The Heart's Desire

Generally, I don't write blog posts based off of something else that I read online, e.g., an article that piqued my interest (else I would never get anything done!) Recently, however, I ran across a quote that I just could not pass by without some theological commentary.

In an online article [click here] in the Huffington Post entitled “Couple has open marriage so complicated, it’s hard to keep track,” author Jenny Block, when interviewed, had this to say: “We cannot control our own desires and we certainly cannot control the desires of others,” said Block, who has been in an open marriage for the past 10 years. “You cannot tell someone, ‘Don’t be attracted to anyone else. Don’t desire anyone else.’ You can say, ‘If we’re going to be together, I want it to be monogamous.’ But you cannot control the other person’s heart and mind. The heart wants what it wants.” [emphasis added; online: accessed 11/27/2013, could not find the author for this particular article. Note also that Jenny Block is not part of the particular "marriage" being discussed in the article]

Keep those words in mind: “We cannot control our own desires and we certainly cannot control the desires of others.” Now, the sad thing is that Jenny Block is absolutely correct for those who do not have the Spirit of God. In other words, the unbeliever truly cannot control his or her own desires; he or she remains a slave to sin. Thus Scripture can describe unbelievers as “slaves . . . of/to sin” (Romans 6:16 and 17 NET Bible)  Furthermore, “. . . the outlook of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to the law of God, nor is it able to do so.  Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8:7-8, NET Bible). Thus Jenny Block’s words, applied to an unbeliever, are absolutely correct: “We cannot control our own desires . . . . The heart wants what it wants.” Unlike J. Block, however, this is not a cause for celebration (much less an excuse for a polyamorous lifestyle), but rather proof of how fallen the human race is, and how much in need of redemption we are.

 

Yet how, then, does the Christian differ? For some theologians, there really is no difference and the Christian still cannot control his or her desires. In other words, for some theologians, Christians truly have no say in the outcome when faced with temptation at a particular point in time (i.e., the result could not have gone otherwise). Yet if that is the case, then Romans 8:2 is absolutely meaningless when it states, "For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you  free from the law of sin and death” (NET Bible). How can we truly be free from sin if J. Block’s words apply equally to Christians and unbelievers alike when faced with temptation?

 

Furthermore, as I have argued elsewhere (see the bibliography below), 1 Corinthians 10:13 clearly states that Christians have an “escape route” for each temptation they face, an escape route that is lacking in an unbeliever. In other words, when the Corinthian believers faced the temptation via social pressure of participating in idolatry, they could not say “my desires caused me to sin” or “the peer pressure was just too much for me.”

What, then, makes the difference? It is nothing less than the indwelling Spirit of God Who becomes the great Enabler to do what is right. Consequently, Galatians 4:6-7 states, "And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, who calls ‘Abba! Father!’ So you are no longer a slave but a son, and if you are a son, then you are also an heir through God" (NET). Indeed, it is this very fact that causes the Apostle Paul to soundly rebuke the Galatians in 4:9 for reverting back to their old ways! They cannot claim that they were unable to resist the siren call of temptation, for the Holy Spirit provides a powerful force that enables the Christian to pull away from beckoning temptations. [note: in a response to my JETS article, the objection was raised that this means Christians could live an absolutely perfect life, successfully rejecting every single temptation they run across [thus attaining sinless perfectionism, more or less; it was implied, though not explained, that this was theologically incoherent]. My response was to raise the analogy of a hitter in baseball. A good hitter is entirely capable of hitting every single pitch in the strike zone for a home run; in reality, however, this never happens. Potential and actuality are two different things. Yet even if a Christian could reach a point where he or she successfully resists temptation for an entire year (or two, or three), I would find that a much more theologically coherent state than positing a God who does not allow Christians to resist a particular temptation at a particular point in time, perhaps even foreordaining his own child to sin]

So what, then, is the difference between a believer and an unbeliever? The unbeliever truly cannot resist a life of sin, whatever his or her heart is bent towards. They may exercise a certain degree of restraint, of course (and I am not arguing that unbelievers are as bad as they can be!). Yet without the Holy Spirit’s influence, they remain incapable of permanently resisting sin. For the believer, however, it is the Spirit’s influence that becomes the competing force against our sinful desires. With the Spirit, we can truly chose the good and reject the evil. The heart may indeed “want what it wants,” but fortunately with the Spirit’s presence, the heart also wants to please the Lord. Thus the Christian must deal with competing sources of desire: the remnant of our sinful past vs. the new heart given to us by the Spirit’s regenerating work. In my opinion, one of the best articulations of this difference between believers and unbelievers is the following quote by Hae-Kyung Chang: “In Rom. 6 and 8, respectively, Paul makes it clear that ‘being free under sin’ and ‘being free from the law of sin and death’ are conditions that are true for every Christian. If one is a Christian, then these things are true; if one is not, they are not true” (Chang, p. 268; emphasis added).

To return to the original article: ultimately, then, one who names the name of Christ yet lives, without chastening or remorse, in an “open marriage” such as described in the HuffPost article truly demonstrates that he is not a Christian, for clearly the Spirit has no part in him. God will not allow a Christian to consistently choose the evil and demonstrate no sign of the Spirit’s power in his or her life, for God Himself has a vested interest in us! 

[one final note: I am even OK with the idea that God can “overrule” the Christian's will in certain circumstances; simply because the Christian always has the ability to resist sin does not mean he or she always has the ability to accept sin; the converse of a law is not always true]

For further reading:

1.   Hae-Kyung Chang, “The Christian Life in a Dialectical Tension? Romans 7:7–25 Reconsidered,” Novum Testamentum vol. 49 (2007). In my opinion, this is a fantastic article, and it has heavily influenced my views on Romans 7.

2.   Paul A. Himes “When a Christian Sins—1 Corinthians 10:13 and the Power of Contrary Choice in Relation to the Compatibilist-Libertarian Debate,” The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society vol. 54 (July 2011).

3.   Steven Cowan, “Does 1 Corinthians 10:13 Imply Libertarian Freedom? A Reply to Paul A. Himes,” The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society vol. 55 (December 2012).

4.   Paul Himes: “First Corinthians 10:13: A Rejoinder to Steven Cowan,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society vol. 55 (December 2012).

Some Thoughts on Missions

 This is a somewhat less academic post than usual, but I wanted to challenge both myself and my readers with something a bit more practical (not that there should necessarily be a dichotomy between the academic and the practical!) I grew up on the mission field, and both my parents have served the Lord in Japan for roughly the past 30 years. Recently, I had the privilege of attending a memorial service for Becky Black, the wife of my doctoral advisor. I was very touched by the fact that featuring prominently at this event was her heavy involvement in foreign missions, both proclaiming and living the Gospel in foreign countries, as well as organizing missions trips overseas when she herself could not go.

I’ve come to the conclusion that, in one sense, the measure of a Christian’s life is the contribution he or she makes to the spread of the kingdom of God. This can take many forms, of course, and includes both service in the local church and involvement in missions.  Furthermore, circumstances may limit one’s contribution, though I would suggest that even those with significant health problems will still find ways to contribute. One lady who had Osteogenesis could barely leave her house, yet still prayed frequently, wrote a tract, financially supported my parents, and witnessed to the delivery boy who brought her groceries.

Thus I believe that everybody, in way or the other, can and should contribute to missions. Broadly speaking, missions could probably be defined as “the furtherance of the Gospel both in proclamation and in lifestyle, with the intent of pointing souls to Christ” (my own definition, for now; I’m positive there’s numerous better ones out there). Assumed here is the importance of both proclamation (preaching, witnessing, teaching) and living (good deeds, social action, kindness). Both go hand in hand. As defined thus, missions is the role of every Christian. In his recent booklet Will You Join the Cause of Global Missions? (Gonzalez, Florida.: Energion, 2012), Dr. Black aptly states, “Don’t think for a moment that it is more honorable to go to seminary and become a pastor than it is to serve God faithfully as a nurse or a salesperson. Missions is the intended vocation for the whole people of God, no matter what your occupation may be” (p. 2; emphasis added).

In addition, mission beyond one’s immediate environment should also be a concern for every Christian. In other words, since it is through the Offspring of Abraham that all nations are to be blessed, since the nations (plural) are to benefit from the fruit of the tree of life (Revelation 22:2), and since Christ commanded the first disciples to “make disciples of all nations,” (Matthew 28:19, my translation), this is something that all Christians should be concerned with. Thus the Apostle Paul’s cry in Romans 10:14, “But how will they believe on the one they have not heard about? And how will they hear without a preacher?” should be a rebuke to all of us.

So how, then, does one participate in missions? It is, of course, worth pointing out that somebody who shows little concern for those around them, in their present location, can hardly expect to be effectively led by the Spirit to contribute to missions anywhere else! Thus Dr. Black writes, “We need to learn to view our employees, our co-workers, and our fellow students as our mission field” (p. 5). In addition, “immigrants and international students” also provide immense opportunities (p. 5). (And, may I dare suggest, that if we Americans spend less time whining about illegal immigrants and more time learning Spanish so we can speak to them about Christ, the church would greatly benefit?)

Having demonstrated a concern for those around you, there are a number of ways you can contribute to missions elsewhere. First of all, you can simply go. Not necessarily for your lifetime (though you should definitely be willing to do so), but take a missions trip and contribute, not as an “American” (or any other citizen) helping nationals, but as a fellow brother or sister serving alongside of Christians of another race (and a lot could be said here about the need for humility and willingness to learn from others!; the “ugly American” stereotype can sometimes rear its head amongst Christian ministers as well as tourists!) May I suggest that every Christian, at least once in his or her lifetime, needs to take a trip to some other country and serve alongside Christians of another race ministering to the lost? [as an aside, nationalism is an idol that has no place in missions; there is no such thing as a “American” missionary or an “Australian” missionary or a “South Korean” missionary; we are all representatives of that “holy nation” in 1 Peter 2:9, the church of Jesus Christ; may I suggest that Christians should be willing to sacrifice even their native citizenship if it means one more soul overseas can hear the Gospel?].

Secondly, prayer is extremely important and spoken of often in Scripture within the context of missions (e.g., 2 Corinthians 1:10-11). This assumes, of course, that one is actually paying attention to what is happening on places other than your own home country, especially to fellow believers. Sorry for the strong emphasis, but this is more of a problem that you would think. I think there’s a sad case of “missions illiteracy” among many of our churches.

Thirdly, one can give (and give sacrificially). Every little bit helps, and the Philippian church was especially commended for their sacrificial giving to Paul’s missionary work. If the widow can give her mite to the temple treasury, I think all Christians can give something to the ministry of those laboring overseas, especially when it means sacrificing a little comfort in their own home country, whether at their church building or in their local home. (see Black, pages 8-10 for more on this).

So anyways, hope that’s food for thought. This challenges me, since I know I can definitely be doing more on my end. May the Lord grant that each of us contribute better to the spread of his Kingdom in the future!

The book some of us have been waiting for: review of The Life and Witness of Peter by Larry R. Helyer.

Throw a rock and you can hit a dozen Pauline theologies. I’m not denigrating the importance of the Apostle Paul’s theology, mind you! The man wrote a significant portion of the New Testament, and his inspired letters deserve the attention they get. Nevertheless, for those of us interested in Peter and his theology, there has been a significant dearth of scholarship. There is, of course, Martin Hengel’s Peter: The Underestimated Apostle as well as Markus Bockmuehl’s Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle in the Early Church, both significant books. Yet with Larry R. Helyer’s The Life and Witness of Peter (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2012), we have a rare Petrine theology that also gives key consideration to Peter’s life and treatment in the early church. Its significance, in my opinion, can be summed up this way: I desperately wish to teach a class on Petrine theology (at any level!), and without a doubt this is the textbook I would use (and, in my opinion, it’s well-written enough that it could easily be used at the college level as well as in a grad class).

Summary

In the preface, Helyer gives a very brief overview as to his methodology and major focuses (after, of course, the obligatory comments on the relative neglect of Petrine scholarship!) Helyer makes it clear that he will focus on the material from Acts in addition to 1 Peter and 2 Peter (in my opinion one of the major strengths of the book). He will also utilize Mark as a source for a general understanding of Peter’s personal background, and consideration will also be given to some post-NT material, Patristic and otherwise. Especially significant for the content of this book is Helyer’s statement on p. 17 that “The overarching rubric that encapsulates Peter’s theology is the meaning and significance of the cross which shapes Peter’s first pastoral letter.”

Chapter 1 deals with the ‘Background of Simon Peter.” Here Helyer provides a brief discussion of Peter’s name and occupation, providing in the process a beneficial overview of the fishing industry in 1^st century Galilee (complete with his own culinary recommendation footnote 35, namely that visitors to the area try the type of tilapia called “Saint Peter’s Fish,” fresh from the Sea of Galilee!). Helyer takes an unapologetic “harmonistic approach” when recreating Peter’s life and background from the Gospels, though he acknowledges the value of both redaction and narrative approaches (p. 30).

Chapters 2 and 3 deals with Peter’s appearances in the four Gospels. Naturally, Helyer devotes considerable space to Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:13-20 (and the parallels), as well as Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance to Peter. Especially significant is the way in which Helyer ties events in the Gospels to Peter’s later ministry, noting its significance for our spiritual development today. On page 61, for example, he writes (regarding Peter’s three-fold denial), “Peter’s denial can never be taken back. It happened, and he had to live with the painful memory. But rather than letting his failure cripple him spiritually and emotionally, he used it as a means of building up the flock of God. . . . He becomes a living illustration of forgiveness and a second chance. He possesses a degree of compassion and understanding for wavering believers that others, sometimes rather self-righteously, are incapable of showing. We hear a tenderness in Peter’s first epistle that springs out of a bitterly disappointing failure in his own life (1 Peter 5:1-11).”

Chapter 4 deals with “Peter and the early church,” focusing on the book of Acts, while chapter 5 deals with the mention of Peter within Paul’s own epistles. Chapters 6-10 then basically represent a theology of 1 Peter, focusing on that epistle and its key themes. Chapter 6 functions more-or-less as a traditional introduction to the letter, focusing on authorship, genre, recipients, etc. I was especially glad to see Helyer giving due consideration to Karen Jobes’ thesis regarding the recipients, and also that Helyer concludes on p. 116 that the letter uses the concept “stranger” in both a literal and a metaphorical sense (with which I agree, though, like John Elliott, I prefer an initial focus on a literal sense, as I argue in my soon-to-be-published dissertation; it is from the literal that the metaphorical draws its force). Chapters 7-10 then discuss, in order, “Peter’s Christology,” “Christ and the Spirits, Christ and the Holy Spirit,” “Suffering for Jesus,” and “The People of God.”

Chapter 11 functions as an introduction to 2 Peter while chapter 12 deals with its theology. Chapter 13 focuses specifically on 2 Peter’s treatment of false teachers, and chapter 14 focuses specifically on 2 Peter’s eschatology. At this point, I need to mention one statement by Helyer that I greatly appreciated (and one that needs to be preached!): “Many Christians labor under a misunderstanding about their ultimate destiny. They conceive of their eternal state in ethereal (otherworldy0 terms situated in a celestial city ‘up there somewhere.’ The truth is our final destination is on a new earth. In short, ‘heaven’ comes down and does more than ‘fill my soul’; it takes up residence on this planet and fills the whole world with God’s glory” (p. 269).

Finally, Helyer devotes 3 chapters to “The Rest of the Story,” where he focuses on non-canonical treatments of Peter himself, including Patristic accounts of Peter’s life and death, pseudonymous works on Peter, and (in the final chapter), the “legacy” of Peter which concludes with Helyer’s “top ten contributions of the apostle Peter to NT theology.”

Analysis

In my opinion, Helyer’s The Life and Witness of Peter represents both a significant contribution that fills in a gap in scholarship (the relative lack of work on Petrine theology) as well as a very readable and enjoyable treatment of Peter, his life, and his theology. While I will have a couple minor issues, I can definitely recommend this book for anybody interested in either Peter or biblical theology, or both.

First of all, does Helyer make an important contribution to biblical theology? In my opinion, absolutely. Treatments of this scope on Petrine theology are very rare, and Helyer does an excellent job of plugging that hole in scholarship (from an evangelical perspective, as well).

Secondly, Helyer is a good writer; without sacrificing its contribution to scholarship, The Life and Witness of Peter is both an easy and an enjoyable read. It’s worth pointing out that his Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period is a much more enjoyable read than equivalent books at this level of academia (I’m not claiming it’s necessarily better at the scholarly level than equivalent books, simply that it’s more enjoyable).

Thirdly, I like how Helyer does biblical theology. Rather than approaching the texts with set themes and topics, as I’ve seen some works do, Helyer mostly lets the texts themselves determine the themes. This is why, for example, we see an entire chapter on “The People of God” in 1 Peter but not 2 Peter, whereas we see an entire chapter on 2 Peter’s eschatology but not 1 Peter’s eschatology. Not because 1 Peter does not discuss eschatology, nor that 2 Peter does not concern itself at all with the church, but rather because each book of the Bible has its own emphasis and focus. In my opinion, biblical theology is at its best when it lets each distinct book bring out its own theology rather than approaching each book with a “grid” of theological topics. In other words, when doing biblical theology (as opposed to systematic theology), the question is not “What does [insert name of book] say about God, Jesus, the end times, etc.?” but rather, “What themes does this book explore, and how are they developed?” This, in my opinion, is what Helyer does well. Having said that, I do wish Helyer had provided a bit more  interaction between books on certain themes. Chapter 8, for example, could have dealt with the Spirit and the spirits in both 1 Peter and 2 Peter (in light of 2 Peter 1:21 and 2:4, 11), and I would have appreciated it bit more overview of Peter’s theology as a whole (although the final chapter covers that a little). Nevertheless, overall I am in favor of how Helyer handles Peter’s theology. In addition, I greatly appreciate how Helyer covers all the Petrine material in Scripture, not just 1 Peter and 2 Peter. This, in my opinion, is key to developing a true Petrine theology (as opposed to just a theology of 1 Peter or a theology of 2 Peter). Such an approach makes this book extremely valuable.

Fourthly, one of Helyer’s strengths is his knowledge of Second Temple Literature (he wrote an entire book on it) and how this knowledge contributes to The Life and Witness of peter. Numerous examples can be cited, but I’ll point especially to page 44 (what does it mean to “loose” and “bind” in Matthew 16:19? He provides some discussion of close terminology in the Qumran texts and the Mishnah) and p. 251 (2 Pet 2:4’s remarkably close parallel to 1 Enoch).

Fifthly, Helyer does an excellent job at making his work relevant for the Christian community. In other words, The Life and Witness of Peter is meant to be relevant theologically in the everyday life of Christians (e.g., see the quote above from page 61). Having said that, I did scratch my head at his odd sort-of allegorizing of the story of Peter in the boat from Matthew 14 (see p. 39).

A couple mild critiques. First of all, while this book does well to cover introductory matters, students should not rely on it for the best treatment of such topics as authorship, recipients, etc.. For example, although I like what he does with his treatment of the recipients of 1 Peter, he never mentions Moses Chin’s article “A Heavenly Home for the Homeless” in Tyndale Bulletin vol. 42:1 (1991), a significant and influential article (though I disagree with much of it). Similarly, there are some gaps in scholarship; when discussing both the eschatology and the false teachers of 2 Peter, for example, he never mentions two articles that directly deal with these issues: Gene L. Green, “‘As for Prophecies, They Will Come to an End’” in JSNT vol. 8 (2001) and Jerome H. Neyrey, “The Form and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter,” JBL vol. 99 (September 1980), although he cites other sources by these two scholars. Having said that, I must express my gratefulness that he mentions a little-known article by yours-truly on Peter, an article significantly less important than the contributions by Chin, Green, and Neyrey, so who am I to complain?

Two more points. Even though this book is meant to be accessible to all levels, it still would have greatly benefited from a “survey of scholarship” on Peter and his theology. Secondly, I’m puzzled as to why the relationship between Jude and 2 Peter receives only a two-paragraph treatment (pp. 246-247), especially since this would seem to be relevant to 2 Peter’s theology.

Nevertheless, these moderate critiques should not diminish the value that Helyer’s Life and Witness of Peter provides. This is an essential book for studying both Peter and his theology, and one that I hope to use as a textbook someday.

"Under Your Wing"--Ruth Tosses Boaz's Words Right Back at Him!

Teaching a particular book of the Bible is the best way to learn it! The past few weeks I’ve had the privilege of teaching the book of Ruth to the youth at my local church (a very intelligent group of kids, I might add!) While my Hebrew is very rusty, I’ve read through the book in Hebrew while making use of some top-notch commentaries (Daniel Block’s NAC commentary is, in particular, outstanding. And that’s not just my opinion, either).

Studying Ruth for myself has been immensely rewarding. I’d like to share just one quick observation that brings out both the master-storytelling in this book and how our view of God should impact our actions towards each other. In Ruth 2:12, Boaz blesses Ruth, admonishing the Lord to pay her back for all her kindness and faithfulness towards her mother-in-law. He then describes her as having taken refuge literally under the wings [plural form of knph] of the Lord (ESV: “. . . under whose wings you have taken refuge” I think Block best describes Ruth’s relief in response to Boaz’s words: “Like a young chick frightened by the pouring rain, she has come out of her fears and found comfort and security under the wings of God. Those wings are embodied in the person of Boaz” (Block, Judges, Ruth, [NAC; Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman&Holman, 1999], 665).

Now, keep the word “wing” in mind. Fast-forward to Ruth 3:9. This Moabite widow is putting into action her mother-in-law’s plan. When Boaz wakes up, shivering, Ruth identifies herself, and then asks him to “spread your wing [Heb. knph, again!] over your servant”! (ESV) This was, of course, a marriage proposal (“knph” could also mean “robe/skirt,” and “to spread one’s skirt over” a woman meant to marry her; cf. Ezekiel 16:8). Yet certainly Ruth’s bold choice of words is significant! Had not Boaz wished upon her that the Lord himself would spread his wing over her? And now, Ruth herself asks that Boaz spread his wing over her, in essence throwing his own words right back at him, and demanding that he himself become the emissary of Yahweh in this matter!

It is to Boaz’s credit that he was willing to seize this role and act as the go-el, kinsman-redeemer, towards Ruth and Naomi. Yet what about us? Not that we should go out and find widows to marry, necessarily! Yet do we wish the Lord’s blessing on others and put little thought into how we ourselves might act as his representative in that regard? Are we willing to “cover others with our wings,” to shelter them, just as the Lord has done for us?  May we beware the sinfulness of blessing others with words but not actions, of wishing the Lord’s blessing on others and not lifting a finger to help bring about that blessing! As James says, “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacks daily food, 2:16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm and eat well,” but you do not give them what the body needs, what good is it? 2:17 So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead being by itself” (2:15-17, NET).

Truly, both Boaz and the Moabitess widow exemplified the Chessed of the Lord in the book of Ruth, and their actions have transformative results for the entire nation. Ruth, then, is not a modern “fairy tale” romance with knights in shining armor and damsels in distress, glamorous gowns and evocative emotions! Rather, it shows us that true love is action—taking others and sheltering them under our wings from the harshness of life. Only when we live to the standard of Boaz and Ruth can we truly claim to be the Lord’s servants.

Some Brief Thoughts on Bible Software (and Other Electronic Resources for Ministry)

 I was excited to recently read on Dr. David Black’s blog that he and his research assistant are working on a new book, tentatively titled The 100 Most Essential Tools for Using Greek in Ministry (see http://www.daveblackonline.com/blog.htm; scroll down to his post on Saturday, August 31^st, 7:48am). Immediately my mind jumped to Bible software and its potential for use in the ministry (by “ministry,” I don’t mean “vocational ministry,” I mean all Christians everywhere in their work for Christ’s kingdom) and even personal Bible study. You don't need to be a nerd like myself to benefit from such tools!

 For the longest time, the “Big Three” of Bible software have been BibleWorks, Logos, and Accordance (I’ve owned both BibleWorks and Accordance). Back in the day (i.e., a decade or so ago), BibleWorks and Accordance had the reputation of being superior at exegesis and syntactical studies while Logos was what you used to build your digital library. I think everything’s a bit more balanced nowdays, though my own bias is that Accordance is absolutely fantastic in its ability to do in-depth syntactical and semantic analysis (with a slightly steep learning curve), while Logos still has a very good reputation for making books accessible in electronic format. It’s worth noting, though, that Accordance is designed for Mac but can be run on a PC with an emulator. If curious, check out the respective websites at http://www.bibleworks.com, http://www.logos.com, and http://www.accordancebible.com.

 

Of course, there are probably other less-known software (some of it may even be free), so feel free to enlighten me in the comments section. In addition, I’m sure “smart” phones are now able to use Bible software to varying degrees. I still have a “primitive” cell phone, so I’m afraid I know little about such capabilities. While your phone is making you an Expresso and planning your next vacation, I use mine to actually make phone calls, which I thought was kind of the point of owning a phone in the first place . . ., but I digress. (Okay, so maybe I’m just a teensy-weensy bit jealous of your phone).

Anyways, good Bible software can help you do the following:

1.    Compare Bible versions. Even those without much Greek and Hebrew proficiency can still compare versions and at least get an idea of how controversial passages and/or words are handled. Also, study notes and even maps are usually included. All this is available with a mouse click.

2.    Give you immediate access to a theological library. This includes commentaries, systematic theologies, the church fathers, and Christian classics. Imagine being able to compare the views of Wayne Grudem and Millard Erickson on atonement, side by side, with just a few mouse clicks. Imagine being able to check out 3 different commentaries on Romans 9 within a matter of minutes, without getting up from your chair!

Now, frankly, I’m a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to books and journals; I prefer something actually in my hand, and I probably will never have much of a digital library. Still, mark my words, the day is coming when most preachers will get up in the pulpit and say, “Please take our your I-phones and scroll down to John, chapter 1 . . .”  (if you’re in the mood for a satirical Australian discussion on Bible mediums, check out Michael Bird, “Dear Presbyter, Bring your Scroll to Church”

3.    Allow basic word searches. Many modules for Bible software come with Strong’s concordance numbers or its equivalent, so even those without Greek proficiency can see how the Apostle Paul uses the Greek word for “ministry” throughout his epistles. [warning: there are, of course, plenty of word-study fallacies that must be avoided. Most of these mistakes, however, occur quite frequently without the help of Bible study software, so this is hardly the place for an in-depth discussion of word-study fallacies! Still, there is much benefit, in my opinion, to seeing how a word is used elsewhere in Scripture, as well as in the 1st century literature]

4.    Allow in-depth syntactical and semantic study. This is the kind of stuff for serious Bible students and scholars. Accordance, for example, allows me to see how many times an Aorist imperative occurs within 5 words of a present-tense imperative in Josephus' Jewish Wars, if that ever becomes important [rabbit trail alert! In my opinion, the debate on Verbal Aspect Theory would be better served by less theoretical linguistics and more examination of actual 1st century 

      texts . . .]. With accordance, I can also see how the LXX uses the Greek word for “atonement,” or also how the Masoretic and LXX differ on a passage.

Naturally, all of the above costs money (and when all is said and done, the determined student may quite easily spend more on Bible software than he or she does on their computer!), but at the very basic package you’re sure to get a number of Bible versions with some basic study tools. In the meanwhile, you can search online for other resources (Google Books, for example, has many old classics that are public domain now).

One more thing: for the serious student of 1^st century Greek, the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG for short) can prove to be invaluable. As for me, I could not have done my dissertation without it (examining the use of the Greek words proginwskw and prognwsis within 1^st century literature). It’s a bit expensive: over 100 dollars a year (though you can get a “five-years for the price of four” deal), but for some, it may be worth it.

Naturally, all the fancy-schmancy software in the world is no substitute for living out the Word. At the end of the day, an 80-year old lady who only has her King James Bible yet strives to love her neighbor is a better servant of Christ than a Ph.D. student with the latest bells and whistles of Bible software who cares little about praxis. Still, we live in an incredible age with hither-to undreamt of Bible study tools. It wouldn't hurt to make use of some of them.

Book Alert! A must read for prospective doctoral students: Prepare, Succeed, Advance by Nijay K. Gupta

 Nijay K. Gupta, Prepare, Succeed, Advance: A Guidebook for Getting a PhD in Biblical Studies and Beyond (Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2011).

Now this is not a full-blown book review. Samuel Emadi has already written a fine review in a recent issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (vol. 56.1, March 2013), and I basically agree with his assessment. However, this is a book that needs to be brought to the attention of any prospective doctoral student, and so I wanted to make a few comments on it.

To begin with, the book is fairly short (156 pages), yet surprisingly comprehensive. Nijay K. Gupta (professor at Seattle Pacific University) covers such diverse topics as the differences between British and US schools, looking for a job after you get your degree, basic tips for research (e.g., don’t over rely on commentaries! [p. 82]), and how to prepare for your dissertation’s defense. There are three sections to the book with 3 chapters in the first two and 4 chapters for the last section. The first section, “Prepare,” covers 1. “Choosing a Doctoral Program,” 2. “Preparing for Doctoral Studies: From Education to Application,” and 3. “Making an Application.” The second section, “Succeed,” covers 4. “Orientation to the PhD and Choosing the Research Topic,” 5. Researching and Writing the Dissertation,” and 6. “How to Defend Your Work (preparing for your oral defense).” The final section, “Advance,” covers 7. “Orientation: From PhD to Employment and Beyond,” 8. “Conference Participation and Publishing,” 9. “Teaching Experience,” and 10. “Job Hunting, Interviewing, and Publishing the Dissertation.” Gupta also includes a bibliography of helpful resources for research, although it is heavily weighted towards NT and Pauline research, and consequently not equally as helpful towards all.

As mentioned above, this is a must-read for most, if not all, prospective doctoral students, due to its wealth of material and its easily-readable style. Now, this book is geared towards both believers and nonbelievers interested in biblical studies, so you won’t see much on spiritual development or family life, both important topics for the evangelical student. I am somewhat disappointed that Gupta does not really spend much time discussing finances, something I wish somebody had discussed with me before I began looking at doctoral programs! Nevertheless, the book, for the most part, covers what you would want such a book to cover.

In his conclusion, Gupta provides us with some very helpful tips on the academic life. Let me focus on and reinforce two of them. Gupta states, “Be eclectic. Many PhD students and young professionals become a one-trick pony because their research was so focused that they are unaware of what is going on in the wider fields of biblical studies. . . . I would encourage you to maintain, alongside your primary specialty, an interest in a few other areas. This will actually enhance your research . . . .” (p. 150) I would personally add (even though it goes against conventional wisdom) that not all the classes you take should be connected with your dissertation. I audited OT Theology and benefited from it; I also took “Christian Faith and Science,” thoroughly enjoyed it, and got an article published out of it (totally outside my main field of study, yet a topic I enjoyed). It goes without saying that most of  your classes should be within your field of study (and SEBTS required 4 out of 8, I believe), but otherwise take a few topics that you think might challenge you, or that you’re curious about.

Gupta also states, “Count your blessings. . . . Remember the privilege of what you are doing!  In broader perspective, only a small percent of the world’s population will have the chance (and honor) t study at the master’s level, let alone spend several years at an even higher level . . . .” (p. 150) To that we can all give a hearty “amen”! Doctoral study is a privilege granted to some by God (and, in of itself, is no guarantee of spirituality or even intelligence). If you get that opportunity, thank God for it on a consistent basis and don’t squander it!

It’s worth briefly comparing Gupta’s book with the Ben Witherington’s recent Is There a Doctor in the House?(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2011). Witherington’s book, it seemed to me, is concerned more with scholarship and teaching ability; while his work is valuable and does contain some helpful info for prospective students (and, I might add, at this point I think Witherington is the better writer), I think Gupta’s book is the one I want prospective students to read first, since Gupta deals with a wider range of questions and issues that will plague doctoral students.

For any of my readers interested in doctoral work, please don’t hesitate to drop me an e-mail with your questions!

The date of the crucifixion and NASA eclipse records

-->Note: the conclusions of the following discussion are not original with me; pride of place should go to the outstanding Tyndale Bulletin article by Humphreys and Waddington (both scientists, by the way), though other people have come to the same conclusion. I may be the first to actually go to NASA's website to verify data in that manner, however, but probably not. Regardless, though the conclusions in this discussion are not anything new, they may be new to the reader, and I hope they provide some food-for-thought.

Update [Saturday evening, 7/13/13]: The Acts 2 citation of the OT context of Joel is very difficult to work through, more difficult than I imply in this blog post. Like most dispensationalists, I would prefer to see a literal, future fulfillment for the Joel prophecy. On the other hand, it's really difficult to overlook Peter's fulfillment language in Acts 2. Perhaps something of an inaugurated fulfillment (which, I believe, is what some folks over at Dallas hold to)? Regardless, to be fair, for a more traditional dispensationalist take on this passage, see the good essay by Roy Beacham (I link to it in the first posted comment after this discussion).
 

Finally back at it! Finishing the dissertation (for which I am very grateful) and now working 2 jobs at 60 hours a week (for which I am grateful, but also tired) has taken a lot out of me, and there's so much I want to write. For now, higher priorities include revising my dissertation for attempted publication, if the Lord wills, and helping my father with his new Greek-to-Japanese New Testament.

Also, however, I have had the privilege of teaching through Matthew in a Sunday School class at my local church. I use my own curriculum, so to speak (relying heavily on the commentaries by Carson and Turner). Now, nearing the end of the series of lessons, we have been discussing the crucifixion. Before delving into the theology of the crucifixion, I had wanted to discuss some of the background (making liberal use of Martin Hengel's monumental book!), and part of that included discussing the date. Now, in my opinion, dating Christ's birth is impossible with our present knowledge (despite the attempts of some), but dating the crucifixion is very possible if a particular interpretation of Acts 2 is allowed to stand.

In Acts 2:14, Peter is beginning his Pentecost sermon; in verses 17-21, he takes a prophecy from Joel and applies it to the present day (as part of "the last days"); quoting that prophecy, he states:

"I will pour out my Spirit on all people, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy, and your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams, . . . and I will perform wonders in the sky above and miraculous signs on the earth below, blood and fire and clouds of smoke. The sun will be changed to darkness and the moon to blood before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes. And then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." [NET translation, from bible.org]

Now, Peter here seems to be applying that prophecy to the current era (as ushering in the end times; indeed, even though I'm a strong premillennialist, I believe we can say that all time since Christ's 1st coming represents the end times, in a sense). If, then, the first part of the prophecy is fulfilled at least in part (not discounting the possibility of more fulfillment at the Tribulation, but that's a different discussion), would it not be possible that the reference to "The sun will be changed to darkness and the moon to blood" [NET] might be a reference to the day of the crucifixion, especially since verses 22-23, the immediately subsequent context, refer directly to the crucifixion?

Now, there's two big "ifs" here. First of all, if Peter might those words literally; secondly, if Peter was referring to the crucifixion.

However, if both of those "ifs" are allowed, then we have a sure-fire way of dating the crucifixion, and here's why. First of all, we know that the sun was indeed covered by darkness at the crucifixion (see Matthew 27:45), basically from noon to 3pm. However, Acts 2:20 seems to mention a completely different, second occurrence, namely the moon turning to blood. This is basically a poetic way of speaking of a lunar eclipse (see Humphrey and Waddington, pp. 343-344), since the moon does indeed appear red during this process. In other words, we have a strange darkness in the hours leading up to Christ's death, followed by a blood-moon eclipse beginning at the time when (by Jewish custom) they would have had to have taken Christ's body off the cross (and possibly right around the time Joseph of Arimathea was taking away Jesus' body for burial). This would have made a stark impression on the  minds of the Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem, since the very next day was the Passover, characterized, of course, by blood.

So, is there a viable candidate for such a lunar eclipse that would pin-point the date of Christ's death? Absolutely, and it's as easy to figure out as simply going over to NASA's website. Yes, "NASA," as in "that space agency." You see, at the following link: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/lunar.html NASA gives you a nifty tool to examine the statistics of basically every recorded eclipse back to 2000 BC (yes, 4,000 years of lunar eclipses!), including the option to pick a particular city and see what eclipses would have been visible from it (you need to open up the Javascript Lunar Eclipse Explorer). [Note: I'm not claiming here that the NASA records are infallible or should be an authoritative guide to Scripture! The lunar eclipse records are based on the work of one man, for the most part, a certain Fred Espenak. I am arguing that NASA records have the potential to help determine the date of the crucifixion, if we are correct in our interpretation of Acts 2]. So, if we input "Jerusalem" within the 1st century AD, we see that there are quite a few eclipses, (with varying degrees of visibility), but within AD 30-40, only two occurred in April, and only one right before the passover. See we see that April 3rd, AD 33 is the only possible option (and yes, that is on a Friday). If that is the case, then our Savior died roughly at 3 PM, April 3rd, 33 AD, and a few hours after he died there was a lunar eclipse which would have made the day even more memorable. So his death was bracketed on the one hand by an odd darkness that blotted out the sun, and on the other hand by a lunar eclipse that turned the moon red (at least to a certain degree). Our Lord then resurrected on the morning of April 5th, 33 AD.

So what's this all mean? Apologetically, this is of little help unless somebody wishes to argue that Peter was mistaken in Acts 2, or that Luke invented a lunar eclipse and attributed the idea to Peter. At least, however, we can say that there was a lunar eclipse at a date that would most definitely fit as the date for Christ's crucifixion; if Peter was referring to that, then he was referring to something that all the inhabitants of Jerusalem most definitely would have vividly remembered. The rhetorical force of applying Joel to that day, still fresh in the mind of his listeners, cannot be underestimated. Furthermore, this date, if accurate, gives us a better understanding of the times of Christ's ministry and may, in the long run, help with other dates in early Christianity.

As mentioned above, a must-read at the academic level is the article "The Jewish Calendar, A Lunar Eclipse and the Date of Christ's Crucifixion" by Colin J. Humphreys and W. G. Waddington in Tyndale Bulletin 43.2 (1992): 331-351.

At the popular level, it's worth watching the video The Star of Bethlehem narrated and presented by Frederick Larson (directed by Stephen McEveety; copyright 2009 by MPower Pictures, LLC; distributed through Sound Enterprises; thanks to my good friend Alex for introducing me to this presentation). However, two strong caveats about Larson's work: first of all, the last section of his DVD (dealing with Christ's death) is way better than the bulk of it (dealing with the Magi and the Star of Bethlehem), for a variety of reasons. However, even when he discusses the crucifixion, he argues that the eclipse would have been the cause of the darkness mentioned in Scripture, which I disagree with. Secondly, however, Larson seems to act (in my opinion) as if all this is his brand new discovery; in other words, he makes almost no reference to concrete instances of previous scholarship and shows no awareness of the work of Humprey and Waddington, which predates his presentation by over 20 years!

So anyways, all this pales in significance to the great theological truths inherent in Christ's death and resurrection, of course. The date doesn't matter so much; what truly matters is that it happened and by it we are reconciled to God. Nevertheless, in my opinion, the more we know about Scripture and its context and background, the more we can appreciate its words.