One of the strengths of the Bachelor of Theology program at
Odessa Theological Seminary is that each student is required to write a final “Diploma
Work” and defend it before a panel of faculty and peers. The process is difficult and can be frightening. I had the privilege this year of being the
advisor to two students, Dima and Oleg. This
was a challenge to my Russian speaking ability; however we were able to
communicate well in our weekly interactions.
Thankfully, they both read English well so, through the year, I was able
to read their work in Russian and provide feedback in English. About 10 days ago they both defended their work
before their peers and a panel of faculty.
After working so hard together and seeing the great progress they both
made over the year, it was difficult to resist the urge to defend them during the
question and answer time. However, in this
case, resistance was not futile and they both produced a work to be proud of,
gave excellent presentations and did an excellent job answering questions. They needed not help from me defending their point
of view. Great job guys, I was a privilege
working through these texts together. You
have earned a good rest.
Below are excerpts of my comments from my recommendation of their work.
Dima Trei studied John 6.
He wanted to know specifically what Jesus meant by “Eating My flesh and drinking
my blood.” More specifically, is it
connected with communion and if not, what does He mean.
Comments:
 |
| Dima |
After the analysis Dima presents his arguments in three parts. First he presents the position that the
passage is a reference to the Eucharist.
He gives a summary of the position then uses the position of orthodox
theologian Георгий Чистяков as a test
case. Dima presents three arguments from
Чистяков
for the position that Jesus is making a reference to the Eucharist. In the next section, Dima counters each
argument and then presents at least four more of his own that explain why he
rejects the connection with the Eucharist.
This is one of the strongest sections of the paper. Dima makes good use of his historical and lexical
analysis to build solid arguments that come from the text itself. He makes an especially good argument against
the nuanced use of the words εσθιω and τρωγω. He shows how John clearly used them as
synonyms in John 13:18. This verse is a
quote from the LXX text of Psalm 40:10.
In LXX the word εσθιω is used. However, when John quotes it he uses the word
τρωγω
in the place of εσθιω. This is a very strong argument that John did
not use the words according to their nuanced meaning but as synonyms.
...After rejecting the Eucharist position, Dima present his own
point of view in his Theological Interaction.
Here he combines what he has learned from especially his historical,
lexical, rhetorical analysis to come to the conclusion that to eat the body of
Jesus and to drink the blood of Jesus is to believe in Him for spiritual life
in the same way you believe in real bread for physical life. He uses the inlcusio to divide the passage
into three parts. The first is the
exchange between Jesus and the Jews. In this
section, terms are being defined. The
Jews are talking on an economical level and Jesus on a spiritual. Next is the first inclusio (6:35-48). Dima calls this the key to understanding the
third metaphorical section. In summary,
in this section Jesus connects the idea of coming to Him in belief with hunger
and thirst. There are more nuances, but
Dima uses Jesus’ own words to explain the more difficult third section. The third section is the next inclusio
(6:49-59). This is where Jesus explains
similar ides using metaphorical language.
Dima connects the three sections to arrive at his conclusions and adds
more nuances about being one with Jesus and reasons why He used such shocking
language.
Oleg Yakavenko
Oleg studied Paul’s view of the atonement. He presented a range of ways Paul explained and
expressed Jesus’ work on the cross and then focused specifically on the term ιλαστεριον (hilasterion) in Romans
3:25.
 |
| Oleg |
…Next Oleg presents a solid grammatical analysis. This is the strongest section in the
work. Oleg deals especially well with
the problematic phrase δια πιστεως Ιησου Χριστου. He gives a clear presentation of the grammatical
nuances and how they influence the translation and meaning... In the rest of
his analysis he brings out the nuances of various grammatical structures.
The lexical analysis of ιλαστεριον is well done. Oleg follows a modified methodology from Gordon
Fee’s book. Along with other lexical
works, he makes good use of BAGD and Louw and Nide’s Semantic Domains. He presents the time period where the word
appears regularly. He shows its use in
non-biblical material, then moves on to the LXX and the New Testament. He ends with a range of meaning that includes
13 distinct uses. In his analysis of the
data he compares the reasoning mostly of Leon Morris, James Dodd and D.A.
Carson. In the end Oleg comes to the
conclusion that “propitiation” is the correct translation. He gives several reasons for this
decision. This is a solid lexical
analysis, but what is missing is this.
It could not see his though process that shows how he eliminated the
other 12 options. I think that would
have added a lot of richness to the analysis.
Oleg explains the thought process of Morris, Dodd and Carson but not his
own.
…Next Oleg gives his personal translation, a theological
interaction and some personal application and reflection. This is well developed and I especially enjoyed
his personal reflection. I think these
reflections would be especially effective in the sermon or Bible study. He shows how solid scholarship can have a
profound effect on the spiritual life of a person. Well done!
Solo Dei Gloria!
