the day i felt like the coolest teacher in the world

Sara and I were making the journey to Columbia on Tuesday about lunch. Mr James was sleeping soundly in the back. My phone buzzes and the text was from one of my Honors Systematic Theology students who was making a college visit. It said,

I'm at CIU and just sat in a Romans class. The prof was trying to explain Greek stuff and I already knew all of it, even the vocab!

Call it nerdy. Call it prideful. I call it pure delight in my soul :)

Mounce on Sunday and Sabbath in the NT

Here.

Galatians 6 - St Paul and the Three Bears

Wow. That is immensely cheesy. It was even kind of embarrassing to type. But I can't lie. That's how I remember Paul's train of thought in Galatians 6.

Paul says that if there is a brother in Christ caught in a deliberate sin, those who are living according to the Spirit should restore him [6.1].

BEAR one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ [6.2].

But there is also a warning attached to this restoration process. If those doing the restoring aren't careful, they might slip in temptation [6.2]. Paul says that if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing he deceives himself [6.3]. He says that everyone must test their own work [6.4] because

Each must BEAR his own load [6.5].

Then Paul humbly says that he will not even boast, except in Jesus [6.14]. Bad boasting and deception and pride are not part of the new creation that we are now apart of [6.13-16]. The false teachers in Galatia have caused him trouble. He could be boasting because he is preaching the true gospel [1.6-10]. Instead, he accepts the persecution of the gospel to attest to its glorious veracity.

I BEAR on my body the marks of Jesus [6.17].

These Three Bears are all the same in Greek [βαστάζω]. In this, he leaves the Galatians with something tangible. It was in bearing that they boasted in Jesus [6.14] and experienced peace and mercy [6.16]. May it be the same for us.

Galatians 5 - Am I as spiritual as the Galatians were told to be?

Paul is really ticked off in his letter to his friends in Galatia. They are starting to give in to another gospel that's really not the gospel [1.6-10]. After personal testimony, calling out the false teachers, and some poignant questions, Paul goes on to describe what faithful Christian living looks like.

Paul lists characteristics of what this life is like. For example, it is about freedom [5.1, 5.13]. It is about hope [5.5]. It is about faith working through love [5.6]. It is about serving one another [5.13-15]. It is NOT about a huge list of things in 5.19-21.

But what makes all of the above things make sense?

The source of all of these things for Paul is living by the Spirit. The way that the real gospel is really lived out is by the individual believer and the corporate community of faith living according to the Spirit's lead.

Paul even uses four different and powerful Greek verbs to depict how the Spirit should be our Guide and we should be His dependents.

In 5.16, Paul says we must WALK by/in/with the Spirit. This verb is περιπατέω.

In 5.18, Paul says that we must be LED by the Spirit. This verb is ἄγω.

In 5.25, Paul says that we LIVE by the Spirit. This verb is ζάω.

In 5.25, Paul says that we must KEEP IN STEP with the Spirit. This verb is στοιχέω.

Paul desires his friends in Galatia to have such a relationship with the Spirit of God that the Spirit's power and presence are lucid to all. He hints at this further in 3.2-5 and in 5.22-23.

So, is my life being lived by/in/with the Spirit in such a manner that it can be described as such? Am I merely giving the Holy Spirit a theoretical and theological head nod? How is this kind of living done? Does anyone live this way? Can I get their number?

Jude 1-2

There are layers of thick theology in Jude's brief, two-verse salutation. He wants to be known as a slave. This is a beautiful enough picture to discuss and delve into. Yet, he wants to be known as a slave of his brother, the Messiah! Even the Greek structure of "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ" [ESV] is only shared by James, another earthly brother of our Lord. No other NT writers depict their servanthood in the the same way as Jude and James.

Furthermore, in his introductory benediction, he extends mercy, peace, and love to whom he his writing. This blessing is also unique to Jude. Perhaps there is something about each of these that he desires people to cling to as they "earnestly contend for the faith" [Jd 3].

Lastly, his addressees are merely "the called ones." These are the first and last words in the following Greek phrase:

τοῖς ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοις καὶ ἸησοῦΧριστῷ τετηρημένοις κλητοῖς

Now, notice how the middle of this phrase is structured:

ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοις

ἸησοῦΧριστῷ τετηρημένοις

Their calling is not vague, detached, or meaningless. Their calling is bound up in the fact that they are loved by God and kept by Jesus Christ. This may not land on you they way it should. Maybe it didn't land on them as Jude intended. But after he warns them of false teachers in their midst who are destructively leading people astray, his closing doxology ends by saying, "To Him who is able to KEEP you... be glory, majesty, power, and authority before all ages and now and unto all ages" [Jd 24-25]. They definitely get it now.

New Online Greek and Hebrew Bible

This is incredible. 

JESUS SAT DOWN

There are a couple ways to say something in the past tense in Greek. Scholars say that people make too much of these distinctions. But they are just that - distinctions.

The AORIST tense is a snapshot of the past. We know that something happened. We know that an event occurred. But we're not too sure about all the details of that past event and their significance. The PERFECT tense, which is rarely used in contrast to the AORIST tense, sees an event or a happening in the past as a completed action with durative and continuing effects to the present.

So...

The first three verses of the book of Hebrews are its overture. There are many descriptive ideas in this passage. However, there are only two true verbs. The first is in 1.2. God "spoke." The second is in 1.3. The Son "sat down" [AORIST].

In Heb 1.1-3 there are six phrases that detail the person and the work of Jesus, but all of them await this verb "sat down." But why though? Who cares about Jesus sitting down? What's the deal with that? Why is it so important?

If you keep reading Hebrews you will soon see that its purpose is to show Jesus as the faithful High Priest of the New Covenant. In the OT, high priests don't sit down because their job is never finished. But not so with a perfect High Priest who offers a perfect Sacrifice.

This little verb ["sit"] is so important to the writer of Hebrews that when he gets to 8.1 he says that the main point of what he has said is this: we have a high priest who has "taken his seat" [AORIST]. The writer of Hebrews uses this verb two other times. In 10.12 he repeats the vast theological significance of the sitting [AORIST] of Jesus at the right hand of God after He suffered once and for all for sins.

It seems as though these above references to Jesus sitting are primarily to assert theological points. However, the writer of Hebrews cannot hold it in any longer. When he arrives at his last usage of the "sitting" of Jesus [12.2], an AORIST verb will not cut it.

Let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down [PERFECT] at the right hand of the throne of God.

The point of this exhortation is to show HOW and WHY the sitting of Jesus presently means something to believers who need perseverance [10.32-39, ch 11]. He is the example we should look to. He has finished His work and endured more than we ever will [2.16]. He can sympathize us [4.15]. His finished work, His sitting down... it has continually effective results right now.

SATAN, LUTHER, GREEK, and HEBREW

For the devil smelled a rat, and perceived that if the [biblical] languages were revived a hole would be knocked in his kingdom which he could not easily stop up again. Since he found he could not prevent their revival, he now aims to keep them on such slender rations that they will of themselves decline and pass away. They are not a welcome guest in his house, so he plans to offer them such meager entertainment that they will not prolong their stay. Very few of us, my dear sirs see through this evil design of the devil.

colossal alliteration

Paul's hymn about Jesus in Col 1.13-20 is dense and breathtaking. There's not a lot of room to question where Jesus stands in Paul's worldview after wading through it. From this passage, Paul moves on to let those in Colossae know why this stuff matters [1.21-22].

Because this Jesus is who He is and has done what He has done, Paul explains to the Colossians that they were once ALIENATED, but have now been RECONCILED so that they could be presented before Him HOLY, BLAMELESS, and ABOVE REPROACH.

I've capitalized these words to show a couple things.

First off, Paul's application of the majesty of Jesus' person and work interprets the past, reminds them of their present state, and details their future hope. With this hope, however, must come a continual faith that clings to the good news about Jesus [1.23]. 

Secondly, Paul says what he says in hopes that it will stick. He wants them to get it. Not everybody 2000 years ago was literate. His epistles were meant to be read to local congregations. So, what does he do? Paul uses alliteration as a literary device in order that the beauty of these things might more easily resonate in the mind of the Colossians.

[sorry if this is wrongly laid out]

When I take the time, I'm nearly always blessed by WHAT and HOW the biblical writers say what they say. There is gospel and artistry here. So good.

how to follow JESUS [the Southern Baptist preacher]

We have four gospel accounts. Three are very similar. Thus, they are called the synoptic gospels. They share many similar stories and parables, etc. Some of the details, verbiage, and language used in these are slightly different, but it is clear that each gospel writer is retelling the same story. However, there is one particular passage that each of synoptics have that has ravished my attention as of late. Here it is in all three:

• Mt 16.24-27
• Mk 8.34-38
• Lk 9.23-27

Jesus is primarily defining one thing is these texts - what it looks like to come after Him. He says, "If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me." It kind of appears that there are three parts to this thing:

• Deny yourself. Well, that stinks. I really like feeling nice. But I don't think it means "Go Ghandi" and pleasure is for wimps. I'll go with Dr Piper and say that earthly pleasures will burn and true delight is denial of self and taking great happiness and pleasure in God. That is denial of yourself.

• Take up your cross. Dang again. This is equivalent to "Take up your noose" or "Take up your electric chair." The cross was an instrument of execution for criminals. Also, because this imperative comes from the lips of our Lord, some think this should/could mean to "embrace your purpose" because Jesus' purpose was the cross. Whatever it implies, it most assuredly includes a furthering of self-denial, a firm grip on the reality that the road will not always be pretty, and a contrite elation that "whatever my lot, thou hast taught me to say, 'It is well. It is well with my soul.'"

• Follow me. St Paul said that his friends should imitate him. That Greek verb is where we get our word "mimic" from. But never could he use the word that Jesus uses here. This kind of "following" encompasses imitating, a joining with, and accompaniment with whom you are following. If we unite the self-denial with the cross-taking and the following of our Lord, we have then arrived at what discipleship looks like. Obviously, this will be easier said than done and will work so much better in theory than practice. But here it lies - true discipleship.
  

So, here's the really cool Southern Baptist part. Like I said, the gospel writers are pretty much united on the general details of the stories they tell. But there is something that must be brought forth from these three passages about what, how, and why Jesus says what he says.

The three verbs he uses [deny, take up, follow] are the same in all three synoptic gospels! Each gospel writer has their own flavor and writing style, but this amount of linguistic agreement is hugely exceptional! But better yet, all three verbs in Greek begin with the same letter [aparneomai, airo, akoloutheo]. All the while Jesus is dissecting for them the intensities of discipleship, he is also employing the rhetorical device of alliteration so that they can remember what he said.

So, like a good Baptist, Jesus makes each point start with the same letter. Apparently, the gospel writers left out his standard poem or tear-jerking story that goes after the three points and before "Just as I am."

At least Jesus didn't forget the invitation, "If anyone wishes to come after me..."

REVELATiON 1.1

[a small running commentary if you will]

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John....

This revelation [apokalupsis] is "about" Jesus rather than "from" Jesus. The genitive in the Greek hints at this. Also, I think it should be noted that John uses both His earthly name and His title name. This likely encapsulates His humanity and divinity and who He is and what He's done.

John uses "bond-servants" [doulos] or "slaves" to remind those in the seven churches that the way they live in the last days should be as contrite servants and not prideful heirs, especially in the midst of persecution [1.9].

"Must" [dei] is small, but significant. It is a reminder of God's absolute control over future events before the return of His Son.

The words "to show" [deiknumi] and "communicated" [semaino] are both words that imply more than mere description. They suggest demonstration, indication, and the use of pictures and/or symbols [even in 1.20 John begins to explain some of his imagery]. No one should take this and interpret Revelation to mean whatever was on CNN last night, but should seek to understand why OT prophets/writers used the symbols they did and further, why John picks up on them here in the Apocalypse.

how to learn Greek by singing

In my spare time I have written songs for both the Greek and Hebrew alphabets. Actually, it was while I was driving 2 hours back and forth to seminary. The Greek song was for my mama so she could learn it and the Hebrew song was for me. It was reggae and had a pretty sweet groove.

I have now resolved that I need to get some connections and get paid for my Hebrew alphabet song because apparently someone just came out with something about singing NT Greek. Zondervan will do anything for a Christian buck.

Truthfully, it looks pretty fun.

the Johannine word of the day

Well boys and girls, the word of the day is PARAKLETOS.

This word is only used 5x in the NT and each time it is used by John [Jn 14.16, 14.26, 15.26, 16.7, and 1 Jn 2.1]. In John's gospel, it always refers to the Holy Spirit. In 1 John, it refers to Jesus. Some translate it "Helper" [NASB and ESV], "Counselor" [NIV], "Advocate" [NLT and NEB], and/or "Comforter" [KJV]. If there was one word that could encapsulate all of these translations, that would be the best one to use. This is why you might hear the Holy Spirit referred to as the Paraclete.

Greek generally uses two words that mean "another" ["allos" and "heteros"]. "Allos" means another of the same kind; "heteros" means another of a different kind. This is where we get the word "heterosexual" from. For example, in Gal 1.6-7 Paul is perplexed that the Galatians are leaving the gospel for a "heteros" gospel. He says that because it is a "heteros" gospel, it is really no gospel at all.

So, knowing that Jesus is our PARAKLETOS in 1 Jn 2.1, Jn 14.16 says that the Holy Spirit is an "allos" PARAKLETOS. This means that it is not merely a job description of the Holy Spirit to comfort and help us, but it is part of the character of the whole Godhead to be with and beside His own.

timing, providence, culture, and worldview

In Greek class in seminary, my prof would always remind us that we were learning Greek words with Hebrew meanings. What I've seen recently is that this is only a slice of the pie. It is not just an amalgamation of word-meanings, but of worldview meanings.

The Hebrew worldview was very simple, family-based, grass-roots, and relationally oriented. On the other hand, the Greek worldview [Hellenism] was hugely philosophical, intellectual, pagan, and political. These are obviously over-generalizations, but bare with me. What God knew in His great wisdom is that testimonies written [the NT] from a worldview birthed by the marriage of Judaism and Hellenism would produce a message translatable to any worldview in any culture at any time and in any place. More simply put, 1st century Palestine was the most fertile soil for the Gospel to be originally planted because of its natural cultural fabric. I believe that this was the case on many fronts: political, spiritual, philosophical, theological, moral, etc.

In his book "The New Testament and the People of God" [pgs 359-360], Tom Wright seems to agree. He points out that "the single most striking thing about early Christianity is the speed of its growth." Wright continues,

Christianity did not spread by magic. It is sometimes suggested that the world was, so to speak, ready for Christianity: Stoicism was too lofty and dry, popular paganism metaphysically incredible and morally bankrupt, mystery-religions dark and forbidding, Judaism law-bound and introverted, and Christianity burst on the scene as the great answer to the question everyone was asking.

Wright goes on to say that the primary reason for the rapid spread of early Christianity was that these first Christians "believed that what they had found to be true was true for the whole world" - that Jesus was King and Lord.

ROMANS 1.16 and 10.4 [present active substantival participles carry a durative nuance.... "are believing!"]

why did Paul write ROMANS [again]?

also....

how to read the NT [language]

The following 10 words are pregnant with meaning for the NT writers. Analyzing how each writer uses these is important. While different writers put different weight on different words [i.e. John likes “believe” and Paul likes “justify”], these words and a close study of them set pertinent boundaries for what the NT teaches.

LUTHER and LANGUAGE

Luther knew that the languages would be an issue when defining and defending the gospel and the church. He said in 1524 [in “To the Councilmen of all cities in Germany, That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools”]:

Although the gospel came and comes to us every day through the Holy Spirit alone, nevertheless it came by means of languages, spread through them, and must also be maintained through them. Thus if the gospel is dear to us, we must pay great attention to the languages in which it comes. For it was not without purpose that God let the scripture be written in two languages alone, the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New in Greek. And let us realize that we shall scarcely be able to maintain the gospel without languages. Languages are the sheaths in which the knife of the Spirit is contained. They are the case in which this jewel is borne. They are the vessel in which the drink is held. In fact, wherever we allow the languages to be neglected, we shall not only lose the gospel, but will also finally come to the point where we can speak or write neither Latin nor German properly.

ROMANS 7 [this is boring and really just for john paulling, tom schreiner, and doug moo]

Many argue for a pre-regenerate reading of Paul in Rom 7. This is, of course, in contrast to the historical Reformed way it has been read – that Paul is describing Christian sentiments. First of all, 7 comes before 8 in most Bibles. Thus, the supposed war of 7 should always be read in view of the victory through the Spirit in 8. However, there are some lovely constructions in the Greek that show that the way this text has normally been read is appropriate.

Paul’s line of argument, his grammar, and his use of conjunctions throughout Rom 7 prove that Rom 7.14-20 is a singular thought. This first chart shows that Paul uses almost the exact syntactical structure in vs.14-16 as he does in vs.18-20. This highlights 7.17. Why is this important?

The pre-regenerate readings of Rom 7 say that the present tense verbs are “historical” presents and that Paul's use of "I" is not a personal testimony, but a rhetorical device. These are viable options. But look at 7.17. If this structure sandwich confirms that the meat here is 7.17, then how we understand it could help us on how this passage should be read.

Several points must be made about 7.17. The first two words are a phrase that is used for emphatic time indication [also in 3.21, 6.22, 7.6, 15.23, and 15.25]. This fact alone should be enough to warrant veracity to the historic interpretation. However, there is further evidence. The third word is a negative adverb of time. Then, if stacking three present time words together wasn’t enough, Paul uses two present tense verbs beside one another as if to say, “I myself alone am [not] doing….”

The second chart is not as swaying, but is still icing on the credible cake [I need better word pictures]. It is also a grammatical structure that centers in on the present tense regenerate Paul and his struggles. If you don’t like all this, Doug Moo has better support for both positions in his NICNT Romans commentary on pages 442-452.