Interesting

We translated Matthew 18 for Greek class tonight, and an issue arose that I was previously unaware of. In Matthew 18 Peter asks Jesus how many times he is to forgive his brother. Peter seems to suggest that forgiving his brother, 7 times at the most, would be adequate. Jesus responds by saying in verse 22: "I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven." (ESV)

The most common interpretation of this verse is that Christians are to forgive those who wrong them 490 times before they hold a brother's offense against them. The point that Jesus is making is that Christians are to forgive their brothers always. He uses a big number to communicate the fact that forgiveness is supposed to be the standard, not holding a grudge or taking revenge. Jesus was most definitely not saying that Christians should have a checklist and count the number of times that Christians forgive their brothers and sisters until they've reached 490. He's being overly dramatic. Because if you're counting the number of times you've forgiven someone, you haven't really forgiven.

The trick is that, in Greek, there is no way of expressing multiplication. The Greek in verse 22 literally reads "hebdomékontakis hepta." The first word means "seventy times" and the second word means "seven." In all other places where numbers are communicated in New Testament Greek, numbers in multiples of ten are communicated by saying "seventy and seven," which seems to be the case here. So the translation, "seventy times seven" (as in multiplication) is most likely not accurate. Rather, Jesus probably meant "seventy and (plus) seven" giving us a total of 77 times that a Christian should forgive his brothers.

Here's how some modern translations render the verse:

NIV: Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

NASB: Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.

ESV: Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.

KJV: Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

TNIV: Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

77 is a lot less than 490, but Jesus' point is the same: how many times should I forgive my brother? Answer: a lot of times. In fact, don't stop. Always forgive.

Even So, Come Lord Jesus

Pastor Wick and I once joked that the only people on earth who don't want Jesus to come back (aside from people who aren't Christians) are seminarians: we've invested so much into this educational process that we can't fathom not being able to complete it and use it in the ministerial world. While it's obviously tongue in cheek, there's some truth there. Seminary is a lot of work, and sometimes that work entails sitting in your seat, keeping your mouth shut, and putting up with the ridiculous crap you hear from your profs.

(Aside: as I typed that last sentence, the prof for this class just said, "I can't find a biblical model of marriage that I can get excited about.")

Well, I can safely say that I am once again looking forward to the return of Christ. In fact, if he would come back before I have to go to this ridiculous "Self in Community" class again next Thursday, that would be ideal.

So here's a prayer request: Lord, please come back for the sake of your glory (and my sanity), if at all possible, before 8:00 PM next Thursday. Amen.

A No Hitter!

Got to hear baseball history on the radio tonight. Francisco Liriano tossed a no-hitter against the hated Chicago White Sox.

I left Greek class at 6:58 tonight and got to my car by the time they announced the starting lineups. The Twins haven't been doing too well this year, and Liriano has been struggling in particular, so needless to say, I wasn't expecting much at the start of the game. After the Twins failed to do anything in the first inning, I remember being disgusted when Liriano walked the first White Sox hitter he faced. "Here we go," I thought to myself, expecting the White Sox to break it open in the first inning (as Liriano has been having a hard time not giving up runs in the first so far this year).

When I got home, the fam was playing out in the yard. I turned on the radio in the garage and left the door open so we could hear the game as we played. Beetz and I played catch while the kids went down the slide and played in the sandbox. By this time, Jason Kubel had hit a solo home run in the fourth inning to make it a 1-0 game. This would turn out to be the winning run.

I took a break from the game to put the kids to bed. We sang some songs and read some books, and then it was bed time. After this, I got my laundry ready and went downstairs to put it in the wash and to take a shower. A couple years ago I bought myself a small radio that I could listen to in the basement while I was working or doing whatever. I brought the radio into the bathroom with me and listened to the game while I showered.

After a shower and a shave, Liriano had made it through 6 innings without allowing a hit. I went upstairs to find the Mrs. watching "The Voice," so I picked up my computer and "watched" the game on mlb.com. One new feature they have on their "gameday" presentation is brief live video looks (which is really cool for those of us who don't have the option of watching the Twins games on TV). With two outs in the 7th inning they gave a live look into the game and I got to see Danny Valencia make an incredible play at third base to save the no-hitter. It was fantastic.

I told the Mrs. that if Liriano kept the no-no on into the ninth, we were turning the TV off and the radio on. She agreed. I called friends and family to make sure they were tuned in to potentially witness history.

The ninth inning came, and mlb.com broke into the video of the game live, so I got to both watch the ninth inning and hear Gordo call it (man, I'm going to miss him when he's gone). Gordo called the third out thusly, "And a liner right to Tolbert at short! He's done it! Liriano has done it! He has a no-hitter!" It was awesome.

The Twins are really stinking it up this year, but that's OK. I just love baseball. And to be able to see this was really cool.

My Thoughts on bin Laden's Death

Lots of posts on Facebook about the death of Osama bin Laden yesterday and today. Last night when the news broke, I don't think there was even one status update on my wall that didn't address the bin Laden situation. Most people expressed joy and elation when they heard that bin Laden had been killed. There was a lot of talk about how it had been a long time coming.

My own reaction was initially one of surprise. When I saw the flasher at the bottom of the TV screen (interrupting Celebrity Apprentice!) indicating that a special announcement from the president was coming up, I had no idea what it was. When I learned that bin Laden had been killed, I was initially really surprised. I didn't expect that to be the announcement.

My second reaction was one of gladness. I was glad that he was dead. I was glad that his reign of terror, so to speak, was over (although it will no doubt be carried on by countless thousands), and that lives will no doubt be spared as a result of his demise.

Some of my friends on Facebook posted scripture. I saw Proverbs 24.17-18 quoted a few times: "Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles, lest the LORD see it and be displeased, and turn away his anger from him." My pastor quoted Matthew 26.52: "...all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

All this got me thinking about how a Christian should respond to the death of a wicked person, such as Osama bin Laden. Should we rejoice? Should we be sorrowful? Should we say, "It's about time"? I don't think it's as simple as Proverbs 24.17-18. We need more theology than just what those verses offer in order to formulate a right response to the death of a wicked man like Osama bin Laden.

Then I stumbled on these two excellent pieces, one by John Piper, and one by Justin Holcomb of Mars Hill, Seattle. Both pieces masterfully bring out excellent biblical points on how God views the death of the wicked and how Christians should view the death of the wicked. I highly recommend them.

So how should a Christian respond to the death of Osama bin Laden? Here's what I think:

1) We should praise God that we haven't suffered the same fate. I mean this both in the physical and spiritual senses. I am every bit just as evil as Osama bin Laden. My heart was just as rotten, I had the same potential for unspeakable evil, and I deserved the same fate. But by God's grace, I did not fall into such wickedness, and, also by God's grace, I have been forgiven of my sin. Christ took for me the punishment that Osama bin Laden is experiencing at this very moment. So let's praise God that he extends grace to those who will receive it, and that he extends mercy.

2) We should long for the salvation of those who do not believe. The thought of anyone entering the eternal torment of hell should scare us. I don't want anyone to go to hell - not even Osama bin Laden. God is not willing that any should perish, but that all come to repentance and faith, and that includes bin Laden. But all those who do not come to faith will be judged. That alone should fuel our preaching endeavors.

3) We should be glad that God's justice and righteousness have been served. In sovereignly ordaining the death and judgment of bin Laden, God exercises his justice and righteousness. He punishes evil where it is found. He shows no favoritism. He remains faithful and true to who he is. This is good news.

4) We should be glad that God has removed such evil from the world. The Bible is full of examples of how God removes (or kills) people who are exceedingly wicked from their position, or even their life. Such removal can allow peace and justice to flourish. Let's pray that's the case with bin Laden's death.

5) We should not be glad that bin Laden is in hell (see #2).

6) We should not feel that bin Laden is getting what he deserves without remembering why we have not gotten what we deserved (see #1). Such thinking would be, I believe, judgmental and sinful.

7) We should not think that God vindictively killed bin Laden (see #3). God works within his justice and righteousness, not out of spite or vindictiveness.

Atheist Chaplains

Would you ever go to an atheist for spiritual council? Probably not. That, however, is what several atheists would like to see happen in the military.

This article reports that several atheists are lobbying to have atheist chaplains in the military to offer support to atheist troops. But, from what I understand, military chaplains don't necessarily counsel soldiers in their particular faith, but in the professed faith of the soldier seeking counseling. So how could an atheist chaplain council someone in his or her faith, if said atheist chaplain had no faith whatsoever? If it sounds like it doesn't make much sense, it doesn't.

The article goes on to say that the atheists want atheist chaplains in order to "win official acceptance in the military." The only problem with that is that atheists already have official acceptance in the military. How don't they? They aren't discriminated against for their lack of faith. Nor are they prohibited from any type of military service in any way as a result of their lack of faith.

What's really behind this is that the existence of atheist chaplains will allow atheist groups to be able to publicly promote their beliefs (or lack of beliefs) and distribute literature. So it has nothing to do with faith (obviously) but more of an abuse of the chaplaincy, if you ask me. If you just want to be a chaplain to get yourself out there, you shouldn't be a chaplain.

But what's interesting about this is that if atheists truly feel the need to promote their worldviews (and counsel those who adhere to them within the context of such a worldview) then their views, it seems to me, must be identified as a faith group. Any and all worldview of faith system is guided by principles of belief and not fact, making every worldview a matter of faith. And certainly atheists hold beliefs that others don't, even if they are beliefs that state that beliefs are useless and ignorant (and they are beliefs, and don't let anyone tell you different), so what they think and believe is unique to itself, making it a matter of faith. So if atheists want to be chaplains in order to promote their beliefs and to counsel fellow atheists, go for it. They just have to admit that their supposedly faithless way of seeing the world is actually brimming over with faith (just faith in nothing).