FHU Tuesday Lectures

Once again the first lecture I caught was chapel. I’m going to have to get the others on DVD or watch the podcast of the Loyd Auditorium lectures. It started off with the never ending announcements. One guy got up and introduced the speaker and mentioned that it is normally Billy Smith’s job. He is out because he had a stint put in a week or so ago. I should mention that this is the day when one of the seniors in the Bible Department speaks in chapel. They have all the Bible faculty and majors up on stage. It seemed really sparse. Just an eyeball estimate but it looks like their Bible department is way low on students compared to past years. The announcement was that this was done “to brag” about their Bible department and students. It was done in good taste to show how proud they are of their Bible program. He said that the speaker they choose is hard but it displays “The best and the brightest.”

The speakers name was Nathan Wolf. They had him and his family all stand up. I was sitting way up in the nose bleeds so I couldn’t really make him out well but he looked “older” for a college student. His text was John 5:36: “But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish—the very works that I do—testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me" (Jn 5:36). He was speaking on “Believe the works.”

I have to admit up front that I have to juggle two kids while I listen and try to take notes and remember what is said. I place that caveat in case some of my criticism is unwarranted as the speaker said something and I missed it. However, my overall feeling is that this was a completely blow opportunity to exegete John 5:36. Very little time was spent in John 5:36. The trust of this passage is that there is another “witness” (marturia) that Jesus is the Christ who should be believed so that the individual reader can have life (John 20:30-31). From my recollection this passage was never even mentioned and it’s the whole point of the book. No time was spent establishing the “marturia” of John (1:7, 19; 3:11, 32, 33; 5:31, 32, 34, 36; 8:13, 14, 17; 19:35; 21:24) and the word is used twice in this verse. Jesus mentions in this text that the Father “sent” (apostello) me. Apostello is very important in the theology of John to establish Jesus as the Christ that brings life, and yet no reference or development of Jesus being “sent.”

The last exegetical criticism I would like to address is the definition of “works” (ergon) in John 5:36. I was waiting for a quote from Bauer, and then maybe Thayer, or maybe even Vine. Better yet I was looking for a definition of works from John’s usage. Instead “works” was defined by quoting Adam Clark’s Commentary. You all know how I feel about commentaries already, but put on top of this ergon is defined by quoting a commentary. What’s really the tragedy is that Clark defines works as “miracles.” The rest of the lesson is developed around the miracles of Jesus. There is a big problem with this. Ergon is used a lot in John (3:19, 20, 21; 4:34; 5:20, 36; 6:28, 29; 7:3, 7, 21; 8:39, 41; 9:3, 4; 10:25, 32, 33, 37, 38; 14:10, 11, 12; 15:24; 17:4). What makes this so significant is that ergon is applied to non-miraculous events. John 3:19, for instance, mentions the works (ergon) of men are evil. He is not talking about miracles. In John 6:29 the text says, “This is the work of God, that you believe.” Is belief a miracle? I could say more but I think you get the point.

The whole presentation was pretty lifeless – no apparent passion for the message. There was a lack of emphasis, if any, upon “belief” which is the center of the Gospel. Put on top of this YET ANOTHER QUOTE from Will Barclay’s commentary! I’m being sarcastic here, but maybe we should just invite him to come speak (if he were alive). He stated a good question, albeit on a bad definition of works, “Why did Jesus come performing miracles?” This was going in the right direction. John says it was so we would believe and have life (John 20:30-31). Is this Freed Hardeman’s “best and brightest?” If so I’m worried about my generation of preachers.

UPDATE: I just got done listening to a lecture on the Muslim view of Jesus by Mark Hooper. Up to this point I do not believe I have ever heard or heard of him. If I heard correctly he has done mission work in India. His lecture was good. He talked about the positive aspects of the Muslim view of Jesus and then talked about how they deny the deity of Christ. It was very interesting hearing about his encounters with various Muslims. Good for what he was trying to do – introduce their views of Jesus. I found it interesting that Jesus is the only sinless prophet and that they believe in Christ return (the outcome is very different as you can imagine). At the end he took questions. One thing he said raise my eyebrows about Muslims not having to be called Christians. I’m not sure I followed so I won’t say much except I need to listen to it again.

UPDATE:
The next lecture I caught was by Jack P. Lewis on "does the wind blow or the spirit move." Like usual it was a very technical discussion as the topic calls for. When I sit down and listen to him speak I wonder what our brotherhood would look like without him. His deep appreciation for the text and that influence on his work is remarkable. He is a great scholar. To be able to say that I was able to hear Jack P. Lewis is going to mean something very special to me someday. In fact it means a lot now. As to the lecture he seemed really peppy for Jack P and even told some funny jokes. You have to love him.