Τω Θεω Μονον Δοξα

Precious δὲ

2009-08-05T18:44:00.002-05:00

I was just reading through Ephesians 2.1-7. and the passage clearly breaks into two sections. The first vividly describes our hopeless slavery to sin, and the second God's gracious salvation of us from that estate. This is one of the greatest contrasts in life. Yet, one tiny word, δὲ, strikes this magnificent contrast. Amidst the despair of verses 1-3, it is wonderfully precious to feel the hope hinted at by δὲ. ὁ δὲ θεὸς συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ Χριστῷ. Amen.

NT Studies Quote of the Week

2009-08-03T17:30:00.004-05:00

Professor Mike Bird (Highland Theological College - see his terrific blog here) was recently interviewed by Zondervan on significant influences on his thought and theology. Amongst other places, the interview has been posted by Con Campbell over on "Read Better, Preach Better." Responding to some comments on that post, Mike Bird surely takes the award for the best NT Studies quote of the week with this:

Do you have any idea how hard it is to call Joel Osteen a “sentinel” of orthodoxy with a straight face?

Pressing on: Grateful for the Past, Prayful for the Future

2009-08-01T20:38:00.002-05:00

I was studying in Ephesians again this morning, working on 1.15-23. In verses 16-17, Paul says that he does not cease giving thanks for the Ephesians, making mention of them in his prayers, and that he also prays for them (indicated by the mention of prayer and by the ἵνα content clause - NIV makes this explicit with "I keep asking") that God might give them a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him, etc.

On the one hand, Paul is grateful for the work God has already done in the lives of the Ephesians, causing their faith in Christ and their love for the saints to grow. On the other hand, Paul anticipates further growth for the Ephesians, and makes that a matter of his prayer for them. Of this forward looking frame of mind, Calvin (in his commentary on the passage) says 'nothing is more dangerous than satiety of spiritual benefits. However strong may be our virtues, let us always aim at further progress.' As well as the Ephesians were doing, Paul shows a concern for growth and progression rather than stagnancy in the Ephesians' relationship with God.

The Dual Activity of the Sanctified Vessel

2009-07-26T15:20:00.006-05:00

In church today, Pastor John Dennis preached on 2 Timothy 2.20-26. At verse 22 it reads τὰς δὲ νεωτερικὰς ἐπιθυμίας φεῦγε, δίωκε δὲ δικαιοσύνην, πίστιν, ἀγάπην, εἰρήνην μετὰ τῶν ἐπικαλουμένων τὸν κύριον ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας. The two imperatives, φεῦγε and δίωκε, which, due to English word order, are some distance from each other in English translations, are consecutively juxtaposed in the original, heightening the contrast of the dual responsibility of the believer.

On the one hand, he must 'flee' from youthful lusts (which, in the context of the passage are probably not primarily sexual desires), and on the other, he must simultaneously 'pursue' (the verb is quite strong, elsewhere translated as 'persecute') righteousness, faith, and love with those who call upon the lord from a clean heart.

Neither fleeing youthful lusts nor pursuing righteousness (etc) are enough by themselves. He who wishes to be useful to his master must be actively engaged in both fleeing evil and pursuing righteousness.

Marcus Barth: "Election in Christ vs. Determinism"

2009-07-24T17:20:00.000-05:00

As I mentioned in a previous post, I have been studying through Ephesians recently. In the first fourteen verses of chapter one, election and predestination are mentioned several times (1.4, 5, 11). These words, particularly 'predestination,' seem often to evoke from American Evangelicals a strongly negative response as it is assumed that 'predestination' is a basically deterministic notion. The image of a person, who doesn't want to be saved, being dragged against their will into heaven is often presented (why this would a bad thing anyway I don't understand). Against this caricature of 'predestination,' which is actually a thoroughly biblical concept, the following quote (worth citing at length) helpfully gives several distinctions between election in Christ and determinism. It is taken from Marcus Barth, Ephesians 1-3: Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1974):

a) The tone of the statements made on God's decision is adoring rather than calculating or speculative. God himself is being praised, not a fate or system above God, or a scheme created by him. No effort is made to construct systems and draw consequences; neither is election balanced by reprobation of rejection [this is true of the Eph passage, but not of others, like Rom 9.22, etc].

b) The election of men is not one among several features of an impersonal omnipotent rule of disposition of a deity over all created things. To the contrary, it is described in strictly personal terms. It pertains exclusively to the relationship of the Father to his children [...]

c) God's relationship to the saints is described in terms which lack originality. The author is dependent on OT statements about election [...] E.g. the problems of the prime mover, the one and the many, the relationship between being and appearing, the ideal and the phenomenal world appear not to have bothered him. He is satisfied when he can speak of God and Christ in OT terminology.

d) The eternal election of Jews and Gentiles is not a mystery that must remain hidden. Neither is it a gratuitous corollary to the gospel [...] The gospel is the publication of the secret of election [...]

e) Election cannot be identified [only] with an event of the remote past or with a timeless divine will [...] God elects not only before the creation of the world but He is and remains the electing God when his grace is poured out, when sins are forgiven, when revelation opens the eyes of man's mind, and when the seal of the "Spirit quickens the dead and assembles those dispersed [...]

f) Awareness of God's election is given together with awareness of the forgiveness of sins. Election means resurrection from the dead. It is not derived from the experience that one part of mankind has a holy, happy, or successful life while another appears condemned to frustration and misery, The elect know they have been engulfed by the same death which, because of sin, has come over all mankind. Theirs is not an easy life that invites conclusions drawn from alleged freedom from any threat. But they live by hope for final redemption [...] Awareness of election is neither a church steeple from which to view the human landscape nor a pillow to sleep on. But it is a stronghold in times of temptations and trials.

While these six elements distinguish election from determinism, the main feature of Eph 1:3-14 has not yet been mentioned: this passage states that the election of the saints was made "in Christ."

I found this helpful in more clearly delineating between biblical predestination and a impersonal notion of determinism. Perhaps it will be helpful to others as well.

Calvin on the Bounds of the Word of God

2009-07-18T14:15:00.000-05:00

I was reading in Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion (book 3, chapter 21) yesterday evening, and came across some really good discussion about the boundaries of the Word of God. Calvin addresses two group of people, those who try to understand predestination beyond what is revealed in the Scriptures, and those who fear to teach even what is revealed there. So, the following discussion is directed particularly to the doctrine of predestination, but applies more broadly to the study of any matter in the Scriptures:

To those who would go beyond the particulars that are revealed in Scripture, Calvin cautions (II.21.2):

If we give due weight to the consideration, that the word of the Lord is the only way which can conduct us to the investigation of whatever it is lawful for us to hold with regard to him—is the only light which can enable us to discern what we ought to see with regard to him, it will curb and restrain all presumption. For it will show us that the moment we go beyond the bounds of the word we are out of the course, in darkness, and must every now and then stumble, go astray, and fall. Let it, therefore, be our first principle that to desire any other knowledge of predestination than that which is expounded by the word of God, is no less infatuated than to walk where there is no path, or to seek light in darkness. Let us not be ashamed to be ignorant in a matter in which ignorance is learning. Rather let us willingly abstain from the search after knowledge, to which it is both foolish as well as perilous, and even fatal to aspire. If an unrestrained imagination urges us, our proper course is to oppose it with these words, “It is not good to eat much honey: so for men to search their own glory is not glory,” (Prov. 25.27). There is good reason to dread a presumption which can only plunge us headlong into ruin.

And to those who fear to teach the doctrine of predestination to the church (II.21.3):

[I]n order to keep the legitimate course in this matter, we must return to the word of God, in which we are furnished with the right rule of understanding. For Scripture is the school of the Holy Spirit, in which as nothing useful and necessary to be known has been omitted, so nothing is taught but what it is of importance to know. Every thing, therefore delivered in Scripture on the subject of predestination, we must beware of keeping from the faithful, lest we seem either maliciously to deprive them of the blessing of God, or to accuse and scoff at the Spirit, as having divulged what ought on any account to be suppressed. Let us, I say, allow the Christian to unlock his mind and ears to all the words of God which are addressed to him, provided he do it with this moderation—viz. that whenever the Lord shuts his sacred mouth, he also desists from inquiry. The best rule of sobriety is, not only in learning to follow wherever God leads, but also when he makes an end of teaching, to cease also from wishing to be wise. The danger which they dread is not so great that we ought on account of it to turn away our minds from the oracles of God. There is a celebrated saying of Solomon, “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing,” (Prov. 25.2). But since both piety and common sense dictate that this is not to be understood of every thing, we must look for a distinction, lest under the pretence of modesty and sobriety we be satisfied with a brutish ignorance. This is clearly expressed by Moses in a few words, “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us, and to our children for ever,” (Deut. 29.29). We see how he exhorts the people to study the doctrine of the law in accordance with a heavenly decree, because God has been pleased to promulgate it, while he at the same time confines them within these boundaries, for the simple reason that it is not lawful for men to pry into the secret things of God.

Overturning God's Eternal Purposes

2009-07-11T16:35:00.000-05:00

I have recently begun studying through Ephesians, and have been going over 1.1-6. The heavy emphasis on God's eternal and free election and predestination of us as the basis of our salvation, sanctification, and adoption is immediately apparent. The conclusion of Paul is that God's blessing of us through election is ultimately 'to the praise of his glorious grace which he bestowed on us in the beloved.' Therefore, Calvin notes (Commentary on Ephesians, in loc.), any countering of the doctrine of God's election is extremely serious:

Every man, therefore, who hides this glory [based on election], is endeavouring to overturn the everlasting purpose of God. Such is the doctrine of the Sophists, which turns everything upside down, lest the whole glory of our salvation should be ascribed undividedly to God alone.

Jean Cauvin: 1509-1564

2009-07-10T22:18:00.000-05:00

Today marks five hundred years from when John Calvin (born Jean Cauvin) was born on 10 July, 1509. I thought it would be fitting to honour him by posting one of my favourite passages from his Institutes. This passage (Book I, Chapter 1.4-5) addresses the issue of the authority of Scripture, an area very relevant to the work of Bible translation.

[O]ur faith in doctrine is not established until we have a perfect conviction that God is its author. Hence, the highest proof of Scripture is uniformly taken from the character of him whose Word it is. ... If, then, we would consult most effectually for our consciences, and save them from being driven about in a whirl of uncertainty, from wavering, and even stumbling at the smallest obstacle, our conviction of the truth of Scripture must be derived from a higher source than human conjectures, judgements, or reasons; namely, the secret testimony of the Spirit. It is true, indeed, that if we choose to proceed in the way of arguments it is easy to establish, by evidence of various kinds, that if there is a God in heaven, the Law, the Prophecies, and the Gospel, proceeded from him. ...

[I]t is preposterous to attempt, by discussion, to rear up a full faith in Scripture. ... [A]lthough we may maintain the sacred Word of God against gainsayers, it does not follow that we shall forthwith implant the certainty which faith requires in their hearts. ... [T]he testimony of the Spirit is superior to reason. For as God alone can properly bear witness to his own words, so these words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men, until they are sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who spoke by the mouth of the prophets, must penetrate our hearts, in order to convince us that they faithfully delivered the message with which they were divinely entrusted. ...

[T]hose who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit. Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our own judgement or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human judgement, feel perfectly assured - as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it -that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God. We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which to rest our judgement, but we subject our intellect and judgement to it as too transcendent for us to estimate. This, however, we do, not in the manner in which some are wont to fasten on an unknown object, which, as soon as known, displeases, but because we have a thorough conviction that, in holding it, we hold unassailable truth; not like miserable men, whose minds are enslaved by superstition, but because we feel a divine energy living and breathing in it - an energy by which we are drawn and animated to obey it, willingly indeed, and knowingly, but more vividly and effectually than could be done by human will or knowledge.

Meditation on the Law of God

2009-07-04T13:09:00.000-05:00

Here are some thoughts from a bit of study this morning:

Joshua 1.8:

1) Structural Analysis:

"This book of the Law shall not depart out of your mouth,
but
you shall meditate on it day and night,
that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it;
for then you shall make your way prosperous,
and then you shall have good success."

2) Syntactical Analysis:

Two commands are given, the first in the negative, and the second (which contrasts the first - "but") in the positive. Following next is a purpose statement ("[in order] that") and two parallel result clauses ("for then ... and then").

3) Exegetical Analysis:

On the first reading, the phrase "shall not depart out of your mouth" may seem to indicate that perpetual recitation or continual discussion of the Law is being enjoined (both of which include a literal use of "mouth"). However, the contrastive second command supplies the opposite of "depart out of your mouth," namely, "meditate on it day and night." If the opposite of "depart out of your mouth" is "meditate on it day and night," then "out of your mouth" likely refers to something deeper than a literal "mouth." Rather, "out of your mouth" likely has a referent similar to "meditate," namely, the residence of the Law in the heart and mind, which nonetheless will result in recitation and discussion of the Law throughout the day (cf. Matt. 12.34, "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks"). After prohibiting the departure of the Law from one's mouth, the author contrastively enjoins continual meditation on the Law. The temporal reference of "day and night" may be initially elusive. It does not prescribe a regimen such that the one meditating dies after days of sleep, water, and food deprivation. Nor does it even command a slightly eased routine of similar rigour that would at least lend the meditator greater longevity. The notion conveyed is rather that meditation on the Law of God is a priority activity, fit for and to be practised at various times throughout the day, and even the night. The reference here to "day and night," then (as Paul' use of the expression in I Thess. 2.9), is to the frequency and diligence of the activity, and not to its uninterrupted continuity.

The command, then, is to avoid the departure of God's Law "out of the mouth" by meditating on it frequently, throughout the day. This is not simply an autotelic activity, though. Rather, the purpose is that the one meditating might "be careful to do according to all that is written" in the Law. Faithful obedience to God's Law is, therefore, the end to which faithful meditation on God's Law is the means. Without knowing what the Law of God requires, we will not be able to be obedient to those requirements.

The anticipated result of obedience to God's Law is that one's way will be prosperous, and one will have good success. While this prosperity and success may at times be material, it is also a prosperity beyond merely the material, and extends to the much more important realm of spiritual blessing and prosperity.

Ergo, meditate on the Law of God day and night.

Faith in Hebrews

2007-05-01T22:59:00.000-05:00

I have just finished writing a fifteen page paper on the concept of faith in the epistle to the Hebrews, as part of my Hebrews class. In writing this paper, I have confirmed to my satisfaction what my professor suggested earlier, namely that true faith has three elements: a word or revelation from God, trust of that word or revelation, and actions based on that trust.

A study of all the examples of faith in Hebrews 11 seems to strongly support this idea. Below are a look at a few of the examples where this is most clearly evinced:
1. Noah and the Ark
First Noah was "warned by God" (Heb. 11.7). This was the word of God to him. Having understood this word, he had a "reverent fear," that is, a trust that what God had said was in fact true, and, in obedience resulting from that trust, "constructed an ark" (Heb. 11.7).
2. Abraham and Isaac
Abraham, having received promises to be fulfilled through Isaac, received also a command to sacrifice his son. Trusting that God was able to raise up his son from the dead, and to then fulfill the promises through him, he carried out the command to sacrifice his son until God stopped him. We see here that Abraham had such complete trust in the promises of God that he trusted that even the death of the one through whom the promises were to be realised could not hinder God. And because of this trust in the word of God, Abraham was willing to sacrifice his own son. The three elements of faith – the word of God, trust based on that word, and obedience resulting from that trust – are here clearly existent.
3. Moses and the Passover
In this example, the word was the revelation concerning the Passover delivered to Moses in Genesis 12.1-25. Moses trusted this word of God, and acted in obedience to it so that “the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them” (Heb. 11.28).

This conception of faith has implications for two kinds of people: the skeptic non-Christian who thinks Christian faith is blind, baseless, and irrational, and the Christian who thinks he can live in faith without showing evidence of his faith by obedient works. It shows the skeptic non-Christian that our trust is based on a word of one whom we have found to be faithful, and it shows the luke-warm Christian that true faith always results in obedient works.

Scholarship Gone Wrong

2007-03-02T02:45:00.000-06:00

This evening I was glancing over an online textual commentary by Wieland Willker on the Gospel of Mark (A Textual Commentary on the Gospels [Bremen: 2006], volume 2, "Mark"). While the commentary is not as nice as Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament or some other critical commentary, it is over all interesting enough, and somewhat useful due to the amount of material it gathers and presents for each variation unit it discusses.

Having read the material on the famous variant of Mark 1.1, I passed on to the equally famous variant found in Mark 1.2. Willker notes that, due to the singular nature of the variant in verse 1 and the fact that verses 2 and 3 appear to be grammatically subordinate, some scholars postulate that the beginning of the Gospel of Mark, like its end, is textually corrupt. This postulation seems unnecessary to explain the data, but one could see how it might make a little sense.

However, when Willker comes to the famous 'en to Esaia to prophete' variant in verse 2, he makes what I think is a very poorly based assumption and consequent consideration. He writes (p. 10), "Both Mt and Lk omit the Malachi part of the LXX quotation! This is very unusual. Why omit it, when they found it in Mark? Although both cite it later at Mt 11.10/Lk 7.27. Is it possible that Mt and Lk read a different opening of Mark than we have today?"

Here Willker stumbles in the mess of the source criticism of the Gospels. He takes as fact the theory of Markan priority which maintains that the evangelists Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark as the basis for their gospels (and it is usually also claimed that their extra material was largely drawn from a hypothetical document called 'Q'). This theory of Markan priority is not without its strong points and has been probably the most widely accepted 'solution' to the so-called Synoptic Problem in recent (last hundred years) scholarship, boasting such advocates as F. F. Bruce (cf., for example, chapter four of his The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?). However, their are other theories with other strong support and respected proponents. The fault, then, lies not in Willker's support of the theory of Markan priority, but in his assumption of it (despite the variety of opinion on the matter amongst good scholars) to the point that he is willing to suspect, or at least consider, significant textual corruption (which is not evidenced in manuscripts) rather than question his prefered theory of the source of the Gospels. I would suggest that this is an instance of bad scholarship, and demonstrates a poor arrangement of values and priorities.

Maintaining Orthodoxy

2007-02-22T01:12:00.000-06:00

An article for my school's newspaper:

What does the word ‘orthodoxy’ mean? If you have been in any of Dr. John McMath’s classes, but particularly in Church History (which could be seen as a study of God’s preservation of orthodoxy from the beginning of the church till now), you have probably heard an explanation of the derivation of the word ‘orthodoxy.’ The word is derived from the Greek adjective orthos, meaning ‘upright’ or ‘correct,’ and the noun doxa, one of the meanings of which is ‘belief,’ or ‘tenet’ – though this particular denotation is not found in the New Testament (Kittel, 178). ‘Orthodoxy’ is usually used in reference to right doctrinal positions. The ‘orthodox’ are those that hold to such positions.

In the modern Western world of relativity and ‘tolerance,’ devotedly maintaining orthodoxy is certainly not often viewed with approval. As I read today’s edition of The Church of England Daily, I was struck by the content of the front-page article, “Anglo-Catholics Call for End to ‘Scapegoating.’” In sum, the article reported (with a seemingly positive voice) the pleas of some in the Anglican Communion for an end of placing blame for possible schism on TEC (The Episcopalian Church). The article says that, according to a Rev. Jonathan Clark (in reference to the forthcoming Feb. 14-19 summit of Anglican Primates in Dar-es-Salam, Tanzania), “were the Primates to create structures for the official recognition for an ‘orthodox’ body within TEC, ‘hundreds of clergy and thousands of lay people ... would feel that they were being judged, excluded, and condemned.’” Also in the article, a Rev. Richard Jenkins is recorded as having said, “the Anglican leadership isn’t doing enough to value those who in conscience feel that the Church should take a more open attitude to lesbians and gays. Staying together with integrity means learning to value all shades of opinion.”

It should be abundantly clear that the Western secular world’s value of ‘tolerance’ has had a significant influence on the thinking of no small number of leaders in parts of the Church. The disease of falsehood in doctrine, or heterodoxy, has been fought throughout the history of the Church, and is still being fought today. More and more, especially amongst certain parts of the Church there seems to be a far greater value placed on ‘tolerance’ and peace with the world than on orthodoxy or sound doctrine.

Yet the Scriptures make it very clear that sound doctrine, rather than peace with the world and universal ‘tolerance,’ is to be our goal. Romans 16.17 says, “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them” (this could easily be directly applied to the liberals in TEC). Paul clearly states (1 Tim. 6.3-4), “If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, (4) he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing.” At the same time, 1 Timothy 1.10 demonstrates that homosexuality is “contrary to sound doctrine.” Titus is commanded to “teach that which accords sound doctrine” (Tit. 2.1). The Scriptural mandate is plainly to maintain orthodoxy, regardless of what the world thinks of us or of our ‘intolerant’ views. In fact, Christ clearly warns us that, “because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15.19). As followers of Christ, we must strive for sound doctrine, and joyfully (Jas. 1.2) bear the persecution that is bound to result (2 Tim. 3.12), glorifying God that we may suffer as Christians (1 Pet. 4.16).

Sources:

Kittel, Gerhard and Friedrich, Gerhard, editors, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), abridged in one volume by Bromiley, W. Geoffrey.

Bruce Manning Metzger: His Life, Work, and Passing (1914-2007)

2007-02-15T16:23:00.000-06:00

I found out last night, to my great sorrow, that the great Bruce Metzger died on 13 February at the age of 93 at his residence in Princeton. Metzger was born on 9 February in Middleton, PA and raised in that rural part of Pennsylvania, where he finished his primary schooling and moved on to take a bachelor's degree at Lebanon Valley College in 1935. He continued his studies at Princeton Theological Seminary where he received his Th.B. (1938), Th.M. (1939), and then at Princeton University, where he received his MA (1940), and his Ph.D (1942). In 1939, he was ordained by the Presbytery of New Brunswick. In 1944 Metzger married Isobel Elizabeth Mackay.

Metzger taught at Princeton Theological Seminary from 1938 to 1984, a period of 46 years. Perhaps one of the highlights of this long and fruitful professorial career was Metzger's appointment in 1964 as George L. Collard Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, a position he retained until his retirement in 1984.

But perhaps Metzger's most significant contributions to the world of biblical scholarship were the many and magnificent works he wrote or edited. My personal favourite of his works is his The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, which, in its several revisions and editions since its original publication in 1964, has served as a basic beginner's text on the scholarly discipline of New Testament textual criticism. This is probably my favourite book on New Testament textual criticism to date, and is the one that really got me deeply interested in the field. It is easy to understand, but wonderfully informative. Another useful tool of his is A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, which Metzger prepared as a companion volume to the United Bible Society's The Greek New Testament (edited by Metzger et al. and perhaps the standard critical Greek NT). The Textual Commentary explains the decision of the committee on most of the main textual variants. Often when I am examining the textual evidence of a variant and find it quite evenly divided, I will turn to Metzger's Textual Commentary for an explanation of the committee's decision. A famous work of Metzger's and one aimed more at the beginning student than the 'mature' scholar is his Lexical Aids for Students of the Greek New Testament. Among his other works are The Early Versions of the New Testament (1977), The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (1987), The Oxford Annotated Bible (1962), The New Testament: Its Growth, Background, and Context, Introduction the the Apocrypha (1957), The Bible in Translation, &c.

Anyway, the loss of this brilliant scholar is a blow to the scholarly community. It is sad to see such a passing, but wonderful to see the results of a life well spent.

Christmas Break and the New Semester

2007-01-10T22:02:00.000-06:00

Christmas break lasted from 9 December till 3 January, and was an absolutely wonderful and relaxing time. It was very good to see several groups of people that Jon and I visited and good also to have time off from school and work.

We spent the first weekend of break with our Grandparents in Pennsylvania and then several days with the Pattersons in another part of the same state. Then the Eckerts picked us up and took us down to Charlotte, NC for Hannah Gallop's wedding. It was very nice to be down there and see so many missionary friends and also to attend the wedding, which was very beautiful.

Then from the wedding I rode up to Houghton, NY with the Gallops, where I spent the remainder of break. I thoroughly enjoyed myself there. It was very nice to be with the Twins, Miriam and Noah, again and to spend time with the rest of the family. Just being part of a family again for a few weeks was very nice. The many activities - walks, endless games of backgammon, two puzzles, etc - were also very enjoyable.

But though all good things do not come to an end, this one did as I very reluctantly left from Rochester to fly back to Spokane. School and work have now started back up, and I am getting used to life here again, though I get kind of depressed thinking of the passed good times in Houghton.

This semester I am taking only four courses again, due to the fact that none of the others were really particularly relevant to my major and I did not want to spend money needlessly (and that I was not sure I had). I am currently taking Hebrews (a good challenging McMath course), Christian Missions, Church History (simply sumptuous), and Research Writing.

Finals Finally Finished ... Almost

2006-12-07T23:42:00.000-06:00

Monday and Tuesday of this week were very busy as I worked many hours to finish my 15-20 page Romans paper, which was on Romans 9.11. I was also required to produce word studies for all the main words in the verse, a grammatical outline of the sentence of 9.10-13, an exegetical outline of the verse, and two sets of raw notes on the book of Romans. I had started the work, but didn't finish it till about 45 minutes before it was due at class. I think my paper, etc., turned out okay, but it was more rushed than it should have been (through my own fault). I thank God for Vine and Kittel (which my dad provided me as a surprise shortly before he returned to the States). I am also much indebted to 'SofP' for his kind provision of scans of the relevant parts of several excellent commentaries on Romans.

Today I had my final test in English and then in Bible Introduction. Both of those classes cover material that I was fairly familiar with through the blessing of a good homeschooling, so those finals were quite painless.

All I have left as far as school for this semestre is some homework for Cultural Anthropology (taught by the wonderful David Beine) and then the final test tomorrow, for which I ought to study. So, to that end I now turn my attention.

Things Whereby We May Edify One Another

2006-11-24T15:30:00.000-06:00

This is the second article that I wrote for out student newspaper:

Things Whereby We May Edify One Another

J. K. Walters

In the world of Bible college, the student will often be required to defend or express his position either through papers or orally. As we get engrossed in the process of thorough research, detailed study, cogent argument, and concise expression, we may forget one of the primary reasons for our words: edifying or building up God’s Church, those who are fellow recipients of the grace and mercy of God.

We read, in 1 Corinthians 13.1-2, “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. (2) And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” Surely it would be a sore pity to spend days researching, studying, and carefully constructing a convincing argument, and then for one’s argument to have the effect of a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

By emphasizing the edification of the reader of hearer, we do not mean in any way to minimize the importance of faithfulness to the Word. In fact, I think it is safe to say that infidelity concerning the Word will probably never edify the reader or hearer. The Scriptures themselves speak both of the importance of presenting correct exegesis and interpretation and of avoiding eisegesis or “going beyond the Word.”

On correct exegesis, in Titus 2.7-8, Paul writes, “in your teaching show integrity, dignity, (8) and sound speech that cannot be condemned …” Furthermore, he exhorts Timothy, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2Ti 2:15 ). The importance of “rightly handling the word of truth” is clear in these verses. But not only does one need to “rightly handling the word of truth”; it is also important to avoid going beyond what is written, or dogmatically insisting upon what is not taught in Scripture. In 1 Corinthians 4.6 we are instructed to “learn … not to go beyond what is written …” (cf. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown’s commentary, in loc.: “Revere the silence of Holy Writ, as much as its declarations”). Again, in Tit. 1.9, Paul insists upon the importance of being sure to “hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught,” not “as we would like it to be written,” but rather “as taught.”

We see then that is our responsibility to carefully and faithfully handle the Word of God. But, and this is what we want to emphasize in this article, even the greatest amount of carefulness and faithfulness will be nothing without love. The exhortations to speak for the edification of the body are numerous in the Scriptures. Romans 14.19 says, “So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.” In Ephesians 4.29, it is commanded, “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.” Paul says to the Colossians, “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” (Col. 4.6). The Thessalonian believers are commanded thus: “Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing” (1 Thess. 5.11). In 2 Timothy 2.24-25, even the correcting of opponents (with gentleness) is hoped to result in “repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth” (cf. 1 Cor. 5.4-5). The verses quoted above are only some of a larger number of verses that speak about the importance of edifying the body of Christ (cf. also Rom. 15.2; 1 Cor. 14.26, 10.24; 2 Cor. 13.10).

So, in conclusion, whether we are writing or speaking, let us not be as noisy gongs or clanging cymbals, but rather, “let us follow after … things whereby we may edify one another” (Rom. 14.19).

Materials for NT Textual Criticism

2006-10-15T00:41:00.000-05:00

Here is a paper I completed today for my Bible Introduction class. We are currently studying the transmission of the biblical texts in that class, and I am to present this paper next class time, on Thursday:

An Examination of the Materials of New Testament Textual Criticism

1. Introduction

New Testament textual criticism is the scholarly discipline of critically examining the evidence bearing witness to the original Greek New Testament, and determining what wording most exactly approximates the wording of the autographs. It is our purpose, in this paper, to discuss these various evidences (materials) upon which New Testament textual criticism is based, primarily the Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, patristic citations, and lectionaries.

2. Greek manuscripts

By ‘Greek manuscripts’ we mean those Greek manuscripts which are continuous text, as contrasted with the lectionaries (see section 5 below), which are Greek texts interspersed with commentary on the text. The extant Greek manuscripts, of which there are well over 3100, and which are our primary materials for the practice of New Testament textual criticism, are customarily divided first according to the material which received the writing, and then according to the scripts (uncial or minuscule) in which the text was written. The extant Greek manuscripts are divided first into the papyri and the parchments, and the parchments are further divided into the uncials (or majuscules) and the minuscules (or cursives).

a. Papyri

The papyri, which number almost 100, include our most ancient witnesses to the Greek New Testament. The writing material, papyrus, was produced from the spongy core of the stem of the papyrus plant, a reed that grew especially well along the Nile. The stem of the papyrus plant was cut into pieces about one foot long (Metzger, 3), split open, and then the core was sliced lengthwise into thin strips. A layer of these strips was laid out, with the strips arranged side by side, all running the same direction. Then a second layer was laid on top of the first layer, with the strips of the second layer running at right angles to the first layer. The two layers were then pressed together until they were firmly joined. The resulting papyri sheets were then usually joined together to form a scroll or arranged in a codex (book). The writing on papyri sheets usually runs parallel to the strips of papyrus on the side which receives the writing. The papyri, which have been mostly found in Egypt, where they were preserved in the dry sands, date from as early as about a. d. 125 (P⁵²) to as late as the eighth century (P^{42, 61} – cf. Aland, 8*). This puts a number of the papyri within the possible period of existence of the autographs themselves. P⁵² in particular, dated around 125 a. d. and consisting of a fragment of the gospel of John, was probably copied within one generation after the death of that apostle. The papyri are usually designated by the letter ‘P’ (denoting ‘papyrus’) followed by a superscript number (identifying the particular papyrus), such as ‘P⁴⁶,’ which would be read ‘papyrus forty-six.’

b. Parchments

The term ‘parchment’ is said to have probably derived from Pergamum (the name of one of the major parchment producing cities). Parchment (or vellum, which however is sometimes used to denote a finer form of parchment, often produced from the skins of young animals) is a writing material produced from the skins of animals, usually cattle, donkeys, sheep, or goats. The hair is scraped off the skin, and then, the skin is washed, scraped smooth with pumice, and powdered with chalk. Parchment is generally more durable and smoother than papyrus, though it is also said to have sometimes been hard on the eyes due to its light color and shiny tint. Eventually, about the fourth century, parchment gained prominence over papyrus as the predominant writing material. The parchments, numbering well over 3000 (3020 when Metzger [32] wrote), constitute the vast majority of the extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. They are usually further divided into those written in uncial lettering and those written in the minuscule script.

i. Uncials

‘The word “uncial” is derived from the Latin uncia, meaning “a twelfth part” of anything. Apparently the term came to be applied to letters which occupied roughly about one-twelfth of an ordinary line of writing’ (Metzger, 9, ftnt. 1). The Greek uncial letters, or majuscules, correspond largely with the modern capital Greek letters, though there are a few differences. Though the papyri are written in uncial letters, they are classified by their writing material rather than the uncial script in which they are written, and are therefore not included in the designation ‘uncial.’ The uncials, coming to a total of around 300, are a minority of the extant parchments, but are almost all much older than the more numerous minuscules, ranging in date from 0189, dated from the second century, to 0299, transcribed around the eleventh century (Aland, 14*, 16*). Some of the uncials, like א (Sinaiticus), B (Vaticanus), A (Alexandrinus), C (Ephraemi Rescriptus), and Ψ, contain all or almost all of the whole New Testament, whereas other uncials, such as T (Borgianus), 046 (Vaticanus 2066) and Ξ (Zacynthius), contain only small portions of the New Testament. The sigla generally used to designate uncials are the Hebrew letter א (codex Sinaiticus), a Latin or Greek capital letter (e.g., D, F, G, Γ, Θ, Ψ), or an Arabic numeral prefixed by the numeral 0 (e.g., 0171, 053, 049).

ii. Minuscules

The category of manuscripts designated ‘minuscules’ (or ‘cursives’) includes the vast majority of the continuous text Greek manuscripts, numbering at almost 2800. The minuscules are so called because of the lower case script in which they are written. Letters in this lower case script were often connected (giving rise to the alternate term for minuscules, ‘cursives’), making the minuscule hand a more efficient writing style than the more bookish but also more tedious uncial hand. Due to the greater rapidity with which one could write in the minuscule hand, it gradually surmounted the uncial script as the scribe’s preferred hand, resulting in the fact that virtually all the later manuscripts are written in the minuscule hand. The minuscules are generally later in date than the uncials, ranging in date from the ninth century (e.g., 33, 892) to the fifteenth century (e.g., 69, 322; Aland, 16*, 17*). The minuscules are thought largely to be the product of the eastern Byzantine Empire, which retained Greek as its primary language much longer than did the western realms. This accounts for their later date, and explains the reason why so many of the minuscules share a common text type, namely the Byzantine text type (the text type predominant in the Byzantine Empire, where they were produced, since about the time of Chrysostom).

3. Ancient Versions

A second source of evidence for the discipline of New Testament textual criticism, and probably the second most important after the continuous text Greek manuscripts, is the ancient versions. These ancient versions are the Syriac, Old Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, Georgian, Old Slavonic, Arabic, Nubian, and Sogdian. The ancient versions are useful because, by reconstructing the probably Greek base for these translations, the textual critic may note which readings were in existence at the times the various ancient versions were translated. Thus, for example, if a reading was found in the Old Sinaitic Syriac, then it could be established that that reading was in existence by the third century (the date of the Old Sinaitic Syriac; Aland, 26*). However, there are some complications in the use of ancient versions as textual evidence. One of these problems is that the ancient versions themselves have been subject to some measure of corruption themselves, occasionally necessitating the application of text-critical principles to themselves before their data may be accurately used as evidence for the Greek New Testament. A second complication is that as translations, the ancient versions’ representations of the Greek may not be completely unambiguous. ‘For example, Latin has no definite article; Syriac cannot distinguish between the Greek aorist and perfect tenses; Coptic lacks the passive voice and must use a circumlocution’ (Meztger, 68).

4. Patristic Citations

The patristic citations are quotations of New Testament texts by the early church fathers. These are useful because we can see what the New Testament text was like back when they quoted it, and also can determine to some extent the geographical location of certain variants. ‘For example, since the quotations which Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in North Africa about a.d. 250, includes in his letters agree almost always with the form of text preserved in the Old Latin manuscript k, scholars have correctly concluded that this fourth- or fifth-century manuscript is a descendant of a copy current about 250 in North Africa’ (Metzger, 86). However, the use of patristic citations, like the use of the ancient versions, is not without difficulties and complications. First, to be able to confidently use a patristic citation, we must try to ascertain that a church father’s citation, as we have it, stands now as it did when he first wrote it. It is possible that, during the transmission of the writings of the church fathers, the text as they cited it might have been changed by a scribe who was used to a different form of the text. Thus for example, an early church father might have quoted Christ’s prayer recorded in Matthew 6.9-13 in the form that ends with the word ‘ponērou’ (supported by א, B, D, Z, et alii). A later scribe, say in the eighth century, who was copying this citation, and who was used to the ‘Byzantine’ text that was had become dominant by that time, might be inclined change the text cited in conformity with the longer ‘Byzantine’ ending, ‘ponērou, hoti estin hē basileia kai hē dunamis kai hē doxa eis tous aiōnas. amēn’ (L, W, Δ, Θ, Byz, Lect, et alii). In this case, it would be necessary to determine whether the copy containing the longer reading represents accurately the text cited by the early church father or whether it is a later scribal change. Another thing which must be determined, before a patristic quotation may be used as support for a variant, is whether the church father meant to quote the passage exactly word for word or whether he is giving more of a loose quotation or paraphrase. The early church fathers which provide us the most information include (but are not confined to) the following: Ambrosiaster (after 384), Athanasius (373), Augustine (430), John Chrysostom (407), Eusebius of Caesarea (339), Gregory of Nyssa (394), Hippolytus (235), Irenaeus (second century), Jerome (419), Origen (253), Polycarp (156), Tertullian (after 220), etc (Aland, 31*-36*).

5. Lectionaries

A fourth category of evidence available for the textual critic to draw upon is the vast collection of lectionaries. A lectionary is a volume prepared specifically for public church reading, and contains scripture texts interspersed by commentary on the text. Most lectionaries are written in the minuscule hand, but a small number are uncial. The value of the lectionaries for New Testament textual criticism lies in the text which they include, though most lectionaries are quite late in date. The lectionaries number at around 2100 (Metzger, 33). They are designated by a lower-case, italic l and a number following, as in ‘l680.’

6. Other Lesser Materials

Besides the main materials of New Testament textual criticism detailed above, there are a few other groups of materials of lesser importance. These include the ostraca, inscriptions in stone, wood, or metal, and amulets. An ostracon is a piece of broken pottery which has received writing. There are a number of these which have been discovered, and they are generally designated by the Gothic or Old English form of the capital letter ‘O’ followed by an Arabic numeral identifying the particular ostracon. The amulets (or talismans) are indicated by Gothic or Old English form of the capital letter ‘T’ followed by an Arabic numeral. The evidence these materials provide for New Testament textual criticism is minimal, and the present writer has never seen their evidence cited in a critical apparatus.

7. A Few Further Notes

a. Scrolls and Codices

Writing materials have generally been used in one of two formats, namely, the scroll (volumen) and the book form (codex). Most, if not all, of the extant manuscripts of the New Testament are in the codex format, but the autographs were probably written in scrolls, the prevailing format of the first century. A scroll was usually made from sheets of papyrus being attached together to form a long roll, and a regular scroll did not exceed 35 feet in length. ‘The two longest books in the New Testament – the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts – would each have filled an ordinary papyrus roll of 31 or 32 feet in length. Doubtless this is one of the reasons why Luke-Acts was issued in two volumes instead of one’ (Metzger, 5-6). The codex format came into popular use around the beginning of the first century, and quickly became the predominant manuscript format of the Church (Metzger, 6).

b. Scriptio Continua

In the copying of most Greek manuscripts, a writing style called scriptio continua was used rather than our modern writing style which separates words. In scriptio coninua, words, sentences, and even paragraphs are usually not marked by any sort of space. Letters are written right next to each other, as in the Greek phrase enarchēēnhologos, ‘in the beginning was the word.’ It is often thought by modern people, unused to the concept of scriptio continua, that it would be hard if not nearly impossible to make out words not separated by spaces. However, try to decipher the following sentence: ‘forallhavesinnedandfallshortofthegloryofGod’ (Rom. 3.23). For the average person familiar with English, that will not be hard to make out. Nonetheless, scrpitio continua can occasionally lead to ambiguity, as often illustrated in the following phrase: ‘Godisnowhere,’ which may be taken ‘God is now here’ or ‘God is nowhere,’ depending on the theological presuppositions of the reader. This problem would be somewhat lessened in Greek by the nature of the Greek language (case endings, etc.), but still a problem at times.

c. Palimpsests

Some manuscripts, especially when or where parchment was scarce, had their original writing scraped and washed off and then a second text transcribed over the erased primary text. Such manuscripts are called palimpsests (from Greek palin, ‘again,’ and psaō, ‘I scrape’). Examples of palimpsests are C (Ephraemi Rescriptus), Ξ (Zacynthius), Q, and 072. By using such methods as applying chemical reagents and using ultraviolet-ray lamps (Metzger, 12), scholars have been able to make out much of the primary (and sometimes quite old) texts of palimpsests.

Works Cited

Metzger, B. M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968.

Aland, Kurt, et alii, editors. The Greek New Testament. Fourth revised edition, third printing. Stuttgart: Deutche Bibelgesellschaft, 1998.

Recent Article

2006-09-16T03:21:00.000-05:00

Here is a short article I just wrote for a Moody Northwest newspaper that my English class will be producing (probably bi-weekly) this semester (of which I am assistant editor):

Saving Faith: a Gracious Gift from God

J. K. Walters

Though we surely all agree that salvation is wholly a gift from God, and is not something that we ourselves produce or effect, some may think that the faith by which we are justified is something that a man himself must produce. They might maintain that a man’s belief in Christ is his own choice and not a thing given by God. This position, I think, is not based on Scripture. In fact, I think that the Scriptures teach just the opposite, namely, that even the faith by which we are justified is a gracious gift from God. I will now attempt to demonstrate that this is the position of the Scriptures.

1 Corinthians 4.7 – “What do you have that you did not receive?” This rhetorical question informs us that all we have was received and does not proceed from ourselves. Though the fact that faith itself is a gift from God may not immediately stand out to us as an implication of this verse, I think that we may rightly deduce such. Indeed, the early church father, Augustine, infers as much in his work entitled A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints (book 1, chapter 8), and notes that even boasting on the grounds of having faith is precluded.

1 Corinthians 3.5 – “What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each.” Here, the Corinthian Christians’ act of believing is said to have been assigned by God to each of them. A thing assigned or given to one would seem certainly not to have originated in one’s own being.

Philippians 1.29 – “For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake …” In this verse, it is stated that believing in Christ is not the only thing God has granted to the Philippians, but also that they may suffer for Christ’s sake. This clearly shows that believing in Christ is a thing granted by God and not a human accomplishment about which one may boast.

2 Peter 1.1 – “Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ …” The support which this verse lends to my argument may not be apparent in the English. However, the Greek verb (lagchanō) rendered “obtained” carries the idea of obtaining by casting lots (cf. Acts 1.17), the outcome of which was controlled by God (cf. Prov. 16.33). The implication to the Greek reader, then, would probably be that the “obtaining” was due to God’s choice to give and not to anything in man.

Ephesians 2.8-9 has also sometimes been used to support the fact that faith is a gift from God (e.g., Westminster Confession of Faith, Scripture proof version, chapter 11, section 1), but this is perhaps untenable on grammatical grounds (cf. Robertson’s Word Pictures on the passage)

In conclusion, I suggest that, rather than being seen as a negative thing (in that is would seem to absolutely minimize the role of man in his salvation), the fact that even our faith in Christ is a gift from God should be viewed as a blessing, since we know, therefore, that it is not based on our own weak selves, but upon the unshakable Rock.

Moving to Spokane

2006-04-17T12:10:00.000-05:00

I am in Spokane, WA now. My dad and I flew from Niamey to Casablanca on the 3rd of April, and then, after a thre hour layover, from Casablanca to New York City. We took a bus from New York City to Rochester where Noah Gallop and his dad picked us up. We spent three wonderful days with them in Houghton, and then on Thursday the 6th we took a train from Rochester to here, with a five hour layover in Chicago which we used to visit the campus of Moody Bible Institute. The entire train ride was about 52 hours. We arrived here on Sunday the 9th of April. We stayed the first night at Jon's house, and then moved to one of his friends' house since Jon's place is kind of crowded right now.

Jon had already gotten a car for me from one of his friends and gotten it running before I came up here. On Tuesday I got my driver's permit, and on Friday I took my driver's test and got my license.

Jon and I are looking into the possibility of getting an apartment for us and another guy, so we would appreciate pray about that. I will probably apply this week for a job of installing sprinkler systems that Jonathan thinks I could get, a job which he also plans to work this summer, and worked last summer.

2005-11-06T17:48:00.000-06:00

Today I have good reason to appreciate this day of rest. Yesterday was very tiring (though also enjoyable for the most part). I got up at 6:00 so that I could get to the SAT (administered at Sahel Academy) on time. Taking the SAT took from 8:20 to 12:50 including two five minute breaks. Then from 15:00 to 17:20 I was playing softball. Following that, from 18:00 to 22:00 there was a youth event at the Totman's house (Mr. Totman is the new youth pastor for SA). We (Anna and I) ate a barbecue supper there and then played ping-pong and card games till we left (22:30). We walked home, so I didn't get to bed till about 23:20, which means I was up and active for 17 hours and 20 minutes yesterday ... no wonder I feel tired today.

Hello

2005-06-01T17:16:00.000-05:00

I intend this blog to be more of a place to discuss ideas, topics, etc., than a place for me to post personal/family news, though I will use it for that purpose as well. I expect to post here every once in a while when I have something that I am studying and would like to get input about.