old cars lust. So be careful about that. Once a car starts lusting, there’s no way to stop it!

Travel: You can’t sleep with me because it is too crowded. But you can probably sleep with my sister. That’s what most of my friends do when they visit.

Bible Quiz: Moses led the Hebrew slaves to the Red Sea, where they made unleavened bread which is bread made without any ingredients.Moses went up on Mount Cyanide to get the ten commandments. He died before he ever reached Canada.

Gao Zhisheng still missing

2010-02-04T19:58:00.000-06:00

Gao, where are you?

Chinese human rights lawyer and hero of the faith, Gao Zhisheng, was abducted by the Chinese Communist Party exactly a year ago. Where is he now? Is he dead? Is he still enduring the same inhumane torture he was put through last time? The Washington Post explores the issue. (I suggest just signing in with facebook.) Gao's wife, Geng He, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post recently calling the issue to public attention. Thank God.

Since September we had suspected he was dead, but now we believe he is alive, still enduring terrible torture, up to, including, and exceeding toothpick insertion into the genitals.

On the Necessity of Relationships (Part I)

2010-02-02T21:01:00.001-06:00

How do you define yourself? What does it mean to be "conservative," or for that matter, to use any description? Descriptions make sense because they have opposites. If you've never experienced cold, then the word "hot" means nothing. If you've never been happy, then "sad" means nothing.

I don't think that personality exists apart from experiencing interaction with the world around us, and most especially with other people. We are communal, social creatures with an inborn need to interact. There is a theory in psychology that says that the self only exists in relation to others. In other words, there is no "Gary" unless Gary has someone to talk to.

I believe this stacks up with human experience. What exactly makes people feel lonely? Is it a survival need? No; loneliness has nothing to do with lacking food, water, or shelter. It is a sense that we lack fulfillment through self-identification. Without other people, we can't identify ourselves.

And we have an inborn need for self-identification. We must retain personality at all costs. If you end up shipwrecked alone on an island with a tennis ball, you'll name it Wilson, too. This may be an act of insanity, but it is a built-in defense mechanism against losing all sense of self. This is why we need other people to encourage and support us.

You help define people simply by relating to them. Every time you encourage someone, you build a positive definition of him/her, and when you put them down, you build a lower definition. I already wrote one note on the power of speech, but it's a point worth repeating.

Personality does not naturally exist in a vacuum and it is not independent of your interactions with others. To quote a Collin Raye song: "without you, baby, I'm not me." Do you know what happens if that built-in mechanism of creating an artificial relationship doesn't kick in? If you were on an island alone, and did not make friends with a tennis ball, then you would lose all sense of self and become an instinctive animal.

Or, perhaps, you'd go through depression. We all feel unfulfilled and lonely sometimes, but depression is not something everyone goes through. With depression, your personality is forced into a vacuum detached from your real life. Even if you have a caring family and friends that love you, somehow you don't take that into account and feel as if you're all alone in the world and nobody loves you.

No personality or privilege can protect from this. You can be a very smart Bible major, very popular, and still feel like a loser. You can be an incredible athlete and still feel unfulfilled. Last Saturday totally threw me for a loop. A friend of mine and comrade in the Lord, Ellie... she took her own life. How should I respond? How should I relate to this event, and how does it define my actions?

Perhaps we don't specifically say "me, me, me" like that, but we do all consider how to relate to the event. My choice? I will remember always to encourage my friends every chance I get. Life is fleeting. Pain is real, and it hurts. Death is scary, and so... inhuman. It is raw. It is real. It is unpleasant. It is also inevitable.

For those of us who are in Christ, it is not the end. I find comfort in this, but it doesn't make me immune to the pain of losing someone. In response to this tragedy, I choose to live every day as if I don't get another chance to say "I love you."

Lastly, I want to dedicate We Live by Superchick to Ellie Hensley. I'm sorry I wasn't there for you. I should have been a better friend.

You see, even though she's gone, she is a part of my definition. When she died, a piece of me died, too. A piece that doesn't just go away. That's why I have to speak to her memory. It's why we all do. Death is not something the human personality can comprehend. It is, simply, not natural.

Ministry in Capernaum: Mark 1:21-34

2010-01-30T14:25:00.003-06:00

They went into Capernaum. As soon as the Sabbath came, he went into the synagogue and taught. They were astonished at his manner of teaching, for he taught them with power, unlike the scribes. Suddenly, a man was possessed by an evil spirit in their synagogue! He shouted: "What the hell do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth?! Have you come to destroy us?! We know who you are -- God's Holy One!"

Jesus rebuked it: "Be quiet and come out of him!" The evil spirit threw the man into convulsions, and then, with a very loud scream, it came out of the man. Everybody marveled and murmured among themselves: "What's this?! A new teaching with power? He even commands the evil spirits, and they obey him!" This rumor about him immediately spread everywhere in the entire area surrounding Galilee.

Just as they left the synagogue, he went to Simon and Andrew's house with Jacob and John. Simon's mother-in-law lay bedridden with a fever, and they immediately told him about her. So he approached her and took her hand. Immediately the fever left her, and she waited on them.

When evening came, when the sun had set, they brought to him all those who were afflicted or demon-possessed. The whole city was gathered at the door! He healed many, who had various illnesses, and he also cast out several demons. He didn't allow the demons to speak, because they knew him.

Translation Notes
1. "Manner of teaching" (v 22). While there is no "style of" or "approach to" there in Greek, I believe this is the idea referred to. Translating it as "teaching" would give readers the impression that the new thing is the content of his message. While that is unique, the focus of the passage is how he taught. If a straightforward reading of "teaching" gives the wrong impression, then it's better to insert words for clarity, IMO. I could be wrong.
2. "Power" (vv 22, 27). It's not that I think the more usual "authority" is inaccurate here. It's just that the idea is supernatural, miraculous authority. Since we aren't usually accustomed to the idea of miracles as having authority over something, I just think "power" sounds like more natural English.
3. Verse 23: I can't tell if Mark is saying that someone in the synagogue was suddenly possessed, or if someone already possessed just suddenly ran into the synagogue.
3. "Evil spirit" (vv 23, 26f). In Greek it's literally "unclean spirit(s)." I don't know enough about this issue to deviate from traditional translation here, though. I'd like to find an answer to why it's usually rendered "evil spirit."
4. As far as I can understand this Greek idiom, it seems that "what between you and me" is an expression of hostility or defensiveness. As it so happens, the best English equivalent has profanity in it. Should we be surprised that a demon would say that? I don't think so. I would render Jesus' response to Mary in John 2:4 differently, and that's another story.
5. "rumor spread" (v 28). "This report went out" just doesn't work. It's clearly word-of-mouth, informal spread of rumor rather than a spy's formal report. Oh, and rumors don't have to be false. The point is that Jesus became well-known among the populace by word of mouth.
6. "Bedridden" (v 30). It's clearly implied that she couldn't move around. Keep in mind that the English word bedridden doesn't necessarily mean you're in a bed. It just means you can't move around.
7. "She waited on them" (v 31). Mostly following NIV here. The idea is that she made them a meal and such, and so I could say "entertained them [as guests]" but I don't like brackets. Specifically, she made them dinner since it was nighttime, but since Mark isn't being that specific, neither will I.
8. "Demon-possessed" (v 32). Again following the NIV. I wonder if perhaps this includes not just outright possession but also lesser torments such as nightmares, etc. I don't know just how much of difficulty is linked with demonic activity, so it's hard to say.

With this section we see the continuation of spiritual warfare. Last time, Mark briefly mentions the temptation in the desert, where Jesus stands firm against Satan's attacks. Retreating with his tail between his legs, he sends his minions to harass Jesus while he teaches in the synagogue. Instead of trying to say that Jesus is not the Messiah, the demon tries to reveal Jesus. Since people don't yet understand that the Messiah is a passover lamb and not a Romans-conquering lion, this would be detrimental for Jesus' ministry.

But he keeps himself and the situation under control. There's no stopping the spread of his teaching of repentance, nor the powerful style of his teaching. The people are utterly astonished.

Mark moves us along quickly to the next incident, a rather quick mention of healing various people, and refusing to allow demons to reveal him. I think the point of this section is to show the results of the synagogue exorcism: "the entire city" was gathered at the door, since "this rumor immediately spread everywhere." Because of experience with his first exorcism, Jesus knew to not let the demons speak -- and preventing their speech was completely within his power.

Mark is such a sudden gospel! I have no idea how many times the word "immediately" occur, but it's quite a lot. Also the exaggeration of "everyone" or "the whole city" or "everywhere." Mark is just intense and dramatic. Wonderful.

Review of "Resident Aliens"

2010-01-28T14:05:00.003-06:00

Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon, both professors of Duke University, wrote an excellent, short work on ecclesiology called Resident Aliens. I've been soaking this up for the past two weeks now, taking rather copious notes.

Of all the books I've read on how to approach the problem of ministerial outlook (which isn't many), this is the most innovative. The first five chapters concern the proper view of the church, and only at the climax do they directly address the problems of pastors today within the church. One must first understand what the church is before one can understand what pastors do, since pastors' roles are defined by the church's needs. There's good discussion on true needs versus felt needs. For instance, the church needs constant reorientation towards God, but does not need preachers to be soft and cushy comforters. Much attention is given to the act of sugar-coating and catering to selfish needs of individuals.

Perhaps what is most shocking to me is that this book is relevant at all! RA addresses the difficulties of the American churches as of 1989, but over 90% is still applicable in describing the church in 2010.

There's plenty of anecdotes from genuine ministry experience as well as wrestling with some of the parts of history Americans generally gloss over, such as the Vietnam War. Part of the book's thrust is that we need to be the confessing church, a church that centers on constantly reaffirming God's truth and learning to live by it. Christian life is war with the world. Principalities, world-rulers, powers... these things are out to get us. Discipleship is a journey, an adventure, and we take part in the ongoing story of God and his people.

The Gospel is countercultural and counterintuitive. You can't understand it apart from the story of scripture. This is why the world doesn't understand us: because the world doesn't know him.

In short: this book is an excellent take on Christian ministry that resonates well with the Sermon on the Mount, I John, Philippians, and Ephesians especially. Go get it.

In honor of MLK: The power of hate speech (and why to not use it)

2010-01-18T18:32:00.009-06:00

Although I will not be addressing civil rights, this post on nonviolence is in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr.

How is it that a human being can open fire on another human being? The truth is, most of us just don't have it in us to do so. That's because there is a natural block in the human mind that forbids us -- our conscience will stay our hand from firing at another human being.

Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman wrote a book on warfare called On Killing. In it, he explains how soldiers in early American wars often fired at an upward angle, intentionally missing the enemy soldiers. The military had to use psychological strategies to train soldiers to get around this block against killing other people.

Part of the strategy involves what psychologists call operant conditioning, which is more or less the punishment vs. reward training strategy that we use to learn anything. Instead of firing at moving clay discs ("pull!"), target practice now featured a man-shaped bulls-eye with a points system similar to that of archery. There is no doubt in my mind that the clay disc targets are harder to hit, though whether that makes for better accuracy training is debatable.

The trick is, this no longer was about accuracy. It introduced a rewards system for firing, and accustomed would-be soldiers to the idea of shooting at man-shaped objects (such as flesh-and-blood men). Physically, they got used to the idea of shooting at people and got rewarded for doing well at it. This is one part of overcoming the natural block most people have against killing.

Several, including myself, oral sources I will not name, and researcher Rachel McNair would argue that another element of this training is linguistic in nature. In linguistics, we learn that words have both content and framing. Content is what a word says, and framing tells you how you should feel about it. Example:

Elizabeth I had her cousin Mary killed.
Elizabeth I had her cousin Mary murdered.
Elizabeth I had her cousin Mary executed.

These all express the same content. The difference is the framing. The first example is a neutral observation. The second implies that it was not morally or legally justifiable, and the third implies that it was morally/legally just.

Now, apply this to the military. If you can't shoot at people, then you can at least shoot at "the enemy." This collective singular "the enemy" (almost never "enemies") allows you to visualize them as an obstacle to your objective. What's your objective? Surviving this hellhole and getting back to your family! Once you get this mentality going, you can overcome the natural restriction against killing. If God forced that door closed, then we can open a window.

Once you dehumanize and objectify with language, it's easier to shoot them. Shooting people is unthinkable without psychologically being desensitized to it, but shooting objects is fine. Objectify people, and that's already half the battle!

Another means of objectifying enemy soldiers is to use racist language. Once racism takes over, atrocities are quite possible, as Aiden Delgado will testify. Examples of military use of racist slurs:

Gook: military word for Filipinos/Koreans/Vietnamese used throughout various wars.
Hajji (also "Haji" or "Hadji"): the current slur of choice for Iraqis and Arabs in the War on Terror. See also "sand nigger."
Chink: a term used originally of Chinese, but then later of Vietnamese soldiers.
Jap: originally a harmless shorthand for "Japanese," but eventually it became offensive after its use in World War II. See also "nip."
Kraut: a term for Germans as sauerkraut-lovers. Used especially by US troops in World War II. The British preferred the term "Fritz" in the early war, and then "Jerry" later. See also "Boche" and "Nazi" (which is short of "National Socialist).

But deep down, we all still know that killing other people is wrong. Soldiers are trained to be desensitized to shooting enemies, but they are not trained to be desensitized to seeing friends die. Soldiers who survive life-threatening situations together develop a bond of camaraderie that is incredibly strong. Since you got through some life-threatening situations together when you can't believe you're still alive, you can't believe three days later that your friend is dead. Extensive therapy is the only way to distance yourself from the event emotionally.

This is crucial to understand. Nearly everyone is naturally unable to actually kill another person except in heat-of-the-moment self-defense (even then, we hesitate). The military partially reprograms you to be desensitized to the act of killing another person -- but then also teaches restraint to not become an indiscriminate homicidal maniac. You learn how to shoot, but also learn when or when not to shoot.

But since you cannot dehumanize your allies (because they're your source of emotional support and camaraderie), you still realize the wrongness of war when allies die. This trauma is why war is hell. Soldiers may come home, but they may never really come back. Today people expect us to "support our troops" because war is hell. Yes, but my problem is that people don't realize that hell starts at training. If people were aware of this, they would be less likely to be involved in the military.

In short: although soldiers can, through brainwashing, circumvent the restriction against killing other people, their minds still register that killing is wrong when their allies die. The only reason they can cope with dealing out the damage is by emotional/physical distance (avoiding hand-to-hand at all costs!) and by dehumanizing the other soldiers as "the enemy." You can't kill people, but you can kill gooks, sand niggers, japs, and nazis. Once you introduce racist language, you can kill others because you frame them as objects of contempt.

Words hurt people. They really do. They shape our thoughts and influence how we treat people. Watch always how you speak of others, and never let hate speech turn another person into an object of scorn in your eyes.

I produced a man!

2010-01-06T23:00:00.005-06:00

Better Bibles Blog made a post asking if translation-work should have its own course material. I want to give an illustration of why theology should be part of the tense and self-contradicting world of translation priorities. This is yet another generic post trying to sort out the difference between exegetical accuracy (the technical accuracy of a translation) and communicative accuracy (making sense) in translation.

Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man." (Genesis 4:1, TNIV)

Really, this seems to be a strange reading. While one could make a case that all men are children, one cannot say that a woman gives birth to a man in good English idiom. If the TNIV is willing to break concordance for the sake of having gender-inclusive renderings, why is this not done here? I would have liked to see the word "person" here, as it would (rightly) affirm that newborns are persons in God's eyes. If there's one point I'd have liked to see "person" in Genesis, it would probably be here.

And yet,

When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that these daughters were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of the human beings and had children by them. (Genesis 6:1f, 4, TNIV))

Compare ESV: When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.

Some thoughts:
The word "man" is generalized to human beings. Here, this messes up the contrast between idolatrous humanity (the "daughters of men" being the female half of these) and the sons of God. I highlighted the way the word "man" is variously rendered in this passage. Note that "these daughters" avoids saying "daughters of men" by pointing back to the unpossessed daughters born to them (which is arguably possession). This lets them avoid that weird phrase "daughters of human beings" once, though it messes up a contrast that is part of the passage's theology. Later on, they use the phrase "daughters of the human beings" anyway. OK. Break traditional readings to make good English style. That's fine. But don't break tradition to make an equally if not more awkward expression.

For those just joining me: I do not feel very convinced of the angelic interpretation here (Matthew 22:30 precludes it, IMO). I instead believe that the "sons of God" were members of Seth's lineage and "daughters of men" were of Cain's lineage. The "two ways" contrast from chapters four and five carries over, since the entire flood narrative is an expansion of the genealogy of chapter 5. The genealogy that begins in 5:1 doesn't end until 9:21.

...Alternately, it could be dynastic kings picking women for their harems. But that seems less germane to the past two chapters, so I stick to the Sethite-Cainite interpretation.

Back to TNIV-bashing: one also does not see the lustfully inappropriate aspect within the behavior of the sons of God. They're picking women who are attractive -- it is not to be given a positive connotation like "beauty." Plus, they're "taking in marriage" and not "marrying." Here, at least, it is important to retain that image because it emphasizes how terrible their behavior was.

Lastly, it's important to note that humanity was on the surface of the earth. Yes, I know: it's awkward, but it contains meaning. ALL humans were swept away in the flood, but eight were swept away safely in the boat.

The TNIV rendering makes it look like there were angels that politely courted and married women. The possibility of other meanings for "sons of God" is suppressed by this reading, and so is the inappropriate nature of the sons' behavior.

Genesis 4b-5: Humanity Chooses Two Ways

2010-01-05T13:40:00.003-06:00

Humanity now separates into two distinct camps. Cain goes off on his own to raise a family and build a city. What follows is a short five-generation genealogy that climaxes with Lamech. While Lamech is in power, his sons become the pioneers of music, nomadic herding, and even metallurgy. So he is pretty much king of the world and the bastion of secular power.

He becomes the first polygamist and idolater setting himself up as if he were eleven times as great as God himself. Lamech's trust is in the advance of civilization and the power it brings. Strangely, nobody in this lineage is recorded as dying. Why is that? To not record someone's death is akin to not attending their funeral. It speaks very negatively of those whose death is unrecorded.

While the line of Cain is left an open-ended question, such is not the case for Adam and Eve. God granted them another child, Seth, in place of their dear Abel. 4:25 shows how much bitterness arose between Cain and his parents: even though he was firstborn, his absence is not mourned. Seth replaces Abel, and Cain is disowned as if he had never been born. And then, people begin to call upon the name of the Lord.

God grants Adam and Eve mercy and allows them to continue their lineage, despite this bitterness toward Cain. So, Seth gets a nice ten-generation genealogy climaxing with Lamech. Let's note some of the differences between the line of Cain and the line of Seth: for every name in Cain's genealogy, there is a counterpart in Seth's. Seth's also has twice as many generations. They live incredibly long lives, and their deaths are recorded. They have several progeny recorded. In short, they are quite blessed.

The capstone, again, is with someone named Lamech. Whereas the sons of Cain-Lamech learned to thrive under God's curse on the ground, the son of Seth-Lamech is the one who will remove that curse from the ground. Cain's line trusted in themselves and advanced in technology; Seth's line called upon the Lord and advanced in God's blessing. Lamech lives 777 years, hits the jackpot, and passes the torch on to Noah.

Essentially, the entire flood story is an extension of the line of Seth. Cain's little genealogy gets no torch-passing, but Seth's lineage lives on through Noah and continues throughout the Bible.

Genesis 4.1-16: The Deathblow

2010-01-05T00:57:00.008-06:00

Genesis 3 sets into motion a series of events that have their roots in the activities in Eden. In chapter 3 the man and the woman sin and disrupt the vertical relationship: fellowship with God. Now, people violate the horizontal relationship of people with others. Hamilton points out that the sins of Genesis 3-11 have one theme in common: the human desire to be like God. In chapter 3 we saw a mixture of sin and grace, of judgment and promise. In this section we will see the more of the same double theme.
After once overstepping the limits imposed by God, humankind continues to surrender its standards. The results are:
1. Fratricide (killing one’s brother) brought on by jealousy (4:8, Cain & Abel)
2. Polygamy and retaliation (4:23-24, Lamech)
3. Further surrender to lust (6:1-4, “Sons of God” and “daughters of men”)
4. Corruption and violence in the earth (6:5, 11-12)
5. Incest (?) (9:20-27, Canaan)
6. City with a tower to the heavens (11:1-9, Babel)

Genesis 4-11:9 chronicles the spread of sin, leading up to Abraham, the man who becomes the hinge that this book turns around. After a 7½-chapter downhill spiral, Abraham will bring renewed hope to the reader. But that’s another lesson. For now, let’s start with the Cain & Abel episode.

First, I’ll repeat Hamilton’s note that there is no break between chapters 3 and 4. The two episodes are linked together by the repetition of key words: “Adam and Eve knew [i.e. realized] they were naked” (3:7) connects with “Adam knew [intimately] his wife” in 4:1, “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (3:16) connects to “…sin is crouching at your door, it desires to have you, but you must master it (4:7),” and finally “he drove out the man” (3:24) finds its echo in 4:14’s “today you have driven me away from the soil.” On a side note, it’s interesting to note that the first crime of inhumanity relates to an act of worship.

So, as the text starts: Adam knew his wife, and she became pregnant and bore a son, Cain. “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth/acquired a man,” she says, explaining why she named him so. Cain sounds like the word for “brought forth/acquired,” and so is a good wordplay. Cain, as the firstborn, is proof that amid all the talk of death in chapter 3, Adam was right to name Eve the mother of the living, because here we see indeed that there is another person born. A note of grace and hope is here in verse 1. There was expulsion from the Garden, but immediately following is a note of hope. Later, she gave birth to Abel, whose name means “temporary,” and hints at his short lifespan.

Firstborn and Firstfruits 4:1-7
Cain follows his father by working the ground, while Abel tends flocks of animals. At some point, they decide to give offerings to the Lord, and Cain brings some of his harvest. Abel brings the best he has – choice firstborn of his flocks. God smiles on Abel’s sacrifice, but not Cain’s. Why? One (incorrect) explanation is that the sacrifice required blood. Nonblood sacrifices are allowable, especially if it is a sacrifice for something other than atonement. Even in the context of sin offerings, a very poor person could purchase flour (Lev 5:11-13) for the sacrifice.

One explanation, which seems fairly natural and straightforward, is that Abel gave the best he had, whereas Cain just gave something. The wording hints at this, but it also hints that Cain did not have his sacrifice matched by an inner attitude of righteousness; God asks Cain: “If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?” Could it be that religious ritual became a substitute to Cain for obedience and holy living? It seems to me that both explanations are hinted, but note that no prophet later on draws upon Cain as a parallel for Israel when they give sacrifices instead of holy living. The later parts of the Bible do not seems to interpret it that way, so that does throw some doubt on that interpretation.

Another idea Hamilton mentions: Is Cain’s offering considered unacceptable because he offers something that comes from the ground that God just cursed one chapter ago? Perhaps it is wrong to offer God that which bears the consequences of his curse.
So, summing up, God may have rejected Cain based off of a) not giving his firstfruits (which makes sense), b) not giving with a right heart (which makes sense, but doesn’t seem to be supported by scripture later on), or c) because he gave what bears God’s curse (interesting, but not likely).

For whatever reason, God refuses Cain’s offering. Cain becomes very angry and his face becomes downcast. He’s considering killing his brother at this point (v 5). Then God appears and warns Cain before Cain can even take action. He says “sin is crouching at your door,” which my NIV text note says refers to how in ancient mythology they believed demons crouched outside the door of a house to snatch up someone when they left their home. Thus, sin is pictured as a vicious demon waiting to pounce on Cain.

First Blood
Ignoring God’s warning, Cain invites his brother out to the field, intentionally killing him. Not much details are given this matter, because Cain isn’t the main character. The Main Character shows up immediately and says “Where is your brother, Abel?” Cain sarcastically replies, “What am I? His keeper?” Cain is most certainly not. “To keep” means “to control, to regulate and rule.” God put Adam in the Garden of Eden to keep it (Gen 2:15). Many times in scripture God is called “Israel’s keeper.” But, no; no man is his brother’s keeper.

God rebukes Cain: “what have you done?! Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground!” Even the inanimate parts of creation protest Cain’s sin. Finally, God lays a curse on a human being: Cain, who followed in his father’s steps as a farmer, can no more work the ground. His green thumb, his greatest pride, is now taken from him. He must now gather wild food and must then be a restless wanderer.
Cain responds: “My punishment is more than I can bear! Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence. I will be a restless wanderer all right – I’ll never be able to sleep soundly, always afraid that any other person I meet will kill me to avenge Abel.”

God listens to this sinful one’s plea for mercy and gives a measure of grace with the punishment: Cain falls under God’s divine protection and thus he goes eastward from the Lord’s presence (?) to the land of Nod. Now, what was this mark Cain had? The first thing he does in the land of Nod is build a city. While it’s being built, his wife conceives and he names his son, as well as the city, Enoch. Quite possibly, the city itself is the mark by which God warned off avengers.

Although I don’t want to do this very often, let’s ask ourselves where Cain’s wife could have come from. Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters (5:4), and it would just be natural to assume that he married one of his sisters. His finding a wife does not prove there were other people in Nod. “If Nod had no other people in it, why would he be afraid of being caught and killed?” I’ve heard this objection as proof that there were people other than Adam and Eve in the Bible. Actually, this makes no sense. Only someone who knew that Cain was a murderer (another person in the line of Adam) would know that Cain was guilty of anything. Secondly, only Adam or one of his sons would even be angry enough to seek vengeance, anyway. His fear of other people does not prove there were other people in Nod.

Now, as to how he was going to build the first city… that’s a little bit of a mystery. With (I assume) such a long lifespan, we could say he planned to fill it solely with his own progeny. In any case, a scholar named Sailhamer points out that you could call the city of Enoch the very first city of refuge. Cities of refuge were places that, according to the law of Moses, a person who committed homicide could flee to and be safe from kinsmen-avengers until a fair trial to determine if the death was accidental or intentional (Num 35:9-15, Deut. 4:41-43, 19:1-10, Josh. 20:1-9).

And so this section ends with sin's second hit. If in chapter three sin drew first blood, it is here that we find the death blow that removed the last bits of human innocence. The earth itself was violated, because Cain used the ground to hide Abel's blood. The ground was not meant for hiding what is dead, but for nourishing what is living. While in the last chapter humanity in general gains hostility with snakes in general, now a specific person has hostility with the ground. God "drives him away" from the ground itself.

What is to become of the human race now? One son is dead, and the other is a murderer driven into exile. How will Adam and Eve cope? And what is to become of Cain?

Should Christians Carry Swords?

2010-01-01T17:05:00.007-06:00

Well, it's a new year! I've been reading quite a bit from the Old Testament lately (which means in English), and it makes me impatient. My strength lies in New Testament studies, and I don't want to get rusty. So, I've decided to make a post about Jesus' statements on the Sword. The first passage in question is Luke 22:35-38, which says

He said to them: "When I sent you without a purse or bag or sandals, you didn't lack anything, did you?" They answered, "No; nothing." Then he said "But now, let whoever has a purse take it, likewise a bag also; and may whoever doesn't have a sword sell the shirt off his back to buy one. For I tell you that this which is written will soon find its end in me: 'He was counted among the lawless,' and that [which is written] about me is at its time of fulfillment." And they said: "Lord, ah! Here are two swords." He replied: "That's enough!"

I've heard something to the effect that Jesus can't really be made to fit pacifism completely, that Christian pacifism must be a personal ethic, more or less. With all due respect, I believe careful study of the New Testament, its historical context, and the writings of early Christians would quite strongly support the idea that Jesus was indeed one-sided on this debate.

So, without further stalling, let's look at this passage. We're at the evening of the Lord's Supper. The disciples just quarreled about who is greatest, then Jesus solemnly told Peter he would deny Him. Now Jesus gives a dramatic warning. Given that this occurs between Peter's denial and the final prayer, Jesus has His own death in His mind.

In this passage He reminds them of when they were sent out (see Luke 9) and gives them the idea that, after the Passover, they will again be scattered. If they believe His claims about Him dying, then they realize they'll be fleeing. If they don't believe He'll die, then they think He's gonna send them out again.

In either case, He tells them to take a purse (wallet) and a bag (backpack) -- if they have one. They don't necessarily have to buy one if they don't own one. But they'd better have a sword, each and every one of them. There's a powerful emphasis on them having a sword, even if they have to sell the shirt off their back to get one. [Strange, also, that swords replace sandals.]

Why does He say this? He has His death in mind. He is going to be counted with the lawless. And then He predicts His death quite painfully in v 37. Literally it's "for indeed the about me has an end." If we supply "written" as context would urge us to do, then this phrase means "for that [which is written] about me is about to be fulfilled." But there's more! The way this is phrased seems to have an undertone of him referring again to His death.

Now how do the disciples respond? They remind Jesus that there are two swords there [in the house they were using for the Passover. Ownership of the swords is not specified]. Wait a second. What happens when the disciples respond to Jesus, as a general rule? Think of a few times when the disciples' response is recorded. They are seldom right, and pretty much never completely right. Usually the disciples are incorrect in their statements, and then Jesus clarifies for them as a good rabbi would do.

But not this time. He doesn't correct them. He casually dismisses the conversation "that's enough!" Perhaps more colloquially, "forget it" or "drop it." (Here I reference Richard Hays' Moral Vision of the New Testament.)

Now, I apologize if this is a complicated explanation. But what is the alternative explanation for "that's enough"? Jesus switched from "no bag, purse, or sandals" (Luke 9) to "a bag and purse if you have it, and make absolutely sure you have a sword." And then when they said there were two swords among them, Jesus just changed His mind about many swords were needed? That explanation simply won't do, so I argue that taking "that's enough!" as a dismissal of the conversation is the more coherent understanding of this passage.

Oh, and He dismissed the conversation because they mistakenly took Him literally (a mistake many casually make today with regard to this passage, yet I've just shown that taking Him literally here would make Him inconsistent). So what did He really mean? Well, He didn't elaborate because He dismissed the conversation. It's fair to say it was another prediction of His death and a warning of coming persecution.

Now, much more quickly, I'm going to discuss Matthew 26:52, which says

"Then Jesus said to him: "Return your sword to its place! For all who wield the sword shall perish by sword! Or do you not think ..."

What happens to all those who wield the sword? They will perish by sword. "Sword" is one of God's calamities that He uses to judge nations and individuals. Note also the verb: perish. What does it mean to perish? It's worse than dying. Everyone dies, but bad people get their just punishment when they perish. Go to biblegateway.com and do a keyword search. See how many occurrences of it have to do with wickedness! Try Psalm 1 or John 3:16 or Luke 13:1-5. I don't know if the NIV usually retains the perish-die distinction, so you might want to try KJV.

So, in short, Jesus is saying that God will cause punishment on those who wield the sword. The kind of punishment that makes you perish. A case can be made that those who perish end up going to hell, but that argument is inconclusive. It can't be denied, however, that perishing is for the wicked.

Five Things about Bible Study

2009-12-28T23:34:00.001-06:00

I don't often do top ~~ten~~ five lists. This is basically a list of things that most people might find informative about studying the Bible.

1. The Bible is meant to be read aloud. Historically, reading was very hard once upon a time. In Bible times, words were written in all caps with no spaces between words and no punctuation. This made reading VERY hard. You either knew how to read extremely well, or not at all. There was almost no in-between. In the fourth century, we have letters of people saying "hey, I saw a guy just staring at a piece of paper. I asked him what he was doing, and he said he was reading. Isn't that crazy?" And so we know that before the fourth century, everything was read aloud.

More important than history, let's look at theology. God created through the use of his spoken Word. The creative, life-giving Word is something that we don't just read -- we can participate in God's creative Word. When we proclaim God's Word openly, all creation sings with us (this ties in to my view of the Psalms). And, truthfully, reading silently does not allow the rest of creation to benefit and rejoice with us.

And psychologically: when you read silently, you engage visual memory. If you read aloud, you engage your visual memory plus your aural [auditory] memory and kinesthetic [muscle] memory. No matter whether you're a visual, auditory, or hands-on learner, everybody will do better engaging all three rather than just one type of memory.

The Bible is meant to be heard. Reading aloud will also help you ask questions: "who is speaking here: God, or the prophet Isaiah?" "Was this spoken with sarcasm or irony?" etc.

2. The Bible is not naturally separated into chapters and verses. The person who made the chapter divisions, for the most part, did an outstanding job. As for verse divisions? It's been said that he marked verse divisions while drunk and riding a galloping horse. Take, for instance, Jonah 1:1: "And the word of the LORD came to Jonah son of Amittai, saying..." Saying what? That's not even a complete sentence!

The basic unit of meaning in language is the sentence. That is the central level of meaning. Words influence the sentence, and the sentence influences the word even more. The paragraph or section influences the sentence, but the sentence is the central building block of meaning in language. SO, read the entire sentence. In fact, it wouldn't hurt to read the entire paragraph or (if you have time) the whole chapter.

3. It doesn't always come back to knowing Greek/Hebrew. Let me tell you one of the things you won't notice in your English translations: sometimes the original is ambiguous, and we have to make an either-or choice in translating. For example, Better Bibles Blog's Wayne Leman notes the difficulty of 1 Cor 7:36-38. Whose virgin is in question? Is it the virgin daughter of a father, or a young damsel that a man intends to marry? There's no way to translate this ambiguously into English without it becoming awkward English (see the ESV for instance). All communication is, by its nature, both vague and redundant. Strange, but true.

4. It doesn't always come back to knowing Greek/Hebrew. Jesus said that "this generation will not pass away until all is accomplished." But what did he mean by generation? You could go to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (which I would do, if I could afford the ten-volume set for $400), or you could just consider how the word "generation" is used in the English translation. It can refer to 1. a contemporary group of people (which is the same as our contemporary use), 2. people of a certain character type, which would be more like a "genus" than "generation." For a use of this, see Psalm 24:3-6 to refer to the "genus" of person who will ascend the hill of the Lord. 3. It has various, lesser meanings also.

5 It doesn't always come back to knowing Greek/Hebrew. If you want to know the main things that differ between the original languages and our translations, I'll cover that briefly. Firstly, Bibles are translated at about the eighth-grade reading level because that is all that most non-college folk can comfortably read at. College grads, on average, read comfortably at the tenth-grade level. Because of this simplicity, sentences are often cut in two to make for easier reading.

Secondly, translations tend to make things seem specific where there may be some ambiguity (this is hard to avoid, as the 1 Cor example shows). A bad translation choice will introduce ambiguity where it is clear in Greek/Hebrew. Sometimes, this can't be easily avoided either, though. "For there is one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ." Jesus' maleness has nothing to do with His ability as a mediator.

So in short:
1. Read aloud, as much as you feel comfortable doing so. Read publicly with friends and family!
2. Read more than a verse at a time. John 3:16 has a different tone to it when you read it in context of the rest of John 3.
3. Read with reverent care. As long as you aren't reading the Cotton Patch translation or Conservapedia, then you are handling the genuine word of God. Treat it accordingly and do not disparage it for being a translation. Wayne Leman said it best:

Some people want absolute certainty about what each verse in the Bible means. Some people want to use a Bible version which they feel gives the correct translation for each verse. But we cannot have such certainties about every verse in the Bible. The biblical language texts are not always clear enough for us to know for sure what the biblical author’s intended meaning was. We must be content not to know some things for sure in this life. Personally, I think God wants to draw us to himself through life’s uncertainties. We can trust, I believe, that he is certain, that he knows total truth. If we try to find total truth anywhere other than in him (including in Bible translations which were done by teams who did their very best, but which cannot humanly know how to translate everything with certainty), we are going to be disappointed. But if we allow lack of certainty about some things, including things in the Bible, to draw us toward the One who knows far more than we do, we will find contentment in knowing enough of what we need to know in this life.

Mission Trip to Tuba City, AZ

2009-12-15T23:38:00.002-06:00

Tomorrow morning I will leave town for Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. As I was typing this, I had to switch living arrangements for Wednesday to Saturday -- I just got a call saying that now would not be a good time for them to have guests. Fortunately, they found someone else who would be happy to let me stay. I know this guy indirectly; his sister is a good friend of mine.

So, on Saturday we will be heading to Tuba City, Arizona. It's a small Navajo and Hopi reservation with some truly wonderful people. Our goal is to do acts of service for the church and community, go door-to-door in small groups and pray with people, and put on a VBS for the kids.

Here's the promo video. I wear a white "Oklahoma Christian" hoodie throughout some of the pictures, and I'm also the fool balancing the ball on his nose.

Sorry that the opening is a bit corny.

Please keep this mission trip in your prayers. I won't be back until Christmas Eve or Christmas day, so no more posts or comments from yours truly until then.

Jimmy Carter to the Parliament of the World's Religions

2009-12-15T17:21:00.002-06:00

Former president Jimmy Carter gave a speech on the status of women, and how religion interacts with women's status. In short, religion has been a malefactor, but may be used as a benefactor.

Most Bible scholars acknowledge that the Holy Scriptures were written when male dominance prevailed in every aspect of life. Men could have multiple sex partners (King Solomon had 300 wives and 700 concubines), but adulterous behavior by a woman could be punished by stoning to death - then, in the time of Christ and, in some societies, 2009 years later.

On this, I do have a problem. It's as if he's referring to the kings' time and the time of Christ contemporaneously, as if the Bible is a single document from one time, called "the time of the Bible." Since he upfront admits himself to be a layman, I can let misunderstandings like this slide without faulting him personally.

It is true that the kings had multiple wives, though that was certainly not scripturally encouraged. Indeed, one of the laws for kings specifically says that they must not have many wives (Deut 17:17). Their reason for having so many comes in part from treaties with foreign nations (yet another no-no). The more political Israel became, the less and less they looked like God's people, and the more and more they became a nation-state.

Part of Solomon's problem was that his first major act as king (internationally speaking) was to ally with Egypt and marry Pharaoh's daughter. Only after this did he ask for wisdom. See also 1 Kings 11:1-3.

In any case, the Bible as we have it does not and did not, as the "history of faith" would have it, allow for polygamy. Polygamy is associated with political alliances, and I daresay that neither thing was part of God's intention for His people.

I realize that devout Christians can find adequate scripture to justify either side in this debate, but there is one incontrovertible fact concerning the relationship between Jesus Christ and women: he never condoned sexual discrimination or the implied subservience of women. The exaltation and later reverence for Mary, as Jesus' mother, is an even more vivid indication of the special status of women in Christian theology.

Good stuff! I have nothing nitpicky to say here, it was just so good I wanted to repost it. I hold to the complementarian view that senior pastoral authority is intended for males, but I think Carter has in view here the idea of "all women serving all men," which he and I can agree completely is not biblical and does not reflect Christ at all.

It is clear that during the early Christian era women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers, and prophets. It wasn't until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

Again, this is a layman talking. Women were indeed deaconnesses (which are servants -- male deacons were likewise servants) and prophetesses. Women were also "apostles" in a general sense referring to messengers. Women could carry letters for Paul (and be of the same sort of apostle as Epaphroditus), and it wouldn't bother me if a woman had a hand in scribing a letter in the Bible. The idea that Aquila and Priscilla wrote Hebrews together is interesting to me, though it's nothing but speculation.

He then brings an anecdote from his own denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, which recently switched from an egalitarian view to complementarianism. I, personally, cannot imagine how female pastors felt when they became un-ordained, as it were. That's a sticky situation and I dunno just how that should've been handled. Perhaps a softer, slower transition that got female pastors into meaningful ministry positions, instead of suddenly firing them?

In any case, Jimmy goes on to use the same fallacious language of inferiority and qualification, which isn't necessarily the argument complementarians hold. He further indicts male church leaders for using scripture to their advantage. While this has certainly happened, this general indictment as if all or even most complementarian leaders are manipulative, is unfair.

He continues in the language of "rights," which truthfully, nobody has. God gave us nothing so unalienable that He has no authority over it. His language there is strongly American, though. God's sovereignty is absolute in that what He gives, He can take away. (This has little to do with the debate of women's status, and much more to do with my pacifistic arguments, I admit.)

So, in short: Carter is on the right track in calling for a change in the status and treatment of women. Women are special. Women are made by God "for man" in some sense. How to interpret that preposition is the tricky thing. Does it further intensify the likeness of woman to man, or is there some other meaning? Hmm.

Enough rambling. Carter did a good job, but overgeneralizes the complementarian stance, making no reference to those who very emphatically are against the subjugation of women that destroys self-actualization and even the dignity of making one's own choices about the body. I would support Carter, but grit my teeth over some of this.

On The Legalized Murder of Gays in Uganda

2009-12-10T17:34:00.001-06:00

Uganda is considering a bill before their parliament that will make homosexuality an offense punishable by at least life in prison, at most by execution. John Mark Reynolds, a biblioblogger over at Evangel gave me first heads up about this. Jim West, the #1 biblioblogger (8 months running), also made some comments.

In short: imagine the registering of the Jews in Nazi Germany. And then their being exiled or killed simply for their religious and ethnic identity. Now apply that to gays, and you know what this is. This goes beyond simply not accepting homosexuality as legitimate sexuality. This is talking about imprisoning people -- killing them if they also have AIDS or are public personalities. Well-known figures caught in homosexual behavior -- broadly defined to include touching -- are to be executed.

If you are an authority figure of some sort (e.g. a school teacher) and you discover someone who is homosexual, you have 24 hours to report the behavior, or else you may be penalized with up to 3 years in jail.

Uganda is one of the areas in Africa that is having a very serious time dealing with AIDS breakouts. The infection rate is currently about 6-8%, according to one of the above articles.

Rick Warren, author of the ~~Money~~ Purpose Driven Life, has chosen to take a stance of neutrality, apparently. For a long time, I've not been impressed with exegetically because of his tendency to cite whichever Bible version's wording fit his point best. Now, however, I have lost respect for him as a pastor. Those who relied on his programs to stop AIDS through abstinence-only education have fallen flat on their newly-infected rear ends, and the pandemic is not losing any significant momentum.

This just in: Rick Warren has made a youtube response to the Ugandan pastors, almost in the form of a video epistle (an e-pistle, if you prefer). That link leads to a the script, but it also has a link to the actual video. Long story short: It sounds suspiciously like he was defending his reputation to an American audience, and not really addressing Ugandans at all.

Moving on: I would certainly prefer that the whole world chose total celibacy, because then the world would die out in a generation and Jesus would theoretically HAVE to come back. But that's not realistic. To withhold the information about condoms from people that you want to remain abstinent is like withholding information about salvation from people that you don't want to ever sin again. It's damning them to be cursed with an infection that could have been prevented. It's misguided idealism -- you might as well teach works-based salvation.

What would you do if you taught abstinence but chose to never mention condoms, and a former student came to you who got infected and then found Jesus? It would be your fault that the child is dying. Leaders bear some responsibility in the misdeeds of their followers. DO NOT WITHHOLD MEDICAL INFORMATION THAT MAY SAVE LIVES.

AIDS is a curse. Maybe not in the sense that God sent it to punish, but it is a curse in that it hurts. It separates people. And it kills. Jesus came to heal the afflicted, and He took care of prostitutes, too. "Give to everyone who asks," He said.

As worldmag.com says: "The Church of Uganda has said that it is studying the bill but does not yet have an official position. It added, though, that the church cannot support the death penalty and that it was “committed at all levels to offer counseling, healing, and prayer for people with homosexual disorientation.”

This frustrates me. Jesus = life. Serving Jesus = protecting life. This is unacceptable.

Conservapedia

2009-12-04T04:21:00.003-06:00

Although I've already addressed this, I thought I'd bring it up again. Wayne of Better Bibles Blog, and even my old friend Sammie took a stab at it. She rightfully chooses the preference of being tasered to actually reading their website (Stephen Colbert mentioned Conservapedia and a segment on tasers in the same episode).

Several others have also brought the subject to public attention. So, what do you do with translations like this from Matthew 1:
Matthew 1:18f “The birth of Jesus Christ happened this way: His mother, Mary, was engaged to Jospeh, but before they were married, she became pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide. Jospeh was a righteous husband and thus did not want to publicly shame her, so he decided to divorce her privately.” [sic]

1:25 “And did not consummate the marriage until she bore her son, who Jospeh named Jesus.” [sic]

It's not a good idea to translate "to know" as "consummate." We can talk about a prostitute being raped all night then cut to pieces in the Bible, but we can't be explicit about legitimate sex between husband and wife. Come on. Seriously. Save euphemisms for making Song of Solomon singles-friendly.

The rest of their work is no better. For the sake of conciseness, they cut out words that are of theological importance (such as John the Baptist preaching a baptism of repentance). The obvious misspellings above are truly unacceptable in Bible translation. Granted, I once ran across a Koran translation that misspelled people as "poeple." It was my second page of ever reading the Koran, and I found a typo. God was watching over me, for sure.

Put simply, one does not just pick up a dictionary and magically become a scholar. It takes years and years of study of the Bible, other Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic literature, history (ancient), church history, theology, linguistics, and textual criticism. A bunch of amateurs are going to make a sub-par translation, for sure. They seek to cut out whatever scriptures they disagree with (regardless of textual evidence) and they want to add in conservative terminology that is foreign to the text. This is an abomination to the Lord, because it is a conscious perversion of God's word.

Of their ten guidelines, the only one I would like to see happen is "combat harmful addiction," which should not change the actual translation, but a footnote with "casting lots" could say "i.e., gambling." Although I would like to see translations on a higher reading level, the fact is most people who haven't graduated from college read comfortably at the 8th grade reading level. Graduates read comfortably at the 10th grade reading level. Poor education is an obstacle that can't be ignored. As such, vocabulary must be simple and sentences must be somewhat shortened or cut in two sometimes. There's no avoiding it.

Another thing there's no avoiding: no translation is "safe." None will ever be "perfect." There is no safe way, no hiding place in translation. None will ever live up to the richness of the original, and that's that.

Psalm 147

2009-11-30T15:31:00.003-06:00

Praise the LORD.
How good it is to sing praises to our God,
how pleasant and fitting to praise him!

2 The LORD builds up Jerusalem;
he gathers the exiles of Israel.

3 He heals the brokenhearted
and binds up their wounds.

4 He determines the number of the stars
and calls them each by name.

5 Great is our Lord and mighty in power;
his understanding has no limit.

6 The LORD sustains the humble
but casts the wicked to the ground.

7 Sing to the LORD with thanksgiving;
make music to our God on the harp.

8 He covers the sky with clouds;
he supplies the earth with rain
and makes grass grow on the hills.

9 He provides food for the cattle
and for the young ravens when they call.

10 His pleasure is not in the strength of the horse,
nor his delight in the legs of a man;

11 the LORD delights in those who fear him,
who put their hope in his unfailing love.

12 Extol the LORD, O Jerusalem;
praise your God, O Zion,

13 for he strengthens the bars of your gates
and blesses your people within you.

14 He grants peace to your borders
and satisfies you with the finest of wheat.

15 He sends his command to the earth;
his word runs swiftly.

16 He spreads the snow like wool
and scatters the frost like ashes.

17 He hurls down his hail like pebbles.
Who can withstand his icy blast?

18 He sends his word and melts them;
he stirs up his breezes, and the waters flow.

19 He has revealed his word to Jacob,
his laws and decrees to Israel.

20 He has done this for no other nation;
they do not know his laws.
Praise the LORD. (NIV)

What I wouldn't give to live among a Christian community that knows it is God and not our army that is our savior. Deliverance comes from the Lord, and He strengthens the gates of His people -- Christians, not Americans. Does it mean we never have troubles? Look at verse 2. He gathers the exiles, yes, but they were indeed exiles. Trials and heartbreak do not mean God has abandoned us. Yet, it is from God that all good things come.

Current projects

2009-11-25T01:50:00.004-06:00

Here's a little about me and my short-term goals.
I've taken three years of Greek and one of Hebrew. While my Hebrew has kinda gone unused, I've stayed sharp in Greek enough to use it in a way that (hopefully) edifies God's people. My Hebrew is good enough to understand a technical commentary (usually) even if I don't read fluently at all.

So, my projects right now include:
1. Go through Romans (NIV/ESV/Greek) with Leander Keck's commentary on Romans.
2. Go through the Pentateuch (NIV/ESV) with Hamilton's commentary.
3. Continue work on my audio Greek New Testament.
4. Write a book on Pacifism.

Sadly, I don't know how to import sound files to blogspot, or else I'd load a sample clip of Philippians 1 at medium pace.

Speaking of audio Bibles, I just bought the Bible Experience (Old Testament) for my family. I'm really excited and hope it arrives in the mail soon. It was only 36 bucks completely new on Amazon, so I couldn't pass up this Christmas present for the family!

Introduction to the Pentateuch

2009-11-24T23:30:00.001-06:00

It's been a goal of mine to do a comprehensive study of the first five books of the Bible. They are the foundation of who our God is, and contain revelation about life, death, marriage, justice, grace, mercy, and faith. The stories highlight human experience and, taken together, these books tell one ongoing story.

Although we identify with Noah, or Abraham, or Moses, the main character of the Pentateuch is God. Throughout the first eleven chapters of Genesis, God acts in direct relation to all of humanity. When mankind scatters, God picks one person -- Abraham, and begins a new promise and blessing with Abraham and his descendants. The one continual theme throughout the Torah is covenant. Specifically, God's covenant promises given in Genesis 12-17. How will God intervene when something happens that threatens that promise coming true? How will God act when Israel goes to Egypt, becomes enslaved, and forgets the Lord their god? Quite a bit of the Torah is filled with cliff-hanging moments of suspense where we're left to wonder just how God will rectify the situation. His responses are breathtakingly amazing. His faithfulness stretches to the skies and beyond -- no one can measure His goodness.

Truthfully, Christians seem to neglect these books, except to use Genesis in relation to marriage. What a shame! Let's revive the flame of passion for these books. They've earned their place in the Bible and are not just extra weight.

For this study, I rely on my NIV Study Bible, an NASB Life Application Study Bible, an ESV Literary Study Bible, and I rely heavily on Alexander Hamilton's Handbook on the Pentateuch, which Josh Kingcade had us buy for our Pentateuch class at OC. I highly recommend this book to all of you, though you won't need it to follow my study.

So, here are the links! Check back often, because this note will be updated as I complete more and more notes.

Genesis Overview
Exodus Overview
Leviticus Overview
Numbers Overview
Deuteronomy Overview

Genesis 3: The Day the Harmony Died

2009-11-21T21:51:00.006-06:00

I'm once again going to be stealing from "When a Man loves a Woman (Part I)."

A major connection between 2 and 3 is the word "naked." Note that the word "crafty" in 3:1 looks very much like the word "naked," so that provides a clear link between the two chapters. Now, in this land of harmony, the craftiest of all the wild beasts holds a conversation with the woman. The serpent purposefully misquotes God, and then reacts with feigned shock that God would ssssay sssuch a thing. I imagine the serpent was slack-jawed with his tongue hanging out awaiting the woman's reply. And reply she does, for she knew well what she was supposed to do.

But the serpent guffaws and says "you (two) definitely won't die; God just knows that once you eat of it, you'll be like Him -- you'll be able to judge for yourself what's good and what's not." The way the woman heard it, she would understand "knowing good and evil" not as moral choice, but as in autonomy. What flashed through her mind was the situation in the movie Home Alone: stay up as late as you want, watch whatever you want on TV, and (of course) eat whatever you want.

What's ironic is that everything the snake said was technically true. He didn't lie, but he did deceive. Once she (and the man) bit into the fruit (pomegranate?), they were no longer innocent and now knew evil as well as good. They gained moral familiarity with evil, but never had the autonomy that the snake tricked them into thinking they'd gain. That tricky snake! What's more, they didn't "die" right on the spot, but the introduction of sin into the world brought about a decay that is moral (corruption), social (distrust), and physical (death).

Overwhelmed with this new feeling -- guilt, it is called -- they hastily cover themselves physically in an attempt to hide from their own emotions. When God approaches, he asks the man, who is the head of the two, what happened. As woman's leader, he is ultimately responsible and God demands an accounting from him first. He quickly places blame on the woman. So God demands an accounting from her, and she likewise blames the snake.

The snake, being of a class lower than humanity, does not merit an opportunity to explain its actions. Punishment follows for the snake. In poetic justice, since the snake made them eat what they should not eat, God makes the snake eat dirt, which we all know snakes cannot eat. That is the snake's curse. Then God goes back up the hierarchy ladder to the woman, and pronounces something to her. With pain she will bring forth children. Then he goes further up the ladder and pronounces judgment on the man. God will not curse man, but God curses the ground because of man. In case you don't like the idea that God didn't give the snake a chance to explain itself, please realize that the point is not that God is unjust, but that man and woman are special and are given consideration beyond that of a mere beast.

So, the five dialogues of God here are: A: demand accounting from man; B: demand accounting from woman; C: judgment on snake; B': judgment on woman; A': judgment on man. God gives both man and woman exemption from being directly cursed, and allows them an opportunity to explain their actions. As such, both man and woman are special to God and in His image. They are subject to God and it is righteous for Him to punish them, but He grants them dignity. Humans are both a cut above the rest of creation. This is somewhat like how medieval nobles were not supposed to be executed in an undignified manner such as hanging, but they would instead be beheaded (except in cases of high treason).

God allowed them to maintain dignity and cover their shame by making them garments to cover their physical nudity. Then they were expelled from the Garden and moved eastward. Always east with the book of Genesis, for some reason. Despite the fact that every event in Genesis 3 has "death" written all over it, the man names his wife Eve, which means "life-giver." He believed in God's promise in 3:15.

They had rightly earned God's distrust, so he sends them out and sets up the first ever miltary watch: cherubim and a flaming sword. Despite the death of this chapter, the last word, strangely, is "life."

Genesis 2: The Finishing Touch

2009-11-21T20:13:00.004-06:00

I'm pretty much plagiarizing myself here. I hope you guys don't mind me re-posting what I wrote under "When a Man loves a Woman (Part I)." I don't think I could ever top that dramatic (and romantic) retelling of Genesis 2. And so, without further stalling...

Here God is an intimate potter, crafting humanity with his hands. He set the man, his first creation, in a garden he had planted, so that the man could work the garden. More than work, God has given man food, too! But despite God's full presence being near to the him, the man feels lonely, and in God's infinite wisdom, it is not good for the man to be alone. God seeks a solution within what He has already made: He brings every living creature that he had made to the man, to see what he would name it. Nothing would work, though.

So God puts on a knowing smile, and tells the man to lie down and relax. After making the man sleepy, God pulls a second blueprint, one much like the man's own, out of the man's dreams. God strokes his beard for a moment and says to Himself: "Now, if I use this blueprint, it's going to take a rib. Neither one will be complete alone if I do this thing. But... nothing else could possibly do." With a nod of His head, God goes to surgical work and extracts a rib, then closes the flesh around the wound, and he crafts the rib into the most amazing thing the man ever dreamed of.

When the man wakes up, he asks the Lord God what happened, and He just smiles and says "One sec. Let me show you what I've been working on while you were asleep." Then, with a flourish of his hand and a few angelic trumpets in the background, in walks the woman.

The man is overjoyed, and immediately makes a pun (which sounds like something I'd do). First, he calls her "a bone of his bones" and "flesh of his flesh," which is something an ancient Hebrew would say that more or less means you've adopted someone as your "blood brother" or "soul sista." The irony is that she is literally crafted from his bone and flesh. Then he makes the pun: I will call her woman, for she was taken out of man!" (The pun is true in Hebrew as well, though it's completely lost in Greek.)

The chapter near its end with an explanation that this Edenic experience is the reason that a man shall forsake/leave his parents and cling to his wife, and the two become one flesh. This means much more than just "they're gonna hold each other tight and have sex." However, the wording should make that very thing spring to your mind, because that is symbol of union between man and woman (and God, whose name is often invoked during the union). It symbolizes that in marriage, the two become a completely new entity. A new family. Their new bond to one another supersedes the child-parent bond (though it doesn't nullify it).

Chapter two concludes by telling us that the two of them were naked, and they felt no shame. This is the part of the passage that preachers tend to omit. Have you noticed that? It always makes me giggle. This little statement shows that originally, the man and his wife were in a state of harmony with one another and had perfect innocence. There was none of that inner psychological turmoil that comes from shame. And yet, despite the happy picture this entire chapter paints, it does end with the first negative word in the Bible: shame.

Genesis 1-2: Reflections on God

2009-11-21T19:04:00.009-06:00

In the last note, I played story-teller and tried to bring to life the story of creation. This time, I want us to look at this gem of scripture through another facet, and see even more of how it reflects God's beauty. Specifically, we're going to be focusing on the theological statements of Genesis 1.

The "Word of the Day"
I'm not sure how many of you are interested in analyzing the structure of how things are worded. If you're not, then feel free to skip this. But if you're curious, Hamilton provides a great model for how the days of creation are structured:
1. Introduction: "and God said"
2. Creative word: "let there be"
3. Fulfillment of the word: "and there was/and it was so"
4. Description of the action: "and God separated/and God made/and God set/so God created"
5. Name-giving or blessing: "and he called/blessed"
6. Divine commendation: "and it was good"
7. Concluding formula: "there was evening and there was morning"

Theology: what this teaches us about God
This section implies a compare/contrast with other ancient Near Eastern creation myths. Sometimes what is not said speaks more loudly than what is said. That said, the first observation is the oneness of God. Unlike with pagan gods, God has no wife or consort. He is self-sufficient and everything God wants for fulfillment is found within himself - particularly in His ability to create. As I'm writing this, ironically, my worship playlist turned to "Shema Yisrael," a song based off Deuteronomy 6:4 which is the foundation of Judaism: "The Lord our God, the Lord is one."

The second major truth revealed here is that there is a clear distinction between deity and humanity, between creator and creature. His nature is different from that of humanity in some way. By comparison, if you trace back most ancient kings' genealogies, many claim they descend from a deity. The Sumerian kings of ages past claimed that their remote ancestors were divine, for instance. Egyptians kings claimed to be fully divine in their own right, as (eventually) did Rome's Caesars. Arguably, so did the emperors of Japan and China. This distinction between humanity and divinity in our Bible is completely unique.

A third truth is that God is plural in his nature. As Gen. 1:23 says, "let us make man in our image and our likeness." This can be interpreted many ways. Despite what might seem obvious, this statement has nothing whatsoever to do with the Trinity. However, God is plural in majesty. There is a grammatical concept called the "plural of majesty," which is where monarchs refer to themselves as "we" instead of "I." It's dropped out completely in American English, of course, since we are democratic. Something similar exists in the German polite address, and I've seen remnants of the royal "we" in Japanese. The main character in the anime Bleach, Kurosaki Ichigo, encountered a runaway princess and he was quite confused that she referred to herself as "we."

The reason royals use "we" is that it instills the image that they are larger than life. The Royal Person is to be addressed uniquely because of His or Her unique majesty. God's use of the royal "we" achieves much the same effect but on a grander scale: He is the cosmic Creator-King. He is also communal and intimate, intensely desiring our fellowship. In fact, some say He is not speaking royally, but is communally inviting another force to give Him a hand in crafting humanity. The three "communal" interpretations that make sense are: 1. He was speaking to His angels (for surely angels had a hand in crafting woman!), 2. He was speaking to His spirit (not yet fully revealed as the Holy Spirit), or 3. He spoke to the heavens and the earth. This last one is most interesting, because it really fits 2:4, which reads like a genealogy. It almost implies that the heavens and earth took part in creating Adam and Eve.

A fourth truth is that God is both moral and holy. My true goal in this study of the Pentateuch is to discover the meaning of holy. It is the full essence of God's nature, and it is separate from simply being morally good. However, God's holiness is the basis for His moral demands.

A fifth truth emphasized in these two chapters is God's sovereignty and majesty. God effortlessly binds the Deep Abyss, the waters, and the dry land beneath to take form and produce life, and does this by simply telling them to do it. You can tell a creature with ears, like your annoying little sister, to do something simple and the kid might still not do it, but God can tell something without ears to do something impossible, and that thing obeys.

Nowhere does God meet any sort of resistance or antagonism in this story of creation. For instance, he does not have to slay mighty Tiamat the dragon, then split her hide in two and use one half to fashion the earth and the other half to fashion the skies. God doesn't have to battle any celestial monsters or rival gods. Another illustration is that the stars, sun, and moon, which many in the Near East revered as gods, are nothing but an afterthought. The Bible makes a point of saying what they are to do: they are God's vassals who rule over the day and night, but are subject to God. So, God creates effortlessly with mere words and encounters no resistance because he is sovereign. From a pacifist's perspective, God's power for peace flows from his sovereignty.

So, in short:
1. God is Self-sufficient
2. God is clearly different from humanity, and vice-versa
3. God is plural in His nature
4. God is both moral and holy
5. God is uniquely sovereign -- everything is at His command.

Genesis 1: A Wonderful Campfire Story

2009-11-21T15:56:00.005-06:00

Imagine, if you will, a campfire many thousands of years ago. A kind, elderly Hebrew man pokes the fire with a stick, roasting a lamb for a feast. His grandson, sitting in his lap, looks up and says, "Grandpa, why do we work so hard for six days and then rest on the seventh day?" The kindly grandfather smiles with satisfaction and amusement. He opens his mouth and is instantly cut off: "Grandpa, how did God make the world?" He pats his grandson's head affectionately, and points to the fire.

Amid the crackling of the fire and the smell of roasting meat in the cool, night air they both stare off at the flames. *Funny thing, flames,* he thinks. *Their have no definite shape or form. They're a primeval force, but not something you can hold.* "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the land," he says with a grand flourish of his hand, drawing the boy's attention to everything around them. "Now, the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was over the surface of the Deep Abyss, for there was nothing in that bottomless pit, and God's spirit had nowhere to stand, so it hovered over the waters..."

Though a very small section of the Bible, there's a lot here to look at and ponder, and there's definitely been a LOT of pondering by Jews and Christians alike over the past three millennia. In this post I intend to focus in on the creation story and bring out its poetic elements. I'll address theological issues in greater depth in a different post.

Overview of Creation
The week of creation follows a linear pattern where God first furnishes each area to make it inhabitable (days 1-3), then fills it with things meant to thrive there in days 4-6. The culmination is God resting on the seventh day and setting it apart as holy. On day one, God makes light in general, then comes back to fill the darkness with luminaries: the stars, moon, and sun. On day two, God creates an expanse to separate land-bound bodies of water (the "water below") from the "water above," and calls this barrier "sky." (Presumably, the "water above" refers to clouds or whatever mystical place they believed rain fell from.) God comes back later and fills these two waters with fish and birds, creatures made to live in just those places. On day three, God takes the water under the sky and makes it collect in specific areas, forming dry ground. He creates vegetation so the land is inhabitable for animals. Later, He comes back to add animals, and finally, man. Then comes rest.

Sadly, blogspot sort of limits me from giving a good graph of how this works. Hopefully this will still be enough of a visual aid. Hamilton chronicles the days of creation like this:
Day 1: God creates light in the orbit.
Day 2: God creates the heavens to separate water from water in the sky.
Day 3: God creates vegetation on the dry land.
Day 4: God creates the luminaries in orbit. (Echoes day 1)
Day 5: God creates birds/fish in the sea and sky. (Echoes day 2)
Day 6: God creates land animals, and finally mankind. (Echoes day 3)

To understand how God does this creation business, we need to look at verse 2: "now the earth was formless and void." Another way to word that is that the world was "unstable and empty." On days one to three, God creates stability in the environments (orbit, sky & sea, land), and on days four to six He actually fills the environments. It's very important to note the order that God created in. Look, this is how I would have done it instead:

Day 1: Gary creates light in orbit.
Day 2: Gary creates luminaries in orbit.
Day 3: Gary creates the heavens to separate water from water in the sky.
Day 4: Gary creates birds/fish in the sea and sky.
Day 5: Gary creates vegetation on the dry land.
Day 6: Gary creates land animals, and finally mankind.

I think this is how most people go about their projects, isn't it? We work with one thing at a time and complete it before moving on to something else. For the sake of staying on topic, let's conveniently ignore the fact that I would have accidentally drowned the birds with this order, OK?

God was so very purposeful in creation! With great care He first prepared each environment. Never did He rush His work. When day one's work was done, He sat back and reveled in the beauty of His creation, making sure everything was right before moving on to the next day.

He started with the least elements of creation: the sun, moon, and stars, and then worked his way up. But not until every environment was furnished completely did he create any living thing whatsoever. Let me note that Hebrews didn't consider plants to be "alive." Only creatures that draw breath are "alive."

Ever is God the cheerful giver of blessings and life. He gives a special blessing to the truly living things on days five and six. On day five, he blesses the birds and fish (v 22), telling them to flourish. And as for day six? How does God bless the creatures of the land? Their blessing is not multiplication, but a ruler made in God's own image. This ruler, man, is over the birds and fish also, but lives on the land and is much closer to those creatures. God tells this creation -- humanity -- to be fruitful and multiply, and graciously gives us dominion over all the rest of creation.

Whenever God looks at His creation, His feeling is pleasure and awe. It is because of His love and grace that He blesses creation. The Creator is so fond of the creation, and we likewise are fond of Him if we are in a right relationship with Him. Grace, with God as its provider to all creation, was part of God's interaction with us from the very beginning.

Genesis 16: Covenant (Interlude with Hagar)

2009-11-19T21:08:00.002-06:00

Sarai takes charge 16:1-6
Now, they’d been living in Canaan for ten years [since chapter 12], and they’d been trying and trying to have a baby. Perhaps, as Hamilton notes, they see this not as “we’re going to have a baby!” but rather as “we have to have a baby!” In any case, Sarai gets impatient and comes up with a way around her infertility. Whereas Abram turned to Egypt when the land was infertile, now Sarai would have them turn to Egypt again to get around her own infertility. Sarai intends to give Hagar, a slave they picked up in Egypt, to Abram to be a surrogate for her.

The central verse here is verse 2. Sarai is the impatient one. She comes up with the plan, and tells Abram what to do. Abram acquiesces to his wife uncritically (Genesis 3, anyone?). So, through Egypt he again finds fertility: Hagar conceives. And once again Egypt becomes hostile: Hagar begins to despise Sarai.

Sarai’s response is to hold Abram responsible for her own idea. “May the Lord judge between me and you” is an expression of very clear hostility. (It’s probably up there with “God d*** you!”) He backs down and lets her do whatever she wants to Hagar. So, Sarai mistreats her servant and drives her out.

Sarai’s behavior here is completely inappropriate. Much like Eve, she has a tendency to usurp power in the relationship, which inevitably leads to bad results. And Abram, like Adam, sure doesn’t seem like much of a man here. Circumcision jokes can’t be used for Abram, because he was lacking in the manhood department before being given circumcision. Sorry – I couldn’t resist.

The Lord appears to Hagar 16:7-15
Apparently Hagar was traveling alone to Shur while pregnant. She stops at a well along the way, and the angel of the Lord appears to her. The angel asks her where she came from, and where she’s going. All she can answer is where she came from – she has nowhere to go. The angel tells her to return and submit to her mistress, yet the Lord will give her a blessing much like that of Abram: descendants beyond number. Her son Ishmael will grow to be great in his own right. Let’s not miss the pun in verse 11: “You will name him ‘God hears,’ for the Lord has heard your misery.” Ishmael is called a “wild donkey of a man,” both referring to his hostility (donkeys are stubborn!) and to his wildness (he was an outdoorsman and archer by trade, living away from civilization).

Let’s talk Hagar for a moment, because she is quite special. She’s the first person that the angel of the Lord ever appeared to. What’s more, she’s the only person to ever give God a new name: the Living One Who Sees Me. This is also the only event in the Bible where an encounter between God and a woman leads to a commemorative place name (“Well of the Living One Who Sees Me”).

Hagar is also special because she, not Sarai, is the prototype for Mary. Mary likewise gets pregnant through no fault of her own, and is greatly shamed by the community and her betrothed. The angel of the Lord appears and saves her from the disgrace. Now, I believe in the virgin birth, but no one would have believed her until the angel appeared. Until that time, she was a confused and shamed girl who had no idea where to go or what to do.

OK. End-of-the-show lesson segment. As I say in my notes over Genesis 3: a man should listen to his wife. It’s important to hear her ideas, and even more important to listen to her feelings. However, uncritically letting her take the lead is simply out of the question. Lesson number two: God cares for everyone, even the people that God’s chosen people despise. Even those caught in unspeakable shame with nowhere else to turn. No matter who you are, no matter where you are, God hears your pain.

Genesis 15: Covenant (Part I)

2009-11-19T17:52:00.003-06:00

Genesis doesn’t tell us where Abram is at this time. Is he still in the King’s Valley? Back at Hebron? Did he sneak off to his altar between Bethel and Ai? We don’t know. It’s not important. What is important is that the Lord immediately reacts to Abram’s act of faith by appearing to him once again. The Lord tells Abram not to fear – why might he be afraid? Perhaps because Lot didn’t come to his senses and leave Sodom like any sane person would have done after that rescue? Perhaps he fears retribution from the eastern kings he just defeated? We can’t say for sure.

In any case, the Lord is Abram’s Shield and his great Reward. Abram’s response just smacks of depression: “what can you possibly give me, since my chief servant will now be my heir?” (Apparently he is still fixed on making Lot his heir.) The Lord specifies now that it will indeed be an heir from Abram’s own body that will bring forth descendants. The Lord took Abram outside (was He there in Person?) and showed him the stars. Indeed his descendants will be innumerable (second time promised, third if “great nation” counts). We now can say that the middle eastern sky shows about 8,000 stars on a clear night, but that’s an uncountable number.

Abram believed, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Here is the first explicit reference to faith in God’s promises. The Lord begins a formal covenant declaration by stating who He is: “I am the Lord, who brought you out…” Abram now believed in the promise for a son, but now he asks for a guarantee for the land promise. So the Lord instructs him to bring some animals for a covenant. Abram brought these to the Lord’s presence and cut them in two and arranged a path to walk through the halves.

Let me quickly explain how covenants work. Butchering animals is pretty icky, but there’s a good reason for it. When you make a serious covenant, both members go through the path of animal halves. It symbolizes an oath that says, “if I am not faithful to this covenant, then may I be cut in two just as these animals are.” It's especially solemn if you're the one who arranges the animals. And so Abram arranged the halves, and waited until dusk.

Then he fell asleep, and thick darkness surrounded Abram. From his dream, he heard the Lord speak a promise about his descendants going to Egypt, becoming slaves, returning here, and taking the land. The Lord gives the Amorites time to repent, even.
When the sun had set completely, the thick darkness still enshrouded Abram. Not just is he asleep, but even if he did wake up, he’d see nothing. I would say he is in a semi-lucid state, like where you’re asleep but you still hear and feel what’s happening around you. So, the Lord appears in the form of a blazing flame and passes through the pieces. In his dream, Abram feels the heat on his face, and hears the Lord again: “to your descendants I give this land…” God gave the land from the Wadi el-Arish to the Euphrates, two very major rivers. Even though separate peoples possess it now, it will be given to his descendants.

I want to tell you why this section makes me shake and even cry. To pass through the halves is to say “if I break my covenant vow, may I be cut in two likewise.” The Lord passed through the halves in the form of flame, and when Abram awake, the halves were charred; he could not put himself under the same damning oath. Oh, what grace, that God would spare Abram in advance for any unfaithfulness! That the Lord would put Himself under such an oath out of His great love for us!!! It’s amazing. So amazing.

Genesis 14: The Empire Strikes Back

2009-11-19T17:49:00.004-06:00

The Conquest 14:1-12
Kederlaomer, king of Elam, has three allies that he goes to campaign with one spring. Now, he had five vassals who had been his subjects for twelve years. In the thirteenth year, they refused to pay tribute and gathered together in rebellion against him while he was away at war. As his troops came back that fall from an extremely successful year, the rebel alliance (which included Sodom and Gomorrah) ambushed them in a valley. Their hope was to catch their former master and his troops battle-weary on their march home. This hope was dashed to pieces, and the rebels were utterly routed. Kederlaomer even launched a counter-offensive to take the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and he plundered the cities completely – taking also Abram’s nephew Lot.

The Rescue 14:13-16
One of those who escaped must have known Lot, and Lot must have told of his uncle Abram. The fugitive finds Abram in Hebron and tells the whole spiel. Abram immediately moves out with all 318 trained fighting men in his household to rescue Lot. Even with such a small force, he pursues over a hundred miles and routs the four great kings. He’s confident enough to even divide his forces into smaller units to “surround” the much larger army. As is the case when Hebrews fight, it is God’s faithfulness that empowers them to victory (“those who curse you, I will curse”). And so, Abram and his Amorite allies rescue Lot and they come to the King’s Valley, near Jerusalem.

Politics, politics, politics 14:17-24
Now, the king of Sodom comes out to meet Abram. Then Melchizedek, the king of Salem (Jerusalem) comes out to bring Abram a simple meal in thanks of what he’s done. Melchizedek gives an honest gesture of friendship and hospitality. You see, he was a priest-king in the service of God Most High. What is interesting is that he probably attained his position as a high priest of the Canaanite god, who also has the title “god most high.” Yet at some point, he came to know the real God, because Abram acknowledges his blessing and gives a tithe to God through Melchizedek. Abram recognizes completely that it is God who gave him victory that day, and openly declares his faith and thankfulness with that tithe.

The king of Sodom, who had been passive through this entire affair, speaks up. “Of course, you’ll give me back my people, but keep all the goods for yourself.” If Abram took this offer, then he’d certainly be richer. However, it would put him in Sodom’s debt, in effect making him a vassal just like Sodom was to Kederlaomer. Here we see the first example of Sodomite hospitality – it comes with strings attached. They were a people who had no problem inflicting the same wrongs on others that they had suffered for twelve years.

Yet, Abram refuses this get-rich-quick scheme and takes nothing for himself, other than the meal for him and his men (offered by Melchizedek and not Sodom), though he will accept the shares for his Amorite allies. Whereas the last chapter has Abram making peace amid family strife, here he does “become a blessing to the nations” by solving international strife.

In this chapter, Abram shows great courage and devotion to his family. Abram acknowledges that God grants victory, and he proclaims faith in God, because God is faithful to him. Also worth noting is that Abram is not moved by greed for material gain. He wants to point not to his own wealth, but to God. He wants for everyone to say “God made Abram rich.”

What the king of Sodom tried to pull is much like the “rent-to-own” scheme people fall for, where you pay two to four times the price of an item over a long period of time. We could also liken it to the misuse of credit cards. Interest piles up, and you eventually become enslaved as a debtor. Abram refused to fall for that. Financial schemes are a true snare. We must be wary and remember that God will provide our needs – maybe not all our wants and desires, but all our needs will certainly be met.

Genesis 13: Separation Anxiety

2009-11-19T17:44:00.004-06:00

The Return 13:1-4
This chapter opens by repeating the end of chapter 12: Abram went up from Egypt with everything he had. This is extremely important. Verse two spells it out more clearly that he had become wealthy because of the time in Egypt. Most people who end up tricking and embarrassing a king, end up leaving the king’s throne room empty-handed and beheaded. Not just did Abram survive, but he actually prospered through this time in Egypt. Yes, he was exiled in shame, but he came out better for it.

It’s not that God condoned his trickery. God didn’t approve of Abram’s actions, and that goes without saying. God blessed Abram not as a nod of approval but because of God’s faithfulness. Abram realized this, so he went back to where he built an altar between Bethel and Ai and worshiped God in thanksgiving. It also allowed him to renew his commitment to the Lord and remember who he is.

The Separation 13:5-13
The herdsmen of Lot and the herdsmen of Abram get into some petty squabbles. Really, the plains were big enough for both of them, but because of greed, Lot and his herdsmen felt that there actually wasn’t enough space. Lot demanded an area for himself. Verse 6 shows how Lot perceived the situation: “there’s only room for one sheriff in this town.” Sadly, they break into an argument even though they are surrounded by not-so-friendly Canaanites and Perizzites. Being surrounded by enemies is a terrible time for people to fight among themselves, but that’s what’s going on here.

But because of the famine incident, Abram has renewed his faith in God’s ability to provide for him. Abram takes the initiative in settling the dispute. He comes to Lot and, surprisingly, gives Lot the first choice of which land to take. Since Abram his older, custom would allow him first choice, but he chose humility and peace-making over custom here. Lot, on the other hand, acted on greed. Seeing the fertile plain around the Jordan river, he took this area completely for himself. He didn’t take into account the wickedness of Sodom, and even pitched his tents near them. Here, Lot has clearly chosen wealth over family, honor, and virtue.

The Lord Appears 13:14-18
Abram acted in faith that God would provide for him, even if the more fertile places were chosen by Lot. Surely he even expected it. The Lord was watching, though, and He appeared to Abram because He was pleased with this act of faith. Whereas Lot looked at the land in selfish greed (v 10), Abram looked as God commanded and was blessed.

The Lord reaffirms the land promise (the third time He has said this) and even reaffirms the promise for innumerable descendants. This is noteworthy. Abram at this point probably thought that God was going to give Abram descendants through his adopted son, Lot. Remember, Lot’s father Haran died earlier. So, Abram is basically Lot’s godfather. And yet, Abram let Lot separate, which might put that promise of descendants (through Lot) in jeopardy. The Lord thus showed Abram that Lot’s separation will not threaten either of those promises. Finally, God tells Abram to move around and inspect all the land God is giving to him. So Abram goes to Mamre and builds an altar there, then calls on the Lord again in thanksgiving and praise.

As a geography side note, Mamre is a city named after Mamre the Amorite, whom Abram allies with (see 14:13). Hebron itself means “union,” so it’s fitting that Abram would move here and then make these allies. Hebron is also called Kiriath Arba, which means “town of Arba.” It’s named after Arba, who was a great leader of the tribe of Anakites (Joshua 14:15). However, this name is a pun because it also means “town of four,” and in Joshua 15:13-14 it says that Caleb drove out Anak and his three sons (total of four opponents). These two towns are clustered close together,and Abraham holds this place very dear to his heart. He builds an altar here, allies here with Mamre, Aner, and Eschol, and this is also where Sarah dies.

Let’s remember how Abram handled the dispute with Lot. Being surrounded by hostile foes makes a very poor time to fight among your own family, yet it’s what we Christians do. If we don’t present a united front as even a small group, then how are we going to stand? Christianity is a religion of togetherness. We either stand together, or we fall together. Just as the Lord is one (Deut 6:4), let us be one also.

The lessons in this chapter are wonderful: humility and initiative are important in settling disputes. Don’t let pride, greed, or your “rights” (like Abe’s right to first choice) get in your way of making peace with family. Trust that no matter what obstacles arise, God will still provide for you. And, once again, worship God and thank Him for His goodness!

Genesis 12: A(nother) New Hope

2009-11-19T15:28:00.005-06:00

The Call: 12:1-3
Acts 7:2 says that God originally spoke this to Abraham back when he was in Mesopotamia, before he moved to Haran. Genesis doesn’t tell us this, but the NIV interestingly translates verse 1: “The Lord had said to Abram.” It could just as easily be translated “said.” In any case, if you read Genesis on its own, it seems that Abram’s call was completely out of the blue.

Moving on, here’s what God says. How very special: the Lord appears and gives Abram seven promises. How many people get seven promises from anyone? Ever? Abram gets seven from God. Wow.
1. I will make you into a great nation
2. I will bless you
3. I will make your name great
4. You will be a blessing
5. I will bless those who bless you
6. Whoever curses you I shall curse
7. All peoples on earth will be blessed through you

All of these promises are actions on God’s part, promises given unconditionally based on God’s faithfulness. Some of these promises strongly echo 1:28, a gracious blessing given because of God’s love. Throughout the previous eleven chapters, we see the word bless(ing) occur five times, and five times see the word curse*. But in these two verses alone we see the word bless(ing) five times. Wow, that starts Abraham’s story off on an amazing note of hope!

The Response: 12:4-5
So, Abram left just as the Lord commanded. Abram’s response was obedience. He took with him everything that was his to take: his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all his possessions and servants. He took everything with him because he had no intent of coming back. Abram’s response was complete obedience to a wonderful promise.

The Journey 12:6-9
Verse 6 tells us that the Canaanites were still in the land in those times. Well, what did Abram expect? Did he think that the land would already be clear and unclaimed before he got there? Possibly. In any case, the presence of the Canaanites presented a problem for Abram and troubled him. However, the Lord appeared to Abram and reassured him of the promise to give Abram this land. After the Lord appeared to him, Abram built an altar there and called on the name of the Lord. God responded to Abram’s (apparently) unspoken nervousness at the Canaanites’ presence, and appeared personally to reassure Abram. How amazing! Abram’s response quite naturally would be to give thanks to God for showing such grace and favor. After this, Abram continued toward the Negev.

Famine 12:10-16
Now, there was a famine in the land. Since Egypt has a stable food supply, Abram went down there when the famine got severe. Dr. Joel Hoffman made some excellent observations on the way famines work. God doesn’t send them, they just happen “in the land.” In Bible times, shame is reserved for how you feel after doing a shameful action. Circumstances, however, should not bring us shame. We shouldn’t be ashamed to ask for help. The economy, for instance, isn’t our fault.

Back to the text now. Abram wants to provide for his household, even if it means going to Egypt. There is a problem, though. There’s a risk that Pharaoh may notice his wife and want her in his harem. Since it’s bad form to take another man’s wife into your harem, the custom is to kill the woman’s husband first. You know how politics works: he meets with an “unfortunate accident,” but it’s an open secret that the man in question was actually assassinated. Fearing this, Abram tells his wife to give only a half-truth and say that they’re brother and sister. This way, Pharaoh won’t assassinate him.

So, they go through with this plan, and indeed Pharaoh treats Abram well for Sarai’s sake, and takes her into his harem. However, Abram has resorted to trickery and forsaking his marriage to save his own hide. How will the Lord react to this? The Lord inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh. Why? Because “whoever curses you, I will curse.” The Lord kept his promise and was faithful to Abram. Sarai went through with the deception and was faithful to Abram (in saving his life, even by pretending they weren’t married). Abram, however, was being unfaithful to both of them to save himself. But the Lord is still faithful.

Exile 12:17-20
The Egyptians may not have been perfect models of morality, but they emphasized absolute truthfulness. Abram has thus broken faith with not just the Lord and Sarai, but also with the king he had deceptively befriended. So, Pharaoh summoned Abram, gave back Sarai, and sent Abram on his way. Abram was clearly NOT welcome in Egypt any more, and he left with everything he had, even that which he gained by deception.

Abram had no reason to be ashamed when he entered Egypt and asked for help. No; it’s when he’s exiled from Egypt that he should feel ashamed. And all of his household knows of it, too. I wonder how Sarai feels right now? Not so great, probably.

Lessons to be gained from this chapter:
1. The Lord will provide, even when obstacles give you pause. Give Him praise for providing.
2. Don’t let circumstances mar you with shame. Famines happen.
3. God is faithful to His people, even when we are unfaithful.

A Guide for those who want to Argue with Pacifists

2009-11-15T12:19:00.003-06:00

[This is completely tongue-in-cheek, but it wouldn't surprise me if everyone who had ever argued with me had read such a guide before]

Pacifists. We all know them. Those naive head-in-the-clouds idealists who say that Jesus was a hippie and refused war. What should you do when confronted by one? Do you have a pacifist contingency plan? Recent studies show that your chances of encountering a pacifist are greater than your chance of a zombie apocalypse by at least three-to-one. Lucky for you, I'm willing to share my contingency plan.

1. Use a long run-on sentence giving the military history of your entire family. Nothing shows your nationalistic pride like doing this. Give them the most important and emotional argument there is.

2. Remind pacifists that your family members died so they could speak freely -- and then tell them to stop speaking their minds, because it's disrespectful.

3. Cowards. Enough said.

4. Quote the Armor of God passage as if it legitimizes using a sword of steel. Make sure you also launch into an explanation about how "our struggle is not against flesh and blood" shows that physical warfare, i.e. "our struggle," achieves spiritual success as well as fighting flesh and blood.

5. Quote Romans 13 as if it means we should go to war and help other countries rebel against oppressive governments. I can't emphasize this one enough, people! Romans 13:1-7 clearly says that we are to be good and obedient citizens. Yes, it says this with specific regard to tax evasion and policing matters, but obviously we are not good and obedient citizens of the USA unless we teach other countries to rebel.

6. Remind your ignorant hippie opponent that Jesus spoke to a centurion -- and in Luke, the centurion was praised highly. Clearly, there was nothing ironic or out-of-the-ordinary about Jesus speaking to Romans. Romans were his best friends. The crucifixion was just a lovers' quarrel.

7. Make vague reference to the entire Old Testament. Duh. There's warfare there. God obviously wanted war from the beginning, or else He would have just made Eve.

8. Speak very emphatically about the biblical virtue of democracy, and how Christ died to bring us that freedom. "The truth shall set you free" is a good starting place here.

9. Jesus told his disciples to carry swords, so quite obviously his policy allowed for military action. Yeah. Beat that.

10. Quote Ecclesiastes 2. There is a time for everything. God obviously made war, peace, love, hate, death, life, baby-making, and not-baby-making. Clearly, these are all OK in God's eyes.

The Secret Revelation of Gabriel

2009-11-14T01:00:00.002-06:00

So, some people found a stone that is supposedly called the Revelation of Gabriel. National Geographic is hyping it up because of a reference to part of this stone that, when mistranslated, would mean "in three days live," which on its own apparently kills Christianity's unique dying and rising three days later. Oh wait -- except that Jesus wasn't the first for that, in the first place. The reference is actually to Hosea 6:1-3, which says "in three days raise us up," and is referring to all of Israel corporately.

National Geographic is going to hype this up just like they did for the Gospel of Judas. Here is an English translation done by Michael Sheiser. The part in question is lines 80 and 81. Note that almost zero lines here are completely intact, and the first 6 are completely unreadable. This really says nothing about Christianity. Don't be fooled by the hype!

My thanks to April DeConick, Doug Magnum, and Michael Sheiser for information on this one.

a poem based on John 11

2009-11-12T16:20:00.002-06:00

Read the chapter, then read this poem. Written at 2:30 a.m., 5/23/09. I originally wrote this on Facebook, and decided to transfer it here.

Lord, where are you?

You called me to follow, and in you I place my trust.
I gave my heart to your renewal, and you brought me life.
Yet you are far from me now, and my strength fades.
Lord, where are you?

My sisters are crying, calling you to come! How they trust you!
We pray day and night for the messenger to reach you soon; I want to see you.
Yet you are far from me now, and my sight fades.
Lord, where are you?

You say this isn’t fatal, and we all must trust you.
Tears of longing roll down my face. I will breathe life anew in the resurrection.
Yet you are far from me now, and my final breath fades.
Lord, where are you?

Lazarus: COME OUT!
Oh Lazarus: Where were you?

Love for Enemies

2009-11-10T13:47:00.007-06:00

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says:

You have heard that it was said 'an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you: don't resist an evil person. Rather, whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him also the other. And whoever wants to sue you and take your shirt, give to him also your coat. And whoever charges you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to the one who asks, and do not refuse the one who wishes to borrow from you.

He goes on to say:

You've heard that it was said: 'Love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may become sons of your Father who is in heaven. For He makes His sun rise upon the malicious and the benevolent, and makes it rain upon the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what have you really done worth mentioning? Do not the tax collectors also do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what exceptional thing have you done? Do not the gentiles do the same? So then, be holistic as your heavenly Father is holistic.

In Matthew's teaching on retaliation, Jesus quotes Ex 21:24. Mainly because of Jesus' reference to this passage, many people mistakenly see this as a dichotomy between the Old and the New. The Old Testament teaches retaliation, while the New teaches forgiveness. That's way off to left field, though. This law forbids turning justice into vengeance, an execution into a bloodbath. What happens if someone insults the mafia? Do they just insult you back? No; they'd kill you. What happens if you kill a member of the mafia? They'd kill you, your pets, your family, and everyone you've ever had a crush on. The natural instinct is to hurt someone much worse than they hurt us, and this law actually forbids that.

"Eye for an eye" is not the ideal response, but enforcing this limit of vengeance will prevent people from committing worse sins. The point of this law is that the punishment may not exceed what the crime merits (so the poor are not overpenalized) and it may not fall below what the crime merits (so the rich do not escape with a slap on the wrist). To quote Alexander Hamilton's Handbook on the Pentateuch: "What Jesus does in the Sermon on the Mount is elevate the response to evil beyond the concern for simple justice to voluntary assistance for the oppressor" (p. 206).

Then He specifically points out the godly response to public humiliation (the Greek verb in this context means a slap to the face, though the word is also used of roughing someone up), being taken to court, and enforced labor. No matter what sort of person wishes to borrow from you, you are supposed to give.

Now, Jesus quotes Leviticus 19:18, which says to love your neighbor. That chapter elaborates that one must love strangers/sojourners/foreigners as oneself, also. Interestingly, the Dead Sea Scrolls add to Lev 19:18 "...and hate your enemy." As if such a thing ever needed to be taught! Hating one's enemies is just common sense.

Jesus, however, considers hating one's enemies as something that needs to be untaught. What is our purpose in doing this? "So you may become sons of your Father who is in heaven." In this use, "son" means more than just parent-child relationship: here it means resemblance/imitation of your Father (this is a subset of the "members of a category" usage of "son"). By loving our enemies, we resemble our Father in heaven. Well Jesus, how does that work? How does God love His enemies?

"He makes his sun rise upon the malicious and the benevolent, and he makes it rain on the just and the unjust." Hmm. So, God allows sun and water to reach the crops and cattle of even those hostile to God? God actually gives the same life support to them? Well Jesus, good point. Loving those who love us does not necessarily reflect the change that comes from following after the Lord, nor does fellowship/greeting to our friends and relatives.

So, Jesus: God's love is universal, because he gives life to even those hostile to Him. What about us? What should we do, Jesus? "So then, be holistic as your heavenly Father is holistic." Let me explain why I prefer "holistic" to "perfect" here. Jesus' point is not that we must know exactly how to provide flawlessly and perfectly for each and every person even when we just met them. Only God can do that. Rather, His point is that we must be all-encompassing and indiscriminate in our love, giving it to everyone. Note once again that the example of God's love for His enemies is that he grants them life instead of either actively killing them or passively permitting them to starve. Oh, and I also prefer "holistic" because I am not translating on the 8th-grade reading level, as the (T)NIV does.

Luke's quote, in context, is also quite interesting. In 6:20-26, Jesus pronounces blessings upon those who are poor, those who suffer, those who are wronged. "You are blessed when the people hate you and when they single you out and treat you with reproach and throw away your name as evil for the sake of the Son of Man" (think of something gross that you'd reflexively throw off if you touched it). Jesus goes on to explain that the same happened to the prophets, whereas the people loved and applauded the false prophets who claimed that the Lord was with them all the time. Now Luke puts forth the love-for-enemies passage, and he even inserts the teaching about retaliation inside the love-for-enemies section.

But I tell you who hear: love your enemies, do good to those who hate you; bless those who curse you, pray for those who insult you. To the one who strikes you on the cheek, turn also the other, and do not refuse [to give] your shirt to whomever asks for your coat. Give to everyone who asks, and do not demand it back. And however you wish people to treat you, treat them likewise. For if you love those who love you, what special thing have you done? For even the sinners love those who love them. And if you show benevolence to those who show you benevolence, what special thing have you done? The sinners do the same thing, too. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what's special about that? Sinners also lend to sinners expecting to receive back their own things. Nevertheless, love your enemies and show benevolence and lend without expecting anything back. Thus will your reward be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for He is kind to the ungracious and malicious. Be compassionate just as your Father is compassionate.

Jesus blesses his audience "you who are poor," and "who hunger now" and "who cry now" (reference to fasting and weeping, perhaps?). He then tells us, the audience, that we are actually blessed when we suffer abuse. He does not say to resist such things. Actually, the fact that he points to our reward for suffering instead of specifically saying how to react implies that he expects us to, not necessarily welcome it, but certainly endure it. For doing so, we will be counted among the prophets.

Lest anyone say I avoid the prophetic woes section: Jesus then addresses the "rich" as if they were present, though they are not. The "rich" are those who do not listen to Jesus' message of radical service to God, and who instead are so blinded by the religious establishment's status quo that they do not see the need for immediate and decisive action to further the Kingdom of God.

Now, Jesus switches back to the blessed "poor," his disciples. This passage is similar but not identical to Matthew's parallel. Luke says to turn the other cheek to the one who strikes you -- this is not a backhanded slap of humiliation, but an act of violent aggression. Luke flavors this passage to show it in the light particularly of giving alms to the poor (a point that Matthew emphasizes just shortly after his parallel for this). Another difference in Luke is that instead of giving God the holistic attribution, he says that God is good/kind. For what that word means, read 1 Chr 16:34 or start reading the book of Psalms from chapter 100 to 136. When it says that God is good/kind, it also says "His love endures forever." To understand what Luke means in verse 36 about being "compassionate, just as your Father is compassionate," read Jonah 4:4 or Joel 2:13. That is what we must imitate if we are to be sons of the Most High.

International Day of Prayer

2009-11-08T14:49:00.008-06:00

Today is the IDOP for the persecuted church worldwide. Many people today are languishing under torture or duress for the sake of the Name. What about us? We go to church, chat afterward, and rush home to watch the Cowboys game. Eat, drink, and be merry.

This is not how we should be. We must be constantly alert soldiers, armored with righteousness and faith, with the Sword of the Spirit -- the Word of God -- as our weapon. When Paul uses that phrase in Ephesians 6 (and in 1 Timothy 4), he is referring to words with God: prayer. Prayer is our weapon, and we must be constantly diligent and alert, praying at all times.

I only hope these stories will give you an idea of the need for this warfare.

Brave men like Gao Zhisheng of China stand up in opposition to the Communist Party's policy of brutal control over religious affairs. He was captured in February this year and carried away to brutal torture. He has not been seen publicly.

Women of steadfast faith like Asia Bibi of Pakistan are under duress because of their faith. Asia was arrested and is awaiting trial on charges of blasphemy. She belongs to one of the three Christian families in her village of 1500 families. When her Muslim coworkers began to pressure her to reject Christianity for Islam, and she said that "Our Christ is the true prophet of God." As the story says: "Upon hearing this response the Muslim women became angry and began to beat Asia Bibi. Then some men came and took her and locked her in a room. They announced from mosque loudspeakers that she would be punished by having her face blackened and being paraded through the village on a donkey." Christians got the police to intervene before this could happen, but she still awaits trial on blasphemy charges.

Some Christians were not so lucky as to have police intervention. In Gao's case, police intervention was the problem and not the solution. During one of the last times he was kidnapped, they tortured him grievously, leaving no place untouched and no torture means unused. They used the electric baton everywhere. His testicles. His anus. His mouth. They stuck toothpicks into his... "lamp."

It's not just men and women. Children are suffering, too. Silvia Merry Sarker, a Christian girl in the 8th grade, was kidnapped by four men of a Muslim family who wants to take her father's land. They forced Silvia to convert and marry one of them, Al-Amin by name. She is not even twelve years old, but a forged affidavit claims that she is 19, married, and converted to Islam. Her kidnappers were detained as suspects, but got out on early bail before police could garner any useful information. She's been missing for three months, and Silvia's father is afraid to send his older daughters to school ever since his youngest, Silvia, was kidnapped. The government of Bangladesh is being negligent of this Christian minority's plight.

The way of peace is being killed. As Revelation explains, for righteousness to truly come, the righteous must first shed their blood and fill the cup -- "for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure" (Gen 15:16).

See also the Persecution Blog. "Fear none of the things you are about to suffer. Behold! The Devil is about to cast some of you into prison so that you may be tested and may have affliction for ten days. Become faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life... Whoever overcomes will by no means be affected by the second death." Rev. 2:10-11.

Published Response to the Talon of 10/30/09

2009-11-08T01:43:00.005-06:00

Oklahoma Christian University's student-run newspaper, The Talon, ran a patriotic opinion article recently.

I decided to publish a response article: "A Christian Perspective on Warfare." I forgot to title it, but the editor gave it a good title.

Update: Someone decided to respond to me: "Defending this Nation's Guardians."

I love taking any questions about pacifism -- or religion in general. Please approach in kindness, love, and humility. I hope that I've exhibited those traits so far.

I want to challenge people to really read their Bibles. Not just vaguely remember that some passage exists somewhere that mentions this or that, but actually know what's going on and why. Biblical education is necessary, because the Bible is too good to not share, and God is too good to keep to ourselves.

Ephesians 2:1-4, ESV: A critique

2009-11-06T13:28:00.008-06:00

The ESV has been a refreshing translation to me in some ways, though I am not fully convinced of it yet. I don't take it at face value simply because it has an affiliation with the Church of Christ.

So, in reading Ephesians 2:1-4, here is the ESV text:

1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,

(courtesy of biblegateway.com)

Overall, the ESV's intent is to preserve the original flow and syntax of the Greek text as much as is intelligibly possible in English. This comes with its advantages and disadvantages, of course. On the one hand, reproducing the connectives (..."and") at beginning of sentences does preserve the original pattern and allow readers to see the connection between passages more readily. The lack of clear paragraph division also preserves the ambiguity of the original text, which leads to some fun for the English and Bible majors.

Verse 3: I can understand rendering ἐπιθυμίαι (desires) as "passions"; perhaps that is the better translation than what I usually use. However, the beginning connective for the sentence is removed. Verse 3 is an admission that it is not just "you" but "we" also who lived among them once. The circumstantial participle "carrying out" is fair, thought contextually influenced. However, I can see why they did not render ἐπιθυμίαι as "desires" before, since they use it here for θελήματα. While that's all well and good, I have to scratch my head about the desires of the body and mind. How should I word this objection?

Firstly, let's look at the word for "body." Precise translation of σάρξ (flesh/sinful nature) is a tricky matter. Literally it means flesh, but the metaphors they attached to the word flesh are different from the ones we attach to it now. As Dr. Joel Hoffman, a biblioblogger with a much clearer understanding than my own, says:

"In our culture, “flesh” has at least three main metaphoric uses: physicality (“he’s here in the flesh”), robustness (“flesh out”), and sex (“the flesh trade”)."

While it may be debated that Paul meant sinful nature by σάρξ, the debate is over my head so I won't go there. However, it sure seems odd to translate it as "body." No doubt it was for euphony since it fits well corresponding to "mind." Yet, the biblical word body should not be attached with sinfulness; Ephesians particularly uses the church image of the "body" of Christ. Should we really use the word "body" in such a context as this, given the treatment of body (σῶμα) in Ephesians? I think translating σάρξ as body is a bit of a stretch, and euphony does not grant proper justification; it mars the otherwise-positive uses of body in Ephesians: church as body of Christ, and woman as man's body (i.e. "without your wives, you would have an empty existence like a disembodied floating head [watch Futurama]. Knowing how irreplaceable your wife is, love her."). Body in Ephesians is not ever used negatively, so this is a poor choice.

I also have problems with "mind" here. διάνοια can mean mind/heart, the thinking faculty/understanding, or simply thought. In the Septuagint it was sometimes used as a translation for לֵב (e.g. Gn 17:17), but here it occurs in the plural. Really, my concern comes down to a theological question: "were/are the body and mind of unbelievers corrupted in a way that a believer's mind and body are no longer corrupted?" Perhaps this isn't the right question, and perhaps διάνοια has been translated effectively. However, I still find that the difference in number between σάρξ (singular "flesh") and διάνοιαι ("minds/thoughts") leads me to believe "flesh and [corrupt] thoughts" would be more precise. While the plural can mean minds, or perhaps could be translated as a collective singular "mind," (which is way over my head), I still find "thoughts" to be more natural. Or, if collective singular, "mind-set" would be better than simply "mind."

Theologically, Paul said that the Gentiles were corrupted completely, body, heart and mind - in Romans 1, but Romans is the latest Pauline epistle and so contains his fully developed understanding. Would it be a mistake to retro-interpret Ephesians 2 in light of Romans 1? I take the canon as it is (though I value Tobit as I value Mere Christianity), and so I accept the final form. Ephesians was also written by Paul, the Paul of faith, and for me that qualifies applying Romans to Ephesians without regard to historical authorship or time of writing.

So, the "sons of disobedience" were fully corrupt, body and soul. However, in Ephesians 2 we have the "before" and the "after" of the transformative power of the Gospel. And the fact is, Christians are still subject to corruption in both "flesh" and "thoughts," though I do not think it right to call us utterly "depraved." I must ask my more scholarly friends reading this: how does this theological subject impact the translation of Ephesians 2?

Moving on, this text fails to take into account the difference between the English perfect tense and the Greek perfect tense. There is some overlap, and sometimes a Greek perfect should be translated as an English perfect, but here it would be better rendered "by grace are ye saved," as the King James says. While the King James translators may have had inferior textual witnesses and a weaker grasp of Greek than modern translators, they did know English quite thoroughly. So, the King James Version's treatment of the perfect tense is better than some of the more modern translations (see Daniel Wallace's Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics on the intensive perfect).

Another critique: participles are rendered without flavor, as if our flexibility in participle use is correlative with its use in Greek. Actually, there is quite a bit of overlap, but English readers are simply not acquainted with usage of the participle. The average American does not even know what a participle is, in fact. So, it's a poor idea to say in v 4 "God, being rich in mercy..." Even though one can use an English participle with a causative idea, it's so awkward to us that few readers indeed would be able to grasp its meaning.

Now, let me give you my [rough] translation, then I'll let you go on your merry way.

And you were dead in your transgressions and your sins, in which you once walked according to the custom of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air -- the spirit now at work in the sons of disobedience, among whom we all also once conducted ourselves in the desires of sinful nature, doing the bidding of our sinful nature and our [futile] thoughts. But God, because He is rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,

All in all, I consider the ESV a good translation to be used by very well-read readers who want to have a greater understanding of how Hebrew and Greek syntax works. This particular text they do alright with, but I still disagree at least on the "body and mind" part.

Overall, this critique was a fun exercise and nothing more.

Thought for the Day

2009-11-02T22:18:00.000-06:00

Love keeps no record of rights, either.

What I did on Halloween

2009-10-31T21:31:00.001-05:00

This evening I dressed up as a monk and spoke in Hebrew or Latin in hushed scary tones all night. I carried a staff with a cross etched into it, and that was pretty much my costume. All I did was answer the door and pass out candy for about an hour and a half. Now, as a monk, I am enjoying some "hallow-wine." Or "hallowed wine." Doh, whichever.

Handling Depression

2009-10-28T18:06:00.006-05:00

I found a paper today in the jumble on my desk that I got long ago during counseling. It's called "How to Love Yourself." If you're tagged in this, it means that as a human being you endure stress and I want to share with you some ways of handling it. It's specifically geared towards handling depression, but it works for anyone.

1. Stop all criticism: Simply refuse to criticize yourself. Everybody changes, but criticism never changes anything.
2. Don't scare yourself: Living in terror of your own thoughts is a dreadful way to live. When you feel scary thoughts coming on, have a mental image ready that gives you pleasure and switch to that.
3. Be gentle, kind, and patient: Go easy on yourself as you learn new ways of thinking. Treat yourself as you would treat someone you really love.
4. Be kind to your mind: Self-hatred is only hating your own thoughts. Don't hate yourself for your thoughts. Instead, gently change your thoughts.
5. Praise yourself: Criticism breaks down the inner spirit. Praise builds it up. Praise yourself as much as you can. Tell yourself how well you are doing with every little thing.
6. Support yourself: Reach out to friends and allow them to help you. When you need help and ask for it, you are being strong.
7. Be loving to your negatives: Acknowledge that you created negative patterns in the past to fill a need. Now you are finding new, positive ways to fulfill those needs. Lovingly release those old negative patterns.
8. Take care of your body: Learn about nutrition. What kind of fuel does your body need to have optimum energy and vitality? Learn about exercise. What kind of exercise do you enjoy? Cherish and revere the temple you live in.
9. Do mirror work: Look into your eyes often. Express this growing sense of love you have for yourself. Forgive yourself as you look into the mirror. Talk to anyone you feel resentful towards as you look in the mirror. Forgive them, too. At least once a day say "I love you. I really love you."
10. LOVE YOURSELF! DO IT NOW! Don't wait until you get well, or lose the weight, or get the new job, or the new relationship. Begin now and do the best you can.

Another paper called "Constructive Thinking"
Thought Stopping
1. I am not going to think about that.
2. Visualize clicking "delete."
3. Visualize "bookmarking" it and come back to it later.
4. Say "out" or "not right now" to every negative thought that comes to mind.

Thought Substitution
1. I am going to think about something that is calming
2. I am strong.
3. I am capable.

Debating, Disputing, and Challenging Your thoughts
1. Where is the evidence?
2. Is this thought really valid?
3. How does this thought/belief serve my best interests?

Coping Statements
1. This too shall pass.
2. It's hard, but not too hard.
3. I can cope with this.
4. I am working on my problems.
5. I am doing the best I can.

Positive Affirmations
1. I am a good person.
2. I accept myself.
3. I am growing stronger by facing my fears and pain.

Review of Goals
1. I want to feel better; that is my goal.
2. I want to think more positively about myself.
3. I will keep my focus on my goals rather than the obstacles.

Reframing
1. I can learn from this experience.
2. Tolerating and handling this calmly will make me stronger.
3. Don't take myself so seriously.

Guided Imagery
1. Imagine myself feeling and thinking differently.
2. I can respond to someone in a different, more rational manner.
3. Imagine myself in a situation that makes me feel good.

What's a good person?

2009-10-24T18:49:00.003-05:00

"Not hurting anyone" would only make you neutral, not good. A "good" person seeks to help those who are lost and who have given up on hope. The homeless, alcoholics, pregnant teens, those with terminal illnesses, people who die of hunger (thousands do every day).

Think of it this way. If you were God, and you were going to make a perfect place called Heaven, and you wanted it to be peaceful, what sort of people would you invite into this new kingdom you're building? Those who have a heart to give their lives for the benefit of others, or would you pick those who go through their own lives making no major difference one way or the other, who don't go out of their way to help or harm?

If you were God, and you were building a perfect kingdom, wouldn't you also want to pick the people on Earth who already share your vision and try to shape the world into a better place? If you were going to let humans help you build Heaven and live there with you, wouldn't you pick people who had that same dream?

Maybe the people you'd pick are not perfect in and of themselves, but you'd probably pick the people who have a heart that wants to make the world perfect. Does that make sense?

Christians aren't perfect, and good works don't make us perfect, either. However, it is through the experience of seeking God's kingdom (i.e. making the world a better place through acts of mercy and by coming together as a community) that Christians grow closer to God. We grow to resemble God more and we grow emotionally closer to Him as well.

God very earnestly desires people who seek to bring heavenly peace and harmony on earth, not just people who would think Heaven is a nice place.

Nobody plans to build a building and then hires architects based on them saying "Well, I haven't done anything to destroy buildings, really." NO! You hire people who love to build things! It's the same deal with God.

When a Man Loves a Woman (Part I)

2009-10-24T00:22:00.012-05:00

Ah, so I've been thinking lately about how men and women are supposed to get along and interact. Part of my fixation on this is because I'm terrible with chap stick, chapped lips, and things like chemistry. And partly because I see a need in this world for change -- economic, political, cultural, and (YES!) religious change.

For now, I'm going to look over some important passages relating specifically to the relation of the sexes. My main concern here is about the treatment of women, in particular.

Last year I started an as-of-yet unfinished series of notes on Genesis. I took down the huge note I had of Genesis 1-3 to rework it in Word before posting it. Those chapters have so much to talk about, it's just crazy (My word file is 8 pages, single-spaced). However, I did re-post the section on Genesis 1-2:3, and I will be drawing from that note. For my study in Genesis, I am relying heavily on Alexander Hamilton's Handbook on the Pentateuch. I would recommend it. So, if you want to fully follow what I'm saying in this note, please read Genesis 1-3 either piece-by-piece or all at once. That other blog post I linked to is just a reference for later, if you're curious.

So, concerning Genesis 1 (which I count up to 2:3):
The way God creates in Genesis 1 shows him as a loving and superbly powerful king. God speaks, and what He commands, happens. He tells the land to produce vegetation, something that is impossible for dirt to do, and the dry land obeys. The impossible is possible, because God says so.

God creates in a very ordered fashion, setting everything up. If all of Genesis 1 was a magic show God put on for the angels, then we are the grand finale. Everything leads up to the creation of man in Genesis 1.

Now, for Genesis 2 (which I count as 2:4 until the end of the chapter):
Here God is an intimate potter, crafting humanity with his hands. He set the man, his first creation, in a garden he had planted, so that the man could work the garden. More than work, God has given man food, too! But the man, despite God's full presence being near to the man, he feels lonely, and in God's infinite wisdom, it is not good for the man to be alone.

I will slightly romanticize the rest of this chapter, but I feel that it captures the heart of the story (and hopefully the readers' hearts, too). Now, God brought every living creature that he had made to the man, to see what he would name it. Nothing would work, though.

So God puts on a knowing smile, and tells the man to lie down and relax. After making the man sleepy, God pulls a second blueprint, one much like the man's, out of the man's dreams. God strokes his beard for a moment and says to Himself: "Now, if I use this blueprint, it's going to take a rib. Neither one will be complete alone if I do this thing. But... nothing else could possibly do." With a nod of His head, God goes to surgical work and extracts a rib, then closes the flesh around the wound, and he crafts (yes, not "makes," but crafts) the rib into the most amazing thing the man ever dreamed of.

When the man wakes up, he asks the Lord God what happened, and He just smiles and says "One sec. Let me show you what I've been working on while you were asleep." Then, with a flourish of his hand and a few angelic trumpets in the background, in walks the woman.

The man is overjoyed, and immediately makes a pun (which sounds like something I'd do). First, he calls her "a bone of his bones" and "flesh of his flesh," which is something an ancient Hebrew would say that more or less means you've adopted someone as your "blood brother" or "soul sista." The irony is that she is literally crafted from his bone and flesh. Then he makes the pun: I will call her woman, for she was taken out of man!" (The pun is true in Hebrew as well.)

The chapter closes with an explanation that this Edenic experience is the reason that a man shall forsake/leave his parents and cling to his wife, and the two become one flesh. This means much more than just "they're gonna hold each other tight and have sex." However, the wording should make that very thing spring to your mind, because that is symbol of union between man and woman (and God, whose name is often invoked during the union). It symbolizes that in marriage, the two become a completely new entity. A new family.

Bringing Genesis 1 and 2 together:
These two chapters are so very different. Some scholars go as far as to say that they were originally two independent stories. I'm indifferent to that idea, but they are very different in their expression and in what aspects of God they highlight. Genesis 1 shows God as the Creator-King, supreme in power and kind in love. Genesis 2 shows God as the Hand-crafter and Friend, unfathomably deep in intimacy and kind in love. Can you see a yin-yang thing here? The first chapter climaxes with the creation of man, as in, male. Chapter 2 begins with the creation of man, and then a problem develops, perhaps loneliness. Only one thing can cure that: chapter 2 climaxes with the creation of woman. The first story also highlights God's masculine attribute (strength) while the second focuses on his feminine attribute (intimacy), while both stories show his generous love.

While I don't know if Genesis 1-2:3 and 2:4-25 were originally separate or not, I can tell you this: if they were separate, then it's no accident that they were brought together. Neither is complete alone. Both show elements of God's character that complement what is found in the other story. And if you want to understand how man and woman are to interact with each other, it is to be with complete trust, humility, and joy, because neither is complete alone.

Genesis 3
A major connection between 2 and 3 is the word "naked." Note that the word "crafty" in 3:1 looks very much like the word "naked," so that provides a clear link between the two chapters. Now, in this land of harmony, the craftiest of all the wild beasts holds a conversation with the woman. The serpent purposefully misquotes God, and then reacts with feigned shock that God would ssssay sssuch a thing. I imagine the serpent was slack-jawed with his tongue hanging out awaiting the woman's reply. And reply she does, for she knew well what she was supposed to do.

But the serpent guffaws and says "you (two) definitely won't die; God just knows that once you eat of it, you'll be like Him -- you'll be able to judge for yourself what's good and what's not." The way the woman heard it, she would understand "knowing good and evil" not as moral choice, but as in autonomy. What flashed through her mind was the situation in the movie Home Alone: stay up as late as you want, watch whatever you want on TV, and (of course) eat whatever you want.

What's ironic is that everything the snake said was technically true. He didn't lie, but he did deceive. Once she (and the man) bit into the fruit (pomegranate?), they were no longer innocent and now knew evil as well as good. They gained moral familiarity with evil, but never had the autonomy that the snake tricked them into thinking they'd gain. That tricky snake! What's more, they didn't "die" right on the spot, but the introduction of sin into the world brought about a decay that is moral, social, and physical.

Overwhelmed with this new feeling -- guilt, it is called -- they hastily cover themselves physically in an attempt to hide from their own emotions. When God approaches, he asks the man, who is the head of the two, what happened. As woman's leader, he is ultimately responsible and God demands an accounting from him first. He quickly places blame on the woman. So God demands an accounting from her, and she likewise blames the snake.

The snake, being of a class lower than humanity, does not merit an opportunity to explain its actions. Punishment follows for the snake. In poetic justice, since the snake made them eat what they should not eat, God makes the snake eat dirt, which we all know snakes cannot eat. That is the snake's curse. Then God goes back up the hierarchy ladder to the woman, and pronounces something to her. With pain she will bring forth children. Then he goes further up the ladder and pronounces judgment on the man. God will not curse man, but God curses the ground because of man. In case you don't like the idea that God didn't give the snake a chance to explain itself, please realize that the point is not that God is unjust, but that man and woman are special and are given consideration beyond that of a mere beast.

Now, what are these punishments on the humans? God demands an accounting firstly from the man, and notes that part of his folly was that he [blindly] "listened to his wife." I absolutely encourage listening to a woman's feelings (they're important!) and to her advice and opinions. Love her for the mind that lies behind that beautiful face, too, fellas. There is nothing wrong with taking suggestions from a woman. However, since it is man's place to lead, what he should have done was stop and ask "is this a good idea?" It is for skipping this crucial step that God reprimands him.

The woman does not receive a curse, but she will have pain in her childbearing, which is the highest point of fulfillment in a woman's life. With pain he will eat of the earth's bounty. Working the earth is man's highest point of fulfillment in life. Now sin has led to pain, though both are still allowed to continue their highest point of fulfillment. And now, the woman's desire will be for her husband. The NIV study Bible leaves an interesting comment on this that explains this as sexual attraction. Uh-uh. That's wrong. God is describing the natural consequence of sin in the world: "your husband will no longer be perfectly loving to you, and you'll have desires go unfulfilled. Now instead of being gentle he will utterly dominate you." The pain-in-childbirth thing was the punishment, but this is NOT a punishment nor is it a curse. Rather, it is a description of the natural consequences of what she set in motion. The fact that God bothers to explain this to her shows that God treats woman as a rational being capable of making decisions, and as someone of value.

So, the five dialogues of God here are: A: demand accounting from man; B: demand accounting from woman; C: judgment on snake; B': judgment on woman; A': judgment on man. God gives both man and woman exemption from being directly cursed, and allows them an opportunity to explain their actions. As such, both man and woman are special to God and in His image. They are subject to God and it is righteous for Him to punish them, but He grants them dignity. Humans are both a cut above the rest of creation. This is somewhat like how medieval nobles were not supposed to be executed in an undignified manner such as hanging, but they would instead be beheaded (except in cases of high treason).

God allowed them to maintain dignity and cover their shame by making them garments to cover their physical nudity. Then they were expelled from the Garden and moved eastward. Always east with the book of Genesis, for some reason. Despite the fact that every event in Genesis 3 has "death" written all over it, the man names his wife Eve, which means "life-giver." He believed in God's promise in 3:15.

Now let's take a step back and look again at the actual temptation narrative. First, Why Eve and not Adam? There's a multitude of answers to that. One respected scholar (Gerhard von Rad) actually bites the bullet and generalizes that women are the weaker sex, more inclined to engage in fanciful speculation. Specifically, he sees women as more likely to engage in astrological cults (Ezek. 8:14, for instance). I'm quoting him second-hand, I admit, so I can't really say too much other than that is pretty extreme. Now that I think about it, though, most Wiccans are female. What's more, is it boys or girls who use Ouji boards? And is it an old man or an old woman that you think of first when you think of crystal balls and fortune telling? There could be some truth in saying that women may tend to enjoy fancies such as that, but that doesn't make women morally weaker overall. If anything, I would say that men are more likely to fall prey to the promise of autonomy from God, which is the specific "fanciful speculation" the serpent is using.

At the other extreme you have the moderate feminist Phyllis Trible, who instead argues that the serpent considered Eve the more challenging of the two humans. Now, I do have access to some excerpts of her writings, so I can directly critique her. In comment on this passage, she writes that "speaking with clarity, the first woman is theologian, ethicist, [scriptural interpreter], and rabbi." God's exact words to both people were "you shall not eat of it," but Eve gives a longer quote than recorded earlier: "... and you may not touch it, lest you die." Apparently, this makes Eve a rabbi and Bible commentator in Trible's eyes just because she quoted a longer form of what God said. That's a bit of a stretch, considering the man is the one who heard the prohibition personally before the woman was even created! Is there even a remote possibility that the man is the one who expanded it for the woman? Apparently not.

So, how about a sane explanation for why the woman is tempted directly? The very thing I just mentioned is Hamilton's explanation: it is easier to tempt someone who only heard the prohibition indirectly, and that's why the snake went for the woman. We see the same thing when the people and Aaron make a golden calf, while Moses, who directly received God's Law, did not.

Now, let's tie all this together and see what Genesis says about the relation between man and woman.

Both are made in God's image. Both contain such dignity as God's representatives that they in fact are special, and are the capstone of God's creation.

God made man with the intent that man alone rule over everything else. When God was dissatisfied with this setup (2:18), He amended that plan by creating a helper for man. No longer is man second to God without equal, for there is one in dignity and God's image who is like him: woman. The fact that man was created first and that he named woman is not an insignificant fact. Naming something implies power. However, this does not reduce woman to the same status as an animal any more than me naming my cat elevates her to human status. Even Phyllis Trible admits that the Hebrew word for helper can means someone equal or lower in rank.

Woman was created by God in some sense FOR man. The question is how to unpack that statement precisely. God clearly said that man on his own wouldn't do. There was a problem. Woman was the solution to that problem. As such, she takes some part in the man's formerly exclusive stewardship/dominion of creation.

Woman is meant to assist man in the endeavor of stewardship over all creation. This does not mean that each individual woman's purpose is solely to assist an individual man in fulfilling his purpose, though. Rather, it means that women also have responsibility to speak out against the injustice of this world and to nurture and encourage what is good. Maybe the man worked in the fields with vegetables, while the woman instead took care of the trees. In this case, she'd have her own individual purpose, but she would be helping him in the overall purpose.

For a contemporary illustration, a preacher's wife can run a soup kitchen without her husband's oversight. Since the church's purpose is to proclaim God's justice and mercy, she is still contributing to her husband's purpose while fulfilling her own individual purpose with a separate (but linked) identity. She does not have to support him by being the church's secretary or even by being the most influential female in the congregation. Women should not be pressured to aid men in everything they do.

I had originally deluded myself into thinking that I could treat this passage and a few others all at once. I'm definitely going to make at least one more note over another passage. There's plenty more than could be said about Genesis, but I tried to trim this specifically for the relation between the sexes.

God bless and keep you all. And everybody -- regardless of what views you may hold, speak in love when you comment. Thanks!

*quotes of Phyllis Trible are from The Christian Theology Reader pages 151-152.

We Belong to the Sea

2009-10-19T19:32:00.006-05:00

So, after having a series of two negative posts, I've decided to focus back on the constructive and encouraging.

[Side note: right now, I am talking to a friend on Skype -- a member of the Chinese media. She's a local TV reporter on the east coast. I'm trying to let her know about Gao Zhisheng. She keeps going back to the Tibet thing and the earthquake, though, so it's hard to really keep her on that topic. I got her to agree to look into it.]

If you look at the open sea, the ocean, you can find a lot of parallels for God. All of creation, truly, declares God's majesty, but the ocean calls to me in a way that mountains and savanna simply cannot. Imagine you are on a boat on the sea -- an old-fashioned sailing vessel. The sea is truly a mystical place, truly alive though you see no physical form. The waves in all directions, truly the sea is vast and immeasurable.

Oh, and not just the surface! The depths of the ocean are without measure. Even today, we do not truly know what lies at the bottom of the sea. Granted, there may not be a plesiosaur stuck in Loch Ness, but for so long we thought the myth of Kraken to be completely made-up, then we find corpses of the giant squid, a name that refers to a genus of about eight separate squid species. THEN, we find out there is an even larger species of squid, which we dub the colossal squid! How crazy! And on rare occasions, we've managed to find some that weren't already dead or dying. But only rarely.

So many things of the depths are yet unknowable, even to us today with all our technology. Life teems beneath the surface and thrills our imagination! Every day on a merchant schooner would be quite an adventure, every day.

Oh, but the world below you is not the only realm! You look to the time when you can again see land, and also look up to the stars to give you direction, lest you run off course. Three dimensions to the experience of the sea. What are those bright lights, truly? Are they trapped angels, awaiting final judgment? When Jesus ascended to Heaven, did he preach to them also, that they may have salvation (1 Peter 3:19-20, II Peter 2:4)?* How can you not stare up at the starry sky and not be amazed?

The four winds with their mysterious power push the waves in one direction or another. The billows and breakers crash against the boat, rocking it rhythmically. It's easy to be lulled to sleep by the sea's smooth embrace. What peace! What exhilaration!

And also, every experienced sailor knows that ultimately he is at the mercy of the sea. If she unleashes her anger, there is no fighting back. All you can do is pray that you will weather the storm, if you cannot flee her wrath by making landfall somewhere. The sea is vast, infinite, beautiful, and beyond our power to control or understand.

So it is with God. He is wondrous, with depths of love, depths of a yearning desire for justice, that are beyond our conscious understanding. By his light we can find our way through the darkest nights -- his brilliance is always shining to lead us safely. His warm embrace envelops us, and everywhere we look, there we can see his presence. There is no sailing away from him. Yet when he unleashes his wrath, there is no protection, much less counterattack to God's fury. The earth melts like wax, and the seas churn like torrents at the slightest contact with his true presence.

Our God is so amazing, and I give thanks to my Maker for what lays before me. For giving me a world to explore, and an imagination to see what my eyes cannot, and be utterly fascinated anyway.

*Note about Peter reference:
1 Peter 3:19-20 says "through whom [=the Holy Spirit] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water." (NIV)
2 Peter 3:4 says "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but threw them in Tartarus, [binding them] with chains of gloom to keep them for judgment..." (my translation. I won't get into the "chains of gloom" vs. "pits of darkness" debate unless someone comments and asks)

These verses refer to Genesis 6's opening section, with the "sons of God" committing sexual sins by taking any of the "daughters of men" that they chose. Many Jewish interpreters in those days saw that as a reference to angels mating with women (and that is a popular interpretation today of Gen 6, though I believe otherwise; see my note God Renews Creation). So, these angels were captured and imprisoned in gloom/darkness as a holding cell for them to await final judgment. For a formal elaboration of the story, see 1 and 2 Enoch. The Grigori, or Watchers, are angels who have sinned and are awaiting trial. 1 and 2 Enoch are rightfully considered pseudepigraphia (books that claim Biblical status but are not of high enough quality to warrant our reverence), though the Ethiopian Orthodox Church considers 1 Enoch to be acceptable (the oldest form of it is in Ethiopic, so I think there's a racial pride attached to it), but nobody accepts 2 Enoch. They date from the first century A.D. While these books don't have much valid theological substance, they do tell us much of how Hebrews viewed Heaven and angels. Those ideas existed in their imaginations outside of these two books, so their historical value can't be dismissed.

Peter apparently looked to the stars (which he had been taught in Sunday school were entrapped angels awaiting final judgment) and assumed that Jesus, on his ascension, proclaimed the Gospel to them also. Sure makes you gaze at the stars and wonder, huh?