From a scholar's mind

The Revelation of Jesus Christ... Who is revealing what?

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:35:00 +0000

In Rev 1:1 we are confronted with a peculiar genitive which can easily be translated "of Jesus Christ." This simplistic translation in English gives no hint at how the interpreter is to understand this phrase. Below I list the options and the consequences.

Objective genitive: By translating this phrase, "The revelation about/concerning Jesus Christ..." we would be making the interpretive decision to make this an objective genitive. The object of the revelation is Jesus. Reading the book confirms that this is indeed the case. Starting in 1:5 we find that the initial character of whom this book is about is Christ. He stands at the beginning, throughout the middle, and even the very end. Compare 1:8 and 22:13 and the verses surrounding. This book is very much about Christ.

Subjective genitive: However if we translate the phrase, "The revelation from Jesus Christ..." we see the subjective genitive at work. "In 22:16 Jesus tells John that his angel was the one proclaiming the message of the book to John. Thus, the book is certainly a revelation from Christ." (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 121) This clarifies somewhat who the antecedent in 1:1 is within the phrase, "(he) made it known..." The message comes from Jesus Christ, which was given to him by God (the Father) to transmit to his servant/s (originally John who is told to transmit the revelation to the 7 churches).

Plenary genitive: This is actually a combination of both the subjective and objective genitives. This retains both understandings which can be affirmed as true. "Since this is the title of his book-intended to describe the whole of the work-it may well be a plenary gen." (ibid.)

As you read the Revelation, consider both the method and line of transmission being communicated. As well it is important to make notes that the genitive here is much more than just a subjective genitive. This book is about Jesus Christ and his message to the 7 churches. This should dismiss any idea that the book is primarily about the end of the known world or even the downfall and judgement of evil. This things are secondary, and can only be understood once its message about Jesus has been understood.

Why sometimes the Bible and politics shouldn't mix

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:59:00 +0000

I begin by saying that if you've never checked out http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/, then shame on you. Although I'm unable to check it everyday, there are few articles that I do not read in their entirety. But one post in particular by Michael Bird has caused a stir in me because I really think it shows why Bible scholars should be very cautious about entering political discussions. I comment on both of course, and realize that any expectation of coherence at times can not be met. I'm a political conservative, and someone who also takes seriously critical scholarship on the Bible. The two need not stand in tension of each other.

Too often Christians, and this is just a general statement rather than directed at Bird or the commentators of course, understand the truth presented in the Gospel and think that we need to proclaim how the world ought to act. I can't really argue with this. The world ought to take care of those that are sick, no matter the cost. But here is where many forget the crucial starting point of the Christian message: the world can't. Our salvation is based in grace, and we too often try to emphasize what will be the ideal to the detriment of what we should be doing in the present.

The post in question is on the American health-care debate. (I find it ironic that he begins with "Now I'm not one to get involved in the US health-care debate..." and then frankly does with some rather stark comments.) I'll post his comments below and try to add my own comments as well.

"1. Every western democracy from Norway to New Zealand has universal health care for its citizens except for the wealthiest nation on earth.

"2. Putting profit-driven companies in charge of health care sounds like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. You need more than market forces to keep greed in check, if you don't believe me, go apply for a loan at Lehman Brothers.

"3. I've lived in two countries with universal health-care and it works great (not faultless by any strech, but it works).

"4. Australia has both a public and private system and the two can and do co-exist in peaceful harmony, i.e., there is a safety net for the masses and those who want breast implants and ankle reconstructions on demand can have it. My two daughters were born in private hospitals, but I've also made use of the public system for the most part.

"5. To oppose access to affordable health care strikes me as a violation of the golden rule.

"6. I can understand the desire not to put government in charge of everything, to encourage a free market economy, to create profit-motive, to foster upward economic mobility, and avoid becoming a welfare state - I'm on board - but you can still have all that with more government involvement in health care.

"7. Does anyone know of any theological reflections on health care?

My comments:

1. One of the largest misconceptions in this debate, especially made by foreigners, is that America does not universal health-care coverage. We already do. The current debate really centers on how we plan on paying for that coverage. You break a leg, you will get patched up in the ER and sent on your way. You have the flu, you will get medication from the ER and sent on your way. You will be billed later of course, but you do get coverage. It is wrong to make this a point of morality by claiming that people are not getting care when they are. Even Obama knows that this real debate covers the disastrous effects that can happen when you can't pay for health-care bills.

2. It seems to me that Bird is correct. Companies by themselves need to be regulated. BUT WHY? His solution is that they are greedy and therefore bad. I resent this assessment because it is over-simplistic (we are greedy and looking out for ourselves, which is why the welfare system creates state dependents instead of encouraging people to get off state payrolls). He might want to pick up a copy of Adam Smith before the next installment of Wright, since supply and demand (which works off one's greed) is still the basis for economics. Is greed a bad thing: yes. Have we not proved that it can be controlled through anti-trust and transparency measures: again, yes.

The insurance companies should be regulated so that people can be intelligent about their investments. To this extent I suggest passing legislation so that the public has access to true costs and market analysis of the company, and a yearly audit of those companies that hold so much public importance. Bird holds up Lehman Bros as the counter-example, yet under this practical solution Lehman Bros would not have gone belly up by cooking the books as they were shown to do.

We conservatives agree with Obama that reform needs to happen (we just wish he'd be serious about it). We have acknowledged that people who are not allowed coverage because pre-existing conditions is wrong, and that a one-page bill could rectify this. We also realize that if you expect to more costly procedures because of your pre-existing condition, you should be willing to pay more yourself. As well, dropping coverage or promise of care by insurance companies is wrong, and another one-page bill could take care of this. We all agree rationed care is wrong.

3. I've also lived in a country with a single-payer system. Does everyone get the care they need when they need it? No. And seeing as America's standards of care are by FAR higher than the rest of the world's, perhaps one should not just idealize their own system without more critique. America does far better than any other country for providing higher standards of living for end of life diseases such as cancer. We may not live longer, but we live better and easier. As someone who just recently lost a relative to cancer, perhaps we ought to be comparing the conditions people in which people die instead of other measurements of "success."

4. Cosmetic surgery (e.g., breast implants) should not covered by insurance, by anyone, anywhere. Reconstructive surgery is different of course, but Bird should not lump the two together without so much a thought of apples and oranges. As well, this tiered system should of care should make us all question those who propagate it, especially in American where we emphasize the equality of all (whether we practice it or not). Perhaps those with private care ought just be given a title as well to differentiate them from the commoners (or as Bird calls them, "the masses"). I'm pretty sure theologically we all are under the same condition in this world, and to me America was the first country to realize this and set forth a type of government that would protect the masses who had not from those few who do have. Such a tiered health system is sick, both politically and theologically in my mind.

5. To me this is a lot of rhetoric which looking back I would hope Bird regrets saying. Too often Christians are willing to use the state for their own goals, when we ought to remember that all the glory is God's (not the state's). If we want to see true change on this planet while carrying out God's will, then we must be God's agents, and not agent's of the state. As Christians are we called to implement any means to an end? I don't think so. I think our prayer is that it is God's will on earth, not the self-salvation message of the Progressive agenda.

6. This is a pretty narrow viewpoint I think. Who is Michael Bird to say that we should just ignore the criticisms, and just insist that health-care is TOO important to exist outside the free-market system. Would it not be better to have it properly regulated rather than controlled? Can we not have a free-market health-care system?

The all untold fact is that regulation exists now in America that prevents insurance companies from offering what they and the consumer want. What if catastrophic was available at much less, with al-a-carte items elsewhere? What if insurance was separated from one's work altogether, allowing one to get exactly what they want/need and the true cost of healthcare?

7. I've already some theological reflections, but here's the biggest one. Did Jesus come to set up rules/regulations/good options for a secular political system to implement, or did he come to proclaim the kingdom of God as it was breaking in on earth? I'm actually offended by any politician, especially Obama, who sees the US government as a means to achieve a goal which was meant to be achieved by individual followers of Christ. Are we called to be set apart from the world, or be "corrupters" of the world's agenda to see our goals accomplished?

It is hard to be a good Christian and politician at times. The good Christian is called to be the Good Samaritan, picking up the beaten up man and paying everything for his recovery. The good politician must protect the interests of both the beaten man and the Samaritan. The beaten man needs individual attention, and the Samaritan needs to make an individual moral choice. The government that steps in takes away both these options: the beaten man is patched up, but not for the best of individualized care, and the Samaritan does not need to make the moral choice to give his own money for the care of the man since he has already given some already.

I will say one further thing, more on a side note than a direct argument. The liberal/progressive agenda is to make sure everyone has basic needs covered. The conservative agenda is to make sure everyone has an equal opportunity for life, so that they might achieve what they wish good or bad. (In the comments, Mark Goodacre notes that we enjoy "free" public education, at least "free at the point of use." This definition of "free" however is wrong, as just because we do not require a payment at the start of the school year does not mean it is not being paid for. The payment comes out as part of our taxes, even those people who do not use it. But even we conservatives agree that this is proper, because while it might not be free in any sense, it is morally right to allow children an opportunity to become any profession they wish to pursue. But this is a different moral question of equality than the moral question of caring for one's neighbor.)

We do care about people, but we allow people to make mistakes. We see the parable of the good Samaritan, and others, as calling out to the nation to step up and give more because it is morally good. But we do not read that Jesus then dragged the expert in the law away to both collect money to give and minister to the poor. This is why I enjoy Wright's book, The Challenge of Jesus. Jesus' message is a challenge to consider, not a requirement on all to partake in unwillingly. It is a challenge to individuals, not to political governments or even to organized churches (which can only call their citizens/individuals to accept this challenge of Jesus).

For all the respect in the world that I have for Bird, Goodacre, and the others that are in favor of some sort of universal health-care mandate on account of Christian morality, my only conclusion on this topic is that they are too narrow-focused right now on a goal being met instead of the consequences of skipping a few vital steps. As well to try to frame this question in terms of being a good Christian and agreeing with him, as Bird has done, seems antithetical to everything else he has written. I conclude with where I began, that sometimes Biblical scholars should not get involved in controversial political debates so easily.

Seeing Labor Day in light of God's true rest

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:11:00 +0000

Seeing Labor Day in light of God's true rest

Posted using ShareThis

NIV to be updated as Christians divide over Bible translation

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:42:00 +0000

NIV to be updated as Christians divide over Bible translation

Posted using ShareThis

Ways to beat the heat

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:21:00 +0000

Ways to beat the heat

Posted using ShareThis

Update

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:22:00 +0000

It's Optimus Prime! It's the first movie Legends edition, and the pride of my Transformers collection. He's very poseable, and fun to play with. As well, it's OPTIMUS PRIME!

Anyways, as you've probably noticed, there have been a few changes around here. First the ads you see in the page are ways to make some extra $$. Click on them and you give us money. Just that simple. If you wish for me to click ads on your blog, just let me know. We can make money together! Yay! Just click on them once a day please.

As well you've noticed, no doubt, those new posts which you have to click a link to get to. Well let me tell you what that's about. I'm also a blogger for Examiner.com. A spiffy website you'll enjoy. And I'm the Seattle Evangelical blogger, so a lot of the Christian updates will be posted there. Why? Because again, I get paid for page views! Yay, money! Oh, and click on those ads for just a few more cents please.

Currently looking for a full time job. You know, one that will pay more than $6-7 a day? Unfortunately I'm just not finding much in this economy. Oh well, not like we're hurting.

Christian morality and government's purpose: the national health care debate

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:12:00 +0000

Christian morality and government's purpose: the national health care debate

Posted using ShareThis

An Evangelical response to mental health issues

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:01:00 +0000

An Evangelical response to mental health issues

Posted using ShareThis

The rise of orthodoxy

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:40:00 +0000

The rise of orthodoxy

Posted using ShareThis

An electronic journal for the 21st century

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:46:00 +0000

An electronic journal for the 21st century

Posted using ShareThis

Former Seahawk MVP touring for Jesus

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:30:00 +0000

Former Seahawk MVP touring for Jesus

Posted using ShareThis

The Woodland Park Zoo

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:50:00 +0000

I've lived up in the Seattle area for quite some time now, and I can only blame poor timing for not venturing to the zoo before this. Also something coming up, and always busy, am I right? Well this weekend me and the missus had enough. We made up our minds, packed the car, subsequently forgot the sun screen, and went on a day trip that was extremely enjoyable.

Our goal was to get to the zoo as soon as it opened, around 9:30. Of course we left the house at 10 that morning, and didn't make it into the zoo until around 11:45. Forget the obvious sleeping in, apparently we weren't the only ones who figured a bright, warm July 3rd also seemed like a great time to go to the zoo. But despite roaming around for parking for a good 30 minutes, once inside it did not feel crowded at all. Perhaps it was because we are just used to really large crowds (Disney Land anyone?), but it was a pleasant surprise to spend the day at a relatively slow pace (minus the occasional child of course).

Being so close to lunch time anyways, our first stop was a very nice sandwich shop called Sabino's Specialties. Mine came with perhaps a bit too much olive oil poured on top, but a few dabs of the napkin and it still ranks as the best sub sandwich in the Northwest. Madam got a pretty good tuna salad sandwich which didn't upset her food allergies too much. All in all, a great start considering we almost got fast food before parking.

Of course the point of any zoo is not the food, but the animals. Sometimes the animal's food. Woodland Park has a pretty good variety of animals on hand. A rather lot of Asian animals, but the predominance of Asian influence in Seattle can easily explain that. The African plains exhibit was really nice, as it featured a really large paddock housing ostriches, giraffes, antelopes, and a few others. Overall we did notice that many of the animals seemed really tired, staying out of the sun in favor of resting in the cool shade. I would not have imagined that the heat would have made so many want to take mid-day naps, but I guess I would have been wrong.

So my favorite part was catching the raptor presentation. No, not the raptors from Jurassic Park (which qualify as the scariest animal ever). We only got to see 3 birds of prey, and we got there late. I didn't catch the first bird, but I believe it was a Harris' Hawk. Then out came a great Barn Owl, who was beautiful! Unfortunately its performance was cut short because a Turkey Buzzard had to steal the show. Don't get me wrong, it was awesome to see the Buzzard. It just would have been nice to see more of the owl.

This was a great experience, and I hope that people can make time to go to the Woodland Park Zoo in North Seattle. Make a day of it, and you'll not regret it. I only wished I had taken more photos really. Our next adventure, next weekend, is to the Aquarium. Perhaps I'll see you there!

Seattle Pacific University

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:24:00 +0000

I'm taking a road trip to North Seattle today. I'm visiting the SPU library to gather some final resources for my Danielic Beastly Empires paper. I'm really excited to be able to visit a new university in the area. Being on the peninsula, I'm sure it will look extremely beautiful. It might become a great place just to hang out on campus, finding small crooks and crannies to enjoy nature and reflect upon God.

Start saving: you'll want this for your library

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:12:00 +0000

I finished The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press: Oxford/New York), 2005, by Bruce M. Metzger* and Bart D. Ehrman* last night. From the beautiful cover, featuring "the frontpiece of the Gospel of John in the famous medieval Latin manuscript, in which the opening words ("In principio erat verbum...") are spelled out with intricate design" one is greeted with a true work of scholarship which introduces the student to text criticism and provides the seasoned scholar with a crucial resource for their library.

The book is divided into three intuitive parts. The first part is on the materials for textual criticism of the New Testament. Chapter one, labeled "The Making of Ancient Books" describes the background of paleography. The reader is presented with ancient writing practices with detail and clarity. Chapter two describes the important witnesses to the text of the New Testament. This is a crucial section for scholars, as it describes the history and content of the important witnesses. No doubt many know the infamous history of Sinaiticus, first re-discovered by Tischendorf. But where else does one find information on the sixth century Codex Sinopensis? As such this chapter is a vital addition for determining external evidence.

Part two tracks the history of the New Testament textual criticism as reflected in printed editions of the Greek testament. Here the authors have divided history into two parts, set in chapters three and four respectively: the pre-critical period, spanning from the autographs to the dominance of the Textus Receptus, and the modern critical period, starting with the work of Griesbach and continuing to the present.

Part three deals with the application of textual criticism. Chapter six describes the methods of textual critics after setting out basic assumptions of the science. Chapter seven describes the possible causes of error in the transmission of the text of the New Testament. This chapter serves as an excellent introduction to both unintentional changes and intentional changes. Chapter eight describes the history of the transmission of the text, and seeks to describe the rise of the different text types and evaluate them. As well the authors look at places of intentional changes within different manuscripts to describe the social history of early Christianity. Issues such as doctrinal disputes, Jewish-Christian relations, oppression of women, asceticism and others are discussed. Overall, being aware of these cultural interests is crucial when looking at different textual variants. The final chapter describes the practice of the text critic. It describes the artistic side of the scholar, describing that the student should begin, but never remain, with an emphasis on the external criteria. As the student grows and becomes more comfortable with exegesis, then they are encouraged to consider internal evidence as well. The chapter concludes with an extensive list of exemplary passages, describing the textual analysis performed upon them.

I cannot recommend this book enough for anyone who goes through a graduate program. The academic will benefit from years of reading, beginning with introduction to text criticism as a student of exegesis through their career as a scholar. The pastor will benefit from being able to give a reasoned argument to their flocks concerning the academic practices of their colleagues. After all, as we are all told in exegesis class, the first step of exegesis is to determine the text. This book is a valuable resource for that. The cost is well worth the investment.

I found this book much more helpful than Greenlee's, reviewed below. It was more expensive and higher level than the basic primer, but one feels like this is truly a handbook for graduate exegetes. I found myself recognizing the value as a resource that intends to be, and skimmed the longer descriptions of manuscripts and the final examples. These are definitely parts that I can return to when I need the information. As well the section on cultural influences on the transmission of the text, in particular the issue of introducing extra-orthodox material into the text, really interested me. No doubt such issues are not just academic issues. On the theological level we should consider them as well. Can we deny that there is elements of potential truth in them? But at the same time what do we do once we recognize a good manuscript such as Codex Bezae is riddled with seemingly anti-Jewish and anti-feminist readings? I can imagine any pastor struggling with these readings as they expound the passage to their congregations. As well I am looking into purchasing Erhman, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Although I disagree Ehrman theologically his work in this field cannot be questioned. My library will expand once again, and I encourage you as well to at least make room in yours and add this tome to your collection.

*Bruce M. Metzger was Professor Emeritus of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary. He is the author or editor of more than thirty books, including The New Revised Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha, Compact Edition (OUP, 2003), The Oxford Guides to the Bible Set (OUP, 2002), The Canon of the New Testament (OUP, 1997), and The Early Versions of the New Testament (OUP, 1977). Dr. Metzger passed away 13 February, 2007, shortly after his 93rd birthday. He was survived by his wife Isobel and two sons. He will be sorely missed, but his legacy will live forever.

*Bart D. Ehrman chairs the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. An authority on the early Church and the life of Jesus, he is the author of numerous books, including Lost Christianities (OUP, 2003), Lost Scriptures (OUP, 2003), and The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Third Edition (OUP, 2003).

Preventive Care

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:32:00 +0000

President Obama is pushing this myth that preventive care will lower health care costs. One must wonder exactly why this talking point is being pushed so hard by people on both sides of the aisle, both Republicans and Democrats. As with most things, its because its most likely being funded by doctors and medical people.

You go in for a preventive check-up. You get tests run. Every person gets paid along the way. And because each person gets paid very well, the costs are high. Just because more people get more preventive check-ups does not mean that all those nurses and assistants get paid less. Equipment still costs money, and people with special training deserve just compensation. Good to know that Big Brother will decide exactly what people in the health care industry is worth.

And yet he has the audacity to say that the quantity of care is worse than the quality of care. One might remind him that this preventive care option is nothing but quantity of tests. And each step has to be paid out.

A decent TC primer

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:57:00 +0000

So I finished J. Harold Greenlee*, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Hendrickson: Mass.), 1995. My overall conclusion is that in a field which is extremely technical and so introductions and primers are rare, this tome fulfills its role.

The book is divided into 8 chapters with a concluding appendix of commonly used Latin terms. Although there is no thematic division of topics, the first three chapters can be considered introductory material. Chapter 1 lays out and defines textual criticism and its priority in NT studies. Chapter 2 deals with paleography, and so Greenlee gives a very good survey of the physical materials which were used in production of manuscripts and the manuscripts themselves. Chapter 3 explains the sources of NT texts such as the Greek manuscripts, versions and patristic quotations. Overall this section of the book shines as organizing the material for the lay person being introduced to text criticism for the first time.

The second topic covering another three chapters deals with the history of the text. Chapter 4 covers the transmission of the text from autograph to 1516. A section is dedicated to the collection of Byzantine texts under Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. As well Greenlee introduces the types of variants found in texts, such as different types of intentional and unintentional changes. Chapter 5 traces the history of the Textus Receptus, from 1516 to Westcott and Hort's decision to edit a critical text in 1882. Chapter 6 fulfills two roles. Firstly it fills out the age of the critical texts by looking at different authors. Secondly it is quite evident of Greenlee deals with modern arguments that seek to defend the Textus Receptus' priority over critical texts. In this hostility, Greenlee shows distinct bias against the Textus Receptus.

The third and final section I see within the book deals with practical use of textual criticism. Chapter 7 deals with reading an apparatus of a critical text. He describes the apparatus of several scholars, and so the book gets very technical as most students will only be familiar with either the United Bible Societies and Nestle-Aland's critical texts. As well Greenlee describes in more detail ways to recognize and explain textual variations. A majority of the chapter is devoted to solutions of some variants. Chapter 8 explains the process of collation and classification of manuscripts. I am unsure to what extent students will actually be involved in collation, so this section might be seen as a the final apex of a scholar's work. In this regard the introduction to this process seeks to encourage the student to pursue their career until this point. The book then concludes with an extremely helpful appendix of commonly used Latin terms and their meanings.

For all the benefits, there are some questions about the book that the reader should be cautious about. Firstly the reader is thrown in a large debate between the Textus Receptus and the critical texts. One wonders if Greenlee is preparing the student of text criticism to dialog with Textus Receptus proponents. Secondly the last two chapters are filled with multiple examples which become repetitive. In truth I started to skim the last few pages because the amount of needless examples.

Overall I enjoyed the book, despite it being a true introduction. At a pastoral level it is extremely helpful to help introduce text criticism to a congregation without too many specifics. For students it is a good introduction to the actual process, and so would be a good summer reading before an introduction to exegesis class.

*J. Harold Greenlee is professor of New Testament Greek, a missionary with OMS International, and an International Translation Consultant with Wycliffe Bible Translators. He is also the author of A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek.

To what end Federalism?

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:03:00 +0000

Blogger Althouse gives us a great review of a current court decision on the 2nd amendment, federalism, and Supreme Court precedent.

I personally agree with the court's reasoning, even if it scares me to do so. I cannot find fault that individual state's can impose laws that they see fit. To that extent, this includes laws on gun control. The example in the article of long arms vs. handguns is a reasonable, and logical hypothetical, despite my personal belief that all type of guns ought to be available. These are issues of federalism, which I normally enjoy and support. But I also believe that a person has a natural right of self-defense. Allow me to then say that while the 7th Circuit is right, it is also wrong.

What I think this comes down to is really an issue of what gun to ban and how that process is to be carried out. Now the 2nd Amendment has traditionally been applicable to self-defense, and Heller makes it clear that it is individual's right at that. Can we ignore an individual's right to bear arms for self-defense, or even circumvent that right by controlling certain types of guns that promote self-defense, on a state level? Stated another way, can either state or national government impose "[a]n obligation to avoid lethal self-defense" by restriction of arms? Obviously the national government can't. But my feeling is that if the national government protects an individual's right at this point, then the individual retains the right regardless of state imposition.

Stated another way, this is making something illegal on a state level which is considered legal on a national level. That does not fit. Can the state of Alabama restrict types of speech in a somewhat different way than the state of Minnesota by disallowing Mormon congregations? (Random I know.) Of course not. You cannot restrict individual rights at any level. While a state might set forth obligations to avoid lethal self-defense, I do not believe it can be added "at all costs." To that point then you run the risk of giving up your right to life, which most people would agree is a grievous act. Arms should be available to law-abiding citizens for self-defense; this is at all levels. In this case I think federalism has been invoked beyond its intended parameters. By doing so the court allows intrusion into individual liberty.

This is still something I struggle with, so these are just preliminary thoughts. I could see myself agreeing with the court's decision, but feel uneasy doing so. To that extent I think it necessary to tell why I feel uneasy. This is what I have.

Summer plans and update

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:44:00 +0000

So I guess I am beginning my summer reading/playing plans.

Games:

Star Ocean 2 (PSP)

Star Ocean 3 (PS2) with the missus

Rhapsody: A Musical Adventure (DS)

I first fell in love with the Star Ocean series with Star Ocean 3 about five years ago. I played through it, but my wife has not. Rhapsody just looks fun.

Books:

Exegetical Fallacies, D. A. Carson

Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, Greenlee

The Text of the New Testament, Metzger/Erhman

Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, Epp/Fee

A Biblical History of Israel, Provan/Long/Longman

Paul: In Fresh Perspective, Wright

The Justification of God, Piper

The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright, Piper

Justification, Wright

Surprised By Hope, Wright

A good selection of materials I think. I bought all the above within the past 2 months, with the exception being Paul: In Fresh Perspective. After finishing the slim book on Exegetical Fallacies (a must read for any pastor, scholar, or lay teacher of the Bible), I hope to work my way through the text criticism materials. I already understand it, so my hope is to be able to explain text criticism properly to an audience that cares to listen.

I might save A Biblical History of Israel for last so that I can jump into the conversation between Piper and Wright. I've started each book, but have not completed any. My reasoning for reading in this order is obvious. Start with Wright's most current layout of his argument (Paul: In Fresh Perspective) and Piper's exegetical work on Romans 9-11. From there I can understand where both are coming from as they begin their dialogue. As always my hope is to understand Piper better. The Justification of God, and Wright's critique, seems to me a crucial point in how both men understand δικαισυνη θεου.

I'll note quickly that Wright, Justification, 49, says this about Piper, The Future of Justification (original emphases kept):

And as for Piper's insistence... that "the final court of appeal is the context of an author's own argument" (Piper, p. 61), I respond: Yes, absolutely; and that means taking Romans 3:21-4:25 seriously as a whole argument, and discovering the meaning of its key terms within that. It means taking Romans 9:30-10:13 seriously as a whole argument, and discovering within that why Paul makes the use of Deuteronomy 30 that he does, and how that helps us, precisely from within his own argument, to discover the meaning of his key terms. It means, as well and behind those two, taking Romans 2:17-3:8 seriously as part of a single train of thought and discovering the meaning of its key terms within that. And I note sadly, that in this book at least Piper never deals with any of those great arguments, but contents himself with picking piecemeal at verses here and there. Almost anything can be proved that way.

When I first picked up Wright's response and read this passage my mind was blown. This is a dagger into the heart of Piper right away, and my motivation for needing to understand Piper better. To my knowledge Piper has never produced a exegetical commentary on the whole of Romans. In this regard he lags behind Wright's commentary on Romans in the The New Interpreter's Bible commentary series. If anyone knows if Piper has done an exegetical commentary on Romans, please let me know as I might invest in it for sake of comparison.

The final two books to be discussed are A Biblical History of Israel and the other Wright book. Biblical History has two of my former Regent professors as authors: Provan and Long. The book seeks to bring a true canonical approach to the Old Testament, something that is rarely seen in OT studies. I know straight from the sages' mouths that it is a book heavily criticized in the Academy. This actually makes me determined to read it more, since the Academy is hostile to most canonical readings of the text in the first place. The last book, Surprised by Hope, again contrasts between series academic work for me and practical theological reading. It is the book that I hope to end my vast summer reading work on, as will become apparent.

Oh yes, you read that last comment correctly. To further discussion, and practice remembering what I read, I will start up the old system of blogging on what I read. I hope to get through a book every 2 weeks. So perhaps a chapter or two every couple days. Check back for updates.

So will be slowing my down? A lot unfortunately. I have two papers to finish and send in to Regent before July. One is the literary artistry within Daniel 1-6, and the other is the identification of the four beasts in Daniel. Russia, Egypt, Iran, and China right?

So if you haven't heard, I really enjoyed my Daniel class. Not only did we critique Hal Lindsey's (pretty much this generation's model for apocalyptic "prophecy") method of interpretation the first day, but Dr. Provan was able to articulate a position which explains the purpose of the books of Daniel and Revelation. Both books use specific historical circumstances as to describe how one should live within the world generally. Daniel, by using exilic stories in Babylon in 1-6 and then prophetic utterances in 7-12 about Greece, demonstrates how one should view the eventual destruction of all beastly empires. Revelation does the same thing, but places the setting under Rome. The problem in both the Academy and popular end-times authors such as Hal Lindsey and the Left Behind series is that they begin with the assumption that the specific characters in each book must line up as specific events/people/kingdoms once we get to descriptions of general beastly empires, even when the general beastly empires are described with as specific events/people/kingdoms. Confused yet? Good. The point of the book, as it were, is never to describe specifically the end of time or even the end of any specific beastly empire. Rather the book recognizes that beastly empires exist, and will continue to exist until the final Eschaton; Daniel and Revelation are therefore how to live under specific beastly empires with eyes to how to live under any general beastly empire. To that extent I cannot agree more and more. Just don't take the details as being the point of the book.

Back to summer plans... I will also (hopefully) be starting a Bible study this summer. Probably within the next two-three weeks. It will be on the Gospel of Mark. At my disposal I hope to bring in aspects of text criticism, source and redaction criticism, and intertestamentality. So instead of just "what does this pericope mean to us today?" or even a running commentary on the text, I hope to show the specific nature of Mark and then draw conclusions for what it means for us today. Basically, we're going to read what Mark wrote and try to find out what he intended to mean before we get to the practical theological understanding. Novel concept, huh? All I have to worry about is not coming off sounding like a preacher.

So what tools do I have at my disposal. You thought my shopping spree was over with the books, didn't you? Ha! Birthdays are awesome. I've had Baker's Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament for over a year now, and I'll be referencing Watt's commentary on Mark every step of the way. Yep, another Regent professor, and really the best article in the Commentary since its the most fleshed out of all the NT books. As well I have invested in two purchases for Accordance. The first is the Word Biblical Commentary set (all books except 1 Corinthians and Judges). The second is the IVP dictionary and commentary set. I'll just make a list:

IVP-Biblical Imagery

IVP-Biblical Theology

IVP-Jesus & Gospels

IVP-Later NT

IVP-NB Dictionary

IVP-NT Background

IVP-Paul & Letters

IVP-Pocket Dictionaries

IVP-Theology

IVP-Hard Sayings

IVP-NB Commentary

IVP-NT Commentary

IVP-OT Commentary

Yeah, both purchases (IVP and WBC) were about $500 total. Not each, total. Money very well spent.

So yeah, I'm very busy. I'll leave off with my ratings of summer movies I've seen so far and ones that I hope to see.

Dragonball Evolution: B

X-Men Origins: Wolverine: B

Terminator Salvation: B+/A- (would have been better without the trailers)

Star Trek: solid A (not sure if its better than Wrath of Khan, but a nice surprise from Abrams)

Funny People

Land of the Lost

G.I. Joe

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian

Astroboy

And of course, last but really first in my heart and mind: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Just so that we're clear...

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Tue, 12 May 2009 04:20:00 +0000

If zombies should arise, I am heading to Summer Glau's house. Then we're going to meet up with Bruce Campbell. Apparently Bruce likes to sleep in late, but Summer always eats her early-morning bowl of Wheaties.

An Historical Observation

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Sat, 09 May 2009 14:40:00 +0000

It occurred to me as I began to lie down in bed that we shall be blessed with having a man of color as our commander-in-chief on the 150 year anniversary of the Civil War, assuming that President Obama is still living by that point. Seems appropriate enough that celebration can be shared by all. And as far as I know, I am the first to have noticed this little fact.

Now of course the actual beginning of the Civil War is hard to ascertain. South Carolina declared itself succeeded from the United States on December 24, 1860. Many other states soon followed. Lincoln was sworn in March 4, 1861. But it was the first shot on Ft. Sumter in South Carolina on April 12, 1861. Surely that should be seen as the beginning of the Civil War. Although the last recorded battle occurred on May 13, 1865, it must be Lee's surrender at Appomattox Courthouse which happened on April 9, 1865 that must be seen as the formal conclusion.

I would like to see a national holiday in support of the war that divided us. Not just of celebration, but also remembrance of the glorious causes. Although the dividing issue was of course slavery, we can celebrate the end of such a practice. The Southern cause of state's rights can of course be celebrated, even in acknowledgment of being wrong on the issue of slavery.

So the date of this proposed national holiday? Either April 9th or 12th would be appropriate, although I am in favor of the latter. The only other option might be General Lee's birthday, January 19, which is coincidentally also Martin Luther King, Jr's. (It is not inappropriate that a lot of people already celebrate Lee's birthday in a sort of unofficial holiday remembering a Southern gentlemen.) Perhaps a petition started in Congress, supported by the American people, and signed by the first African-American president might be very appropriate.

Is Obama a Socialist?

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Mon, 04 May 2009 17:53:00 +0000

As far as Obama goes... I believe its best to let him stand and fall on his own ground. No need to try to pigeon hole him, although I support the political and journalistic attempts to pressure him and his administration to clarify his position(s). I'm thinking quite clearly of the direct question to Joe Biden during the campaign about Obama being a socialist. Much of the ignorance in America over this issue is due to the Obama administration not coherently stating their position in opposition to counter-claims. And that should be more worrying. Are they truly ignorant of the issues, or are they just inarticulate? Or do they not care and just use smoke and mirror techniques to win over the populace? (I guess my bias is apparent here.)

It would be best to understand Obama's position as openly hostile to free-market, private enterprise. He does not believe that those enterprises are productive or provide for prosperity for lower class Americans. So he is willing to replace them with either direct or indirect government control, or with leadership from the lower classes. What we see is the clear expression of liberal control of business that uses elements of both fascism and socialism, but cannot be defined as either. Pressuring Rick Wagoner to step down is indirect control by the government on private business, on the basis of "fairness," which takes its start from national corporatism which is a usual element of fascism. However, the push towards having UAW control majority voting representation is an obvious example of Obama's "fairness" doctrine taking from socialism.

Obama is Obama, and personally to place him in one political philosophy in wrong and gives him too much credit. I don't think he has a thought out agenda on how to shape the American economy, as most things he has proposed/done have looked ad hoc responses which benefit the lower middle class and punish large private entrepreneurs. (By his explanations of the policies, they also seem to come from a third party source as well, which is doubly concerning.) As in an article I read during the campaign, Obama's economic policies are neither supportive of wall street or main street. He is squarely at home on Sesame Street, where lives are simplistic (no coherent government appearance, either Socialism, Fascism, Democracy, or Republic) but there is an universal acceptance of right/wrong and looking out for your neighbor to the extent that they are placed on the same level as you. Perhaps the term "naive utopia" best describes it. American economic liberals, as I understand them, sees this as the goal to be achieved, and I believe they understand themselves as necessary evils to obtain this goal. Once we level the playing field, then our enlightened states of mind take hold, and government can dissolve, or at least lessen to the extent that it does not need to be seen on the national seen. That is where I see Obama falling.

And just to clarify, I don't see Bush, et al, upholding the banks, etc, as elements of fascism or socialism. Capitalism will allow temporary intrusion by the government to support the short term survival of markets. (Whether they needed to this time should have been debated, but oh well.) Bush's agenda seemed to follow in line with this, although aspects of it might be questioned.

I've got two words for you!

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:45:00 +0000

Mr. President? Georgetown University?

You both can suck it!

Speaking at a religious university in the first place might be conceived as controversial. Promoting the religion which the university stands for right? But then demanding that the university cover up references to Jesus? And then the university complying???

There's a special place in hell for those that deny the name Jesus I'm sure. But before going there, I hope the officials of GU and Mr. Obama realize that they WILL bow and profess that Jesus Christ is Lord and God!

Other stuff

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:17:00 +0000

Just wanted to say another couple of things. First, I wish to recognize the great legacy of John Madden who announced his retirement today. His commentary will be missed.

As well I'll just link to Fox's coverage of the horrible way the other "news" outlets have covered yesterday's tea parties. It was unprofessional and vulgar. To be either seems appropriate enough to kick personalities of CNN and MSNBC off the air for good. I'll note again that this behavior and toilet "humor" was first instigated by left-wing blogs, especially at KOS. It's sick, it's hateful, and while it can be tolerated as free speech, it should not be allowed on cable news programs in which one has the expectation of non-vulgarity or partisanship. As much as I can barely tolerate the FCC, they do sometimes work to protect us. In this case I'd like to see them say something. That is after all their job.

Clarity for last night's post

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:37:00 +0000

I don't know if the reason why I made the post last night really came through within the post itself. My comments were primarily motivated because of the discussion of succession from the United States. Now one can directly point to Governor Rick Perry's statements yesterday, but I never discount the actions of South Carolina. I've always thought the Gamecocks would succeed again if you just looked at them the wrong way.

Now this is deeply personal for me, because I have always felt like the Southern cause in the Civil War was never truly understood by the North, and especially by people today. I care, so I get very emotional when people discount the South as just being immoral slave owners. Insult a person's heritage and they get defensive. (The difference is of course is that one is not allowed to be proud of white culture.) But I can notice legal cases such as Texas v. White. I can care deeply and sympathize with Governor Perry. But I cannot agree that he was right to say that a state has the right to succeed.

So I have emotional ties to this entire talk of succession, but can be restrained by the law. Surely I am no different from John Adams and other great leaders of our nation. Actually, serious studies of Abraham Lincoln show him to be the same type: opposed slavery and wanted to see its spread stopped, but wasn't going to abolish it prior to 1862. Robert E. Lee, my personal hero, felt similarly. So ultimately we can differentiate the emotional cause from the legality of the situation. In fact, we must. This is not to say that there is a great moral issue operating behind the cause of the Civil War and today's issues.

The difference is that in 1861 the moral issue was racial subservience; the moral issue today is generational theft!

One can look at the founding documents and find reason to include the XIII Amendment which abolished slavery. Let us not forget that the Constitution is a protection of rights in two ways: the first is the voluntary relinquishing of rights to form a Republic and the second is a formal statement of the rights retained by the individual (i.e., Bill of Rights). The abolition of slavery is in accordance with the principles of the other founding documents. So the XIII Amendment is appropriate. All men and women are in fact free, and cannot be involuntarily put in subservience to another.

Now we can agree that it is the government's right and responsibility to collect taxes which fund government duties, but also extra spending by way of appropriation. But one can make the very good argument that when government spending is so abundant that it becomes abusive, it is then right to limit the powers of the government of appropriation. What should happen when the government spends the nation into so much debt that the current generation has no reasonable way of repaying back that debt? That issue is what the tea party protesters were gathered for yesterday. Is this a moral issue? Of course. But should this be a legal issue? I think it should be as well.

My thoughts are thus: It is unconstitutional to appropriate money to any point of debt without also including the reasonable way of paying for the appropriations. This is different from national security or paying for services rendered by our representatives-who should be rewarded appropriately for their services (whether by monetary compensation or incarceration). What this is coming down to how to define promotion of the general Welfare (welfare not being the socialistic program of government handouts of course) in the Preamble of the Constitution. What is done under the clause of promotion of the general Welfare should be better defined to protect the liberties and rights of the individual citizens, including (I believe) not spending such appropriation money as to send the country into generational debt. Paying back that debt is not in the interest (no pun) of the individual or event he general welfare of the nation. That's a huge point, and not one the courts would probably agree with. But that is the fundamental Constitutional argument going on here. And after all it must be the Constitution which protects us, so if we feel we need to be defended we must turn to the Constitution.

Economic Stimulus Package

josh.neikirk@gmail.com (Josh Neikirk) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:23:00 +0000

Looking For Group style!

Now that's shovel ready!

I love this comic... hahaha