Think Wink.

Yesterday as I was driving to see my Aunt and Uncle Widoman, I was caught in some KC traffic on I-435 East and South. It was crazy traffic and it was retarded traffic. While we were stopped, I began to put the words together for one word that combines crazy and retarded. First I thought of cra-trarded, taking crazy and losing the “-zy” and combining it with retarded and losing the “re-”. But then I switched the words around came up with “re-tazy” or “retazy.” It is perfect. It simplifies “crazy retarded” into one simply word. It also helped me deal with the traffic too.

James White on John 1:1

Truth, Salvation, and “euaggelion”

Why Did I Take That Class?

Beginning my first post in my series on preterism, it is critical to give this some historical context. The whole reason why Sproul wrote the book The Last Days According to Jesus* is to defend the Scripture and Jesus from liberal and non-Christian attacks. So I want to begin my discussion where he does as well, especially if one wants to understand the primary issues addressed by preterism.
Read more

Israel, John Hagee, and Eschatology

Newspaper Eschatology

Eschatology and Quizfarm.com

I just finished reading a summary of the arguments for why the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 is not referring to some end of the world apocalyptic scenario in the fashion of Left Behind but rather the destruction of Jewish Temple and the end of the Jewish Age. The book is called The Last Days According to Jesus: When Did Jesus Say He Would Return? by R C Sproul. Over the next several posts I want to follow the aurguments Sproul puts forward, based on James Stuart Russell’s work, for an AD 70 fulfillment of the mini-apocalypse in the Olivet Discourse. If you are interested in looking at a preterist position, this is a good read.

The Jesus Christ Gospel According to Mark pt 1

Reflections from Hebrews 1-2

Did Jesus actually suffer on the Cross as God?

This morning as I was eating breakfast before work, I was reading my daily Psalm. It happened to be Psalm 49. It just really stood out to me for some reason.

In Psalm 49:5-9, the Psalmist writes, “Why should I fear in times of trouble, when the iniquity of those who cheat me surrounds me, those who trust in their wealth and boast of the abundance of their riches? Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life, for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice, that he should live on forever and never see the pit.” The Psalmist has absolutely no fear of those who have sinned against him by cheating him out of his money. He has no fear because that money cannot buy their souls. The price of a soul is too high for any sum of money to purchase. The debt we owe God is far too great a debt for all of the monies in the world to purchase–even just one soul. This is the truth we must all come to understand in order to understand the gospel.

In the next part of the Psalm we read, “This is the path of those who have foolish confidence; yet after them people approve of their boasts. Selah. Like sheep they are appointed for Sheol; death shall be their shepherd, and the upright shall rule over them in the morning. Their form shall be consumed in Sheol, with no place to dwell. But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, for he will receive me. Selah” (49:13-15). The Psalmist writes that those who trust in their possessions and in what they can accomplish in this life by whatever means possible are all destined for Sheol, for death. There is no eternal life for them. Their possessions gain them nothing for they will remain here in this life only. However, the Psalmist does not put his trust in the things of this world, in money fame and prestige. He places his trust not in humanity but in God alone. He trusts in God’s money to ransom him from the debt he owes. He trusts that God has the ability to pay that debt. Indeed God does have the ability. Indeed, God is willing to pay that debt, as the Psalmist here writes.

Therefore the Psalmist writes in conclusion, “Man in his pomp yet without understanding is like the beasts that perish” (49:20). Any man or woman in all that person’s accumulations who does not understand the simple truth that the Psalmist outlined in the Psalm is like the beast that perishes. That person is like an animal, a beast of burden. He has slaved all of his life and came to nothing. He labors and dies.

A Whole Year…

An Illustration of Faith In My Life

Eschatology and Antichrist

Last week I talked about the link between the calling and the justification of Romans 8:30. I argued based on the certainty that the Greek communicates that the call spoken of in that verse guarantees the person called will come to saving faith, faith that justifies, in Christ. In other words, every person who God called will be justified. God’s call in this verse is not resisted but always and willingly responded to in faith. Today I want to focus on the link, or at least one aspect of it, between those predestined and those called.

Read more

Prayer

Tolkien and Predestination

Him That Pisseth on Calvinism

This morning I was reading and parsing 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 in my Greek New Testament to practice recognizing aorist indicative verbs, both active and passive/middle and in different persons and numbers. As I read through the Greek, two verbs stood out to me and I want to express what I saw in these verbs. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4,

Read more

Who And [He] Predestined These Also [He] Called

Translation Issues

Those Whom He Called He also Justified

In the acronym TULIP, one of the more contested points is the “I” or Irresistible Grace. Many people get the idea that this means God saves us whether we want to be saved or not. He saves some who are kicking and screaming all the way and their humanity is violated by God somehow. Now this post is to try to defend Irresistible Grace, or as I call it “Effectual Grace.” Instead, I was reading my Greek NT today and came across Romans 8:30. In that text, I noticed something that I just don’t think we should be allowed to miss in the effectual grace. There is a connection between “called” and “justified” that I want to explore.

Read more

Who And [He] Predestined These Also [He] Called

Prayer

Faith, Works, Amen

This sunday or next, not sure which right now, I plan on preaching on Jesus’ words in Matthew 11:12. I have always been facinated by this text since I, unfortunately, saw it in John Eldridge’s book, “Wild at Heart”. The text reads, “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.” I have run into a problem that stems from how to read the Greek.

The crux of the issue is this. The first verb is the Greek verb biazetai, which the ESV translates as “suffered violence,” is a present tense verb. In the present tense, the passive and middle voices are spelled the same. My first problem arises in trying to determine if this verb is a middle voice verb, which would be read as a positive “advances forcefully.” Or is it a passive voice verb which is to read in the negative “suffers violence.” The second issue is similar but deals with the ending of the verse. Do I translate the phrase biastai arpazousin auten in the positive sense of “violent people take it by force” or in the negative sense “violent people plunder it?” This gives me four possibilities to chose from: + +, “kingdom advances forcefully…violent people take it by force;” - -, “suffers violence…violent people plunder it;” + -, “kingdom advances forcefully…violent people plunder it;” - +, “suffers violence…violent people take it by force.”

There are many reasons for translating for translating the verb biazetai in the positive, as the NIV does. First and foremost is in the context of Matthew 11:2-6 and the kingdom coming with the powerful miracles of Christ, thus the kingdom coming forcefully. Also, this verb is used in a parallel text in Luke 16:16 in which it is taken in a positive, middle voice. But then there are reasons for taking the verb as a passive. The closer context of John the Baptizer comes in a time when he is imprisoned for his ministry, Jesus is constantly at odds with the Pharisees and Zealots over his message, Jesus warns the 12 in Matthew 10 to be cunning in their travels and to fear not those who persecute them in their preaching. Luke’s text is in a completely different context. Also, with the subject of the verb being “he basileia ton ouranon,” does it make sense to say that God’s kingdom violently advances? Obviously not. I am at an impossible decision. Most people opt for the passive rendering, like the ESV and the NASB and the Word Biblical Commentary. But there are many who opt for the middle rendering of the verb as well.

Then we have whether or not not to take biastai arpazousin auten as a positive or a negative. To take it positively speaks of the type of discipleship required of Jesus’ followers, militant in their pursuit of Christ. They take hold of the kingdom and press into it. This does not refer to being a jihadist but if radically following Christ with a dedication of that similar to the radical Islamists, serving to the point of self-sacrifice. If we take the text in a negative sense, we learn that people plunder the kingdom of God. Most likely Jesus would be referring to Herod Antipas with John, the Pharisees and Zealots in their misunderstanding of Jesus’ ministry and mission. Reasons for translating this phrase in the positive are that it is the more traditional view. One cannot just take a confusing grammar and make a decision, but needs to look at this in light of one’s own theology. Luke 16:16 seems to indicate that this term biastai would be used in that kind of positive light. The reasoning behind the negative view is that the verb arpazousin is never used in such a positive light as would be required.

My question for any who dare, which of the four possibilities should one chose to properly translate this verse: + +, - -, + -, - +? If you were going to preach this text, which route would you take? I am waiting on some more sources for this text before I make my decision, thus I might preach this text in two sundays instead of this sunday.

No related posts