A bit more context: Chapters 1-3
So the first idea has been established and subtly communicated - the “just man” is one who believes in the vision and prophetic promise of God. The vision and promise of God as it has been fulfilled thus far has happened via the God-Man who happens to be of the seed of David according to the flesh. Later, Paul will reaffirm that these promises are unquestionably and inextricably linked to his brethren, ethnic Jews (not spiritual ones). For now, however, Paul lets the idea simmer in simplicity: the righteous man believes what is true.
The second idea is that the proud man, whose soul is not upright, supresses truth in unrighteousness. The consequences of his supression of truth is described in detail by Paul. The ultimate end of the soul’s journey into darkness due to its resistance to truth and embracing of “the lie” is the gathering of men to one another to bolster their courage and boldness to continue in sin. They continue to practice all unrighteousness and approve of others who practice the same. This is what the Lord said to Habakkuk about the proud in Hab. 2:5 - that the proud man “gathers to himself all nations and heaps up for himself all peoples”.
He also, according to the Lord, “enlarges his desire as hell, and he is like death, and cannot be satisfied.” Paul gives his exposition on this passage by laying out the path of a proud man into the judgment and wrath of God. Compare, for example, Habbakuk 2:18-19 with Romans 1:18-23. Paul is establishing the common problem facing all men - pride and our innate desire to supress truth and go our own self-seeking way. In believing “the lie” we question the leadership and wisdom of God, succumbing to the temptation to establish our own solutions. Paul, however, will develop over the next two chapters just how deep the common problem facing Jew and Gentile alike runs.
In other words, the problem that all men have in common (pride) which leads to great wrath and judgment, is the same problem facing the Jew and the Gentile. None are exempt from the problem - there is no partiality in God related to judgment and wrath or glory and honor. Ethnicity is no inherent guarentee of either end; the only way for one to enjoy glory, honor, and peace (and avoiding wrath in the day of wrath) is to “work what is good”, or “obey the truth” as Paul states in Romans 2:7, 8 and 10. The Gentiles are able to discern what is good and what is true based on what is written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to their lawbreaking - even though they are ignorant of the law. The Jews who have the law are unable to keep it. None are righteous.
Thus, to this point, neither Jew nor Gentile can claim an inherent superiority over the other.
David
September 21st, 2007
Still more context: on with chapter 1
In Habakkuk’s case, God’s soveriegn leadership in the moment did not seem consistent with His character or His promises. The instrument of His judgment, Babylon, seemed more wicked and perverse than the people He was judging (the backslidden Israelites). Thus Habbakuk asks the Lord an honest question birthed from his struggle with this seeming theological dillema - and the Lord answers him in Habakuk 2. Paul, in laying out the progression of a man into darkness and hardness of heart in Romans 1:18-32, is actually building on the ideas God lays out for Habakkuk throughout that entire passage - not just one verse from Habakkuk. One could say that Paul, the skilled rabbi, is teaching the church of Rome what Habbakuk 2 is truly saying.
What is required of a man? According to the prophet Micah, the authentically Hebraic man was one who acted justly, loved mercy, and walked humbly with their God (Mic. 6:8). The Lord promises that such a man shall live by faith - or a firm, unshakable, and confident belief that believes that the vision of the Lord, yet for an appointed time, will speak and not lie. Thus the man of faith is willing to wait for that which will come and “not tarry” - another way to paraphrase what the Lord is saying in Habakkuk 2:3 is that God will surely avenge His elect who cry out to Him day and night speedily (Luke 18:7-8). The man of faith will pray and not lose heart, believing that the One who promised to bring true justice to the earth will surely come.
Thus the man of faith will not be shaken by the delay related to God’s answer to His promises. The “just” man or the authentically hebraic man, whom Habakkuk is sure will perish at the hands of the indescriminantly violent Chaldeans, will be saved and preserved by God. The issue at hand isn’t about God’s ability to preserve the righteous men of the land, but whether these righteous men would be able to retain their confidence in God’s ability to save them. Would they be shaken by the tenuous circumstances that threatened them? Or would they be confident in God’s leadership regardless of the outcome?
The Hebrews 11 “hall of faith” is populated by such men - those who believed that God would fulfill His promises beyond their deaths! For God, and for these great men, death was a “non-issue” related to His promises. For if they died before they came to pass, God was able to raise them from the dead at the appointed time to enjoy their fullfillment! Thus the man of faith loves and embraces truth - not allowing truth to be defined by present circumstance but with a living understanding (by grace) that the words and promises of God are that which is “more true.”
Thus Paul establishes two paths in laying the foundation of his premise: first, those who are called of Jesus Christ and called to be saints will see the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith - as significant promises to the Jews have been answered by God through the coming of a Jewish Messiah, significant promises related to the future salvation of everyone who believes will be answered as well. The righteous leadership of God is revealed through faith in the fulfilled promises as well as the future ones. Salvation, as defined in the book of Habbakuk, deals more with future deliverance from the unjust enemies of God more than it does present forgiveness from a sinful internal condition.
The power of believing in the reality of the past fulfillment of prophetic promises is that it bolsters our heart to believe in the reality of the future fulfillment of prophetic promises. For salvation is about more than what we are saved from, but it also involves what we are being saved into - in the case of Hebrews 11, the answer is a “heavenly country”. The ability to fully grasp the implications of past and future scriptural promises is partially knit to our connection with the Hebrew prophets who delivered those promises - which is why Paul affirms the divine order of Jew first, then the Gentile; and then he later affirms the value of the Jew within a congregation of believers related to his understanding of the scriptures in Romans 3:2.
In other words, Paul is subtly and diplomatically establishing a context for honor related to the Jew in a manner he will more clearly state and affirm in Romans 9:4.
David
September 21st, 2007
More context - Romans 1:
Once Paul takes on the challenge of addressing the relational crisis looming between the Jews and Gentiles of the church of Rome, he begins by bulding relational bridges and establishing commonality between both himself and his audience as well as with one another.
Thus, Chapter One begins with Paul establishing his identity, calling, and the scope of his ministry - all the nations of the earth are his concern and his “mission field”. He would not be one who was identified, for example, with Antioch (his home base), Jerusalem (his support-raising project), or Asia Minor (his primary ministry assignment to date). He wanted to establish himself as one who had a place to make his appeal. Thus he affirmed their global reputation and the manner in which God had knit his heart to them in prayer. He shared his desire to come and serve them personally. That which God has given him he had long desired to impart to them - not the least of which was the gospel itself.
Why would Paul speak about preaching the gospel to believers related to their salvation? The gospel, or the good news, as Paul defined it, was the very reason that Paul had been “separated” as a bondservant and an apostle - to proclaim that which had been promised long ago in the Hebrew scriptures by Hebrew prophets: the Jewish Messiah had come (or, as Paul reminds them in 1:3, the Son of God who was “born of the seed of David according to the flesh…”) and had been proven to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness - who raised Jesus from the dead. Paul, in his introductory statement, is making a subtle point - but it is one that he will hammer home in a shocking and powerful way in Romans 9:5:
The Son of God is a Jewish man.
This sentence is a critical part of the good news that Paul had been commisioned by God to preach - but more than that, to receive grace and authority from God to live out and display amongst the peoples of the earth the implications of this faith. The powerful truth of who Jesus is as the Christ has incredible implications for all peoples in every nation.
Belief in the gospel as Paul stated it has great power for all who believe unto salvation - thus the “order” of both its communication and the pattern of its emergence in Paul’s day matters - the truth came to the Jews first and then the Gentiles. Jews heard the message and believed first (and the Messiah came for the Jews), then Gentiles were allowed to enter into the promise of God related to salvation through faith in the righteousness of God. In Paul’s ministry, his pattern of preaching the gospel continued to honor the pattern that God established as He unveiled the New Covenant to all.
The righteousness of God is a critical issue related to the gospel. How do the two connect? How does the idea of God’s righteousness connect to the passage Paul is referencing in Habbakuk 2:4? The righteousness of God is revealed in the context of His leadership, specifically the manner in which He expresses both true justice and astonishing mercy related to the establishment of His promises. In other words, the character or “correctness” of Gods ways is proven by His justice and His mercy. His divine activities related to HIs dealings with men reveal to us His righteous character. Our faith, or confidence, in His leadership might be shaken however by the pressure of difficult circumstances. How do we interpret His current actions related to His future promises? Do we believe He is who He says He is, and that He will do what He says He is going to do?
David
September 21st, 2007
The context of the letter to the Roman Church
Paul had a formidable task on his hands. Word had come to him through his friends, Prisca and Aquila, that the re-integration of Messianic Jews into the church of Rome was not going well. They were looking to rejoin the believers that they had to leave behind during the reign of Claudius, whose edict of expulsion forced every Jew to leave the city. Thus Prisca and Aquila and all other believing Jews had to leave the Roman congregation they had helped pioneer years earlier, sometime shortly after Pentecost. Now, however, a new regime had been established - Nero had come into power over the Roman Empire. His reign had begun with a surprising fairness and stability for the empire, and as such the decree of expulsion had been reversed. Jews could re-enter the city. Thus the Jewish believers returned immediately, anxious to rejoin the “tender shoot” they had to abandon.
Thus one could imagine their surprise when they looked to re-integrate themselves into leadership and body life, only to find that the Gentile believers that had maintained the church while they were gone were not so happy to see them return. Simmering competetiveness and subtle divisiveness were fueled by attitudes each carried towards their believing brethren in Christ. Despite the unifying nature of the gospel, there was still a bit of an adjustment regarding how a Jew and a Gentile were to relate to one another in this New Covenant reality. Who took the prominant roles? Which requirements of the law applied? The Jerusalem Council had answered some of those questions definatively; but practically, how could two seemingly culturally incompatible groups co-exist?
This was the question Paul set out to answer. As word reached him in Corinth about the problems facing the Roman congregation, his heart ached for both Jew and Gentile. As a Jew, he understood the attitudes and frustrations his ethnic brethren felt related to the difficult task of integrating ignorant, pagan (but sincere and hungry) Gentiles into their lives. Now, one could imagine new frustrations these Jewish believers faced when seeking to re-integrate themselves into their own congregation. Gentile attitudes towards them were not helpful in the process, to day the least - but their own reactionary pride was only adding fuel to the fire. Yet Paul was also “the Apostle to the Gentiles,” and unique amongst his brethren was his understanding and revelation of the critical Gentile role in the body of Christ and the plans of Jesus. Paul was, then, uniquely equipped to speak to a problem that threatened the believers in Rome but also had implications for the entire body of Christ.
There was, however, one great difficulty for Paul. He did not have any direct apostolic authority over the church of Rome. He did not plant or establish the church, nor had he related to that group of believers directly and thus hardly had a clear “bridge” to speak authoritatively into the situation. Yes, he was unique among the apostolic leadership at the time related to his background and calling from the Lord - but he could not (and rarely ever) use his apostolic authority to heavy-handedly call the Roman church to a stern corrective. Even with a church that he had a great measure of apostolic authority and relationship with, the church of Corinth, such an approach did not go well with Gentiles. Thus care and measured laguage was needed.
And so it was that Paul penned the letter to the Roman church. It is one of the most carefully constructed arguments in history, considered by experts in theology, rhetoric, and law to be a masterpiece of rhetorical genius and Paul’s finest work. It is studied in various arenas and fields of communication as one of our prime examples of how to communicate ideas in a way that sways and wins an audience. It is one of the longest letters ever preserved from antiquity. It cost Paul much to put all of those ideas, carefully constructed, onto the costly parchment of the day. Yet the central issue was too critical to Jewish and Gentile believers alike to give any less attention and care to the matter.
And the central issue, as we shall see, is found in one chapter of the book. Romans 11 is the centerpiece of the whole letter and contains the purpose for which Paul penned it. Every chapter in the book leads up to his thesis statement - it takes Paul 10 carefully worded, delicate chapters to come to his point. It took a few sentences to the Galatians and Corinthians before Paul came to his point - but this seasoned, mature apostle at the height of his skill knows to take his time with the Gentile Romans. Thus he sets his rhetorical trap with incredible skill and grace, only letting the snare of it take hold when he is sure that he has won his audience over to his paradigm of thought. It is, then, my contention that Romans 11 is in our day one of the most critical chapters in the Bible for the predominantly Gentile church. We must labor together to understand both the chapter and what is at stake that we might walk into the full purposes of God for us at this time in history.
David
September 21st, 2007
I may be really, really tired today as I wrestle with God in the place of prayer - but I can still look forward to the day in which I will never be tired again.
I’ll never hunger or thirst (for natural food or drink) though I will enjoy both much, much more than I can now.
I’ll never need rest or sleep. I won’t have to streatch for an hour before I participate in any kind of semi-athletic ability. Like, for example, walking. Or pacing.
The tiredness I feel today will feel so distant and odd a billion years from now.
I’ll never worry about getting hurt, and I’ll never have to watch my weight. I’ll never get sick.
I’ll never have to think about prescription drugs and the cost of health insurance. I’ll never have to worry about my teeth falling out, nor will male-pattern baldness ever pop up in any conversation I have.
Of course, I’m hoping that the last point remains true for the next few decades on this side of things - but that’s neither here nor there in the context of what I am thinking about today.
David
September 13th, 2007
Since we’re having so much fun over the last amillennial offering, I’m throwing out another proverbial sacrificial lamb for you all. It may be slightly unfair to say this, but I have noticed that when I dialogue with amillennial thinkers they tend to stay conceptual rather than exegetical. In other words, there are powerful and compelling arguments that make an amillennial viewpoint seem appealing.
This is related to the seeming scarcity of New Testament evidence of a literal thousand-year time period (beyond the passage that mentions it six times). However, in my opinion, the “appeal” of the concepts behind amillennial thinking leave me behind when it comes time for an actual scriptural examination of some of the prophetic passages, such as the following, by another gentleman from the bibleforums(.org):
Rev. 9:1-11,”And the 5th angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key to the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented 5 months: and their torment was the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man. And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.
And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns of gold, and there faces were as faces of men. And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.
And they had brestplates, as it were brestplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle. And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men 5 months.
And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue his name is Apollyon.”
The 5th Trumpet plague represents addictions. The emphasis here is mine. I just wanted to highlight the key phrase - let the reader understand.
Now, of course those who subscribe to the literal interpretation school will not make any sense out of what I’m saying but this thread is not for them.
This judgement (5th Trumpet) is the result of those who instead of worshipping God worship ‘The Beast’ or Modern Man, who arises and attempts to take the place of God.
In Dan. 3:5 King Nebuchnezzer sets up a statue which all men must worship or be thrown into a firey furnace. Those in this day who worship the image of ‘modern man’ and forsake God fall prey to these ‘locusts’.
The language is symbolic: Locusts - because there is a bewildering onslaught of them, they don’t obey any geographic boundary, and they ’swarm’ as you will in a time when one is most susceptible to them.
These addictions make man prey to his base instincts, rather than ‘reason’ or self-control, they make him slave to his passions. They harm men, not God’s creation; this tells you that the meaning is symbolic as no locust feeds on the souls of men. They torment man, not kill him. The desire of a man(or woman) who is in bondage to drugs, alcohol, etc., is to want death, but death escapes him- unless the person overdoses or engages in some behavior which endangers himself-it’s not the substance that did it but the individual.
Horses prepared for battle describes their tenacity, one who engages in addictive behavior has a severe struggle on their hands. The crowns of gold represent the authority they have; so much so that people engaged in addictive behavior are treated as if they are ‘diseased’ and will carry this ’sickness’ for life. The faces of men represent the desires of men; the excuse that every addicted person makes is that ‘I’m normal, it’s only natural’, the face they see is the face of themselves-except distorted and out of control.
The hair of gold is that the behavior or substance is desirable: tell your kids the effect of smoking is the same as inhaling the contents of a dirty ashtray(or worse, because the ashes are still lit) and they will cringe-and yet Joe Camel puts on a white suit and a red bowtie(warning label and all), and your teens are on the path to a life-long habit. This explains the teeth of the lions-they don’t give up their prey.
The brestplates represent the immunity that these addictions have from any reason, common sense, whatever. And they are noisy, demanding constant attention from the person that they inflict.
Lastly, they have tails like scopions, and their sting is in their tails. Any one who has ever suffered the effect of addictive behavior knows that it is not when the ’stinger’ is in, but when the stinger is pulled out is when the most suffering is had. Withdrawls, ‘DT’s’ - whatever you want to call it, it is the absense of the addictive behavior or substance which drives men mad.
Everywhere in the world now the effects of addictions are felt-in epic proportions. As trends they ebb and flow, giving men opportunity to repent; then returning in greater tenacity. Why do we have the ‘War on Drugs?’ Or ‘Mother’s Against Drunk Driving’? Or the ‘Pace’ program that our school kids are exposed to? The 12 Step programs?
The Blood of the Lamb is the only suitable remedy for this plague. And those that have gone through it(as I have) know that this is all the remedy that’s needed.
So, I ask again - does this sound like a reasonable exegesis of Revelation 9 and the fifth trumpet?
David
September 5th, 2007
If you’re not involved in the discussion involving amillennial ideas and their implications, you probably missed this link, from the one and only Matthew Burnett, who sent me a fantastic link to this MSNBC article as well as the following poll:
| Do you think a ninja could defeat a whole passel of Shaolin Temple kung fu-fighting monks? * 13968 responses |
|
|
|
|
I am sure that your vote would be option three, as mine was. I, for one, was more stunned that 14,000 people still read MSNBC.
David
September 1st, 2007
As you may or may not remember, I moonlight as a moderator of bibleforums.org under the psuedonym “the rookie.” I jumped in a year and a half ago to sharpen my dialogue on the end-times with those who don’t agree with me, mostly because I spend my days talking about the end-times with either a.) those who really, really agree with me or b.) those who have no idea what I am talking about. So, I spent many, many hours talking through interpretations of scripture like this one, from a very intelligent, sharp young pastor from Upstate NY:
Here’s my brief take on chapter 14 (I’m an amillennialist & partial preterist)…
Chapter 14 is, perhaps, one of the most difficult chapters in all of Scripture to interpret. Once again 2 major camps emerge. The first considers this a prophecy of the yet future second coming of Christ. The second considers this further description of 1st century events. Most probably fall somewhere in between, interpreting it with a blend of preterism and futurism.
The camp that sees this as the Second Coming argues that the language utilized could only speak of end-of-the-world events (’the Lord is coming,’ ‘all the nations,’ ‘the Lord will go out and fight,’ ‘His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives,’ etc). The second camp, however, argues that this is common apocalyptic language and need not be interpreted in such a wooden literal manner. The ‘coming’ referred to need not be a ‘bodily’ coming. The Roman Empire could be spoken of as encompassing ‘all the nations.’ The presence of God on the Mount of Olives was symbolic for His exit from Jerusalem (Ezekiel 11:23). I, personally, am inclined toward agreement with the latter (preterist) camp.
If the preterist interpretation is correct, then chapter 14 is a prophecy of AD70. All the nations (the Roman Empire) came to fight against Jerusalem. The city was severely defeated (2) leaving half of the survivors exiled. God, who had protected Jerusalem during the Maccabean period, now removed His presence from the temple and city and resided, so to speak, on the Mount of Olives to watch His sovereign Judgment (like He had when Babylon destroyed Jerusalem, Ezekiel 11:23).
Some, however, would remain part of Jerusalem, but, according to this interpretation, in a new way. No longer would they be part of a physical Jerusalem (no longer possible seeing as how it is utterly defeated), but they were now part of a spiritual Jerusalem (the city of God’s people, the church). They would have access to living water (not literal water, but the Holy Spirit, see John 7:37-39). They would be part of the eternal Kingdom of God, a Kingdom that would remain secure forever. Subsequently, many enemies of the new Jerusalem would attack, but none would prevail against it. In fact, many of the enemies (gentiles) will become citizens of the new Jerusalem. In this kingdom, even the most mundane objects will be holy to the Lord. This seems to be a beautiful prophetic image of the church.
So, what do you think? Sound reasonable? I spent a year and lots of long hours trying to talk these passages through. The medium serves to sharpen your own understanding but is fairly hopeless when it comes to convincing others of the validity of your view. Something about the weakness of wise and persuasive words…
I’d love to hear your thoughts, though, if you feel so inclined.
David
August 28th, 2007
In this final section of our “Hosea diversion”, the beauty of God expressed through His incredible love for us comes to an incredible conclusion. What God expresses and declares, Hosea demonstrates in the natural realm in regards to the way he loves Gomer. Hosea’s love is expressed in a manner that treasures, honors, values, and delights in one so recently rescued from a life of prostitution and darkness. In loving her in such a holy manner, Hosea is able to establish true confidence and dignity in her heart as she learns to receive true, godly love. As such Hosea expresses the love of her Father in heaven before He demonstrates the love of a husband in leading and caring for her.
This kind of tender, protective, and fraternal love nurtures and frees her heart to receive and enjoy deeper expressions of love and walk in true bridal partnership with her husband. It is an incredible display of the leadership of the Lord related to the brokenness and woundedness of a heart caught in the snare of shame and sin. Hosea, then, becomes more than a prophet - but functions as a prophetic type or foreshadowing of the One who would come in the flesh and demonstrate love for us in a manner that would serve humanity significantly. Through the ministry of Christ demonstrating the Father’s love as a Bridegroom to the church, we have a means of connecting our understanding to transcendent, holy love.
In other words, what Hosea does for Gomer, Christ would eventually do for the whole body of Christ. The way that He loves us reveals the Father and helps us understand what that Father is truly like.
Hosea 3:1-5 – Hosea’s demonstration of the impact of Bridal love on the heart
What God promises related to the wisdom and superiority of His leadership is demonstrated for all of the peoples by Hosea. He tenderly loves and encourages his wife after pursuing her and buying her back. His devotion and loyalty is a prophetic picture of God’s pursuit and devotion to this apostate people – they are more than backslidden, but fully given over to another lover.
He will not be intimate with her immediately nor will he fully exercise the authority of his “title” as a husband – because she is too tender and weak at the beginning stages of her “deliverance” from the other lover. Gomer still cannot make the distinction between “husband” and “master” and thus is not able to rightly interpret even the intimacy of Hosea rightly. Thus he withholds intimacy to give her time to trust him with deep confidence and understanding. She must be gently and tenderly brought to the place of intimacy without shame, or intimacy rightly received – not as a possession to be used but as a friend to be enjoyed.
Thus, over time, she will grow in confidence and true love and devotion for Hosea, and once she does she will be able to accept and enjoy his leadership and his “rules” for the household. Hosea must lead her gently so that she voluntarily submits with confidence rather than gritting her teeth and resenting – love must be about the man not the money. In the same manner God wants to bring His people to a place where relationship flows from authentic love, devotion, and understanding – so that we would be able to place the “price” of His love and devotion in its right context and not make that price the terms of our relationship.
In the same manner, God has a chosen, anointed King to set over them in leadership – and His desire is that they would hunger and thirst for this King and actively seek Him out rather than submitting without understanding because of unenlightened obligation. “Rules without relationship equals rebellion” – and the rules are too critical to their health and well being for them to simply abide by them out of a misplaced sense of obligation and duty. God wants a people who will wholeheartedly pursue the “rules” and His ways because they fully believe that they are the wisest way to live, love, and become alive on the inside. This is the promise of God to Israel in Hosea 3:5.
Later this week, we will return to the throne room and take in the Jasper-like beauty of the God who dwells in unapproachable light.
David
August 27th, 2007
Just last Sunday night, fourteen hard-core intercessors gathered at the Blanc Spot and spent the evening engaged in rigorous warfare over selecting 182 participants of the National Football League.
That’s right - we had our annual fantasy football draft.
It’s something that we’ve been doing annually now for five years running. We started years ago with myself, Joel Sorge, Nate Rogers, Brent Steeno, Aaron Walsh, Tommy Hood, Jeremiah Gim, Clay Edwards, Kyle Scott, Zack Hensley, Nate Mosack, and someone else whose name will come to me sometime later. I’d hate to be that guy. We crammed into the little Onething Internship office on a Friday night and spent hours picking key football guys that would allow us to exert major dominance over our fellow brothers. Zack picked the Tampa Bay defense in the first round. We still bring that debacle up every year. If you ever have been involved with Fantasy Football, you know why.
Last year a bunch of first-timers jumped in due to the absence of many of the long-timers. All 12 guys came back this year, and we added two more for good measure. Shawn Blanc, our host and keeper of the entry fee, put that entry fee to brilliant use with food that destroyed every football gathering I’ve ever attended. Shawn is my new draft-hosting hero. This year, Jared Diehl (for those of you that follow the Ruckus Journal) joined and Nate Rogers re-joined. Jared, at my suggestion, mostly yelled “David Beckham! Bla-ow!” loudly and randomly every once in awhile to keep us on our toes.
The Daywatch Division is represented by Wes Martin, myself, Joel Sorge, Brent Steeno, Nate Rogers, Ian Rutherford, and the aforementioned Shawn Blanc. TheNightwatch Division sports Zack Hensley, Kyle Gebhart, the ever-dangerous Jared Diehl, Sutton Miller, Jason Wenth, Ben Wood, and Jonathan Ramos. The fact that half those guys aren’t even on the Nightwatch doesn’t really phase us one bit. We do have a good percentage of our IHOP-KC wordcasting community represented, however. So I’ll be sure to let you know how completely I dominate them all.
In case you’re interested - which I can’t imagine you would either be a.) interested or b.) still reading at this point - but if you made it this far, than you may want to know a few facts about our little league:
1. This year’s defending champ is Wes Martin; he took the crown from the surprising Jason Wenth who came out of nowhere the year before. Jason, of course, dethroned the fantasy football maestro, the one and only, well, me.
2. Zack Hensley has never won. Never. He came closest last year, and then disintegrated down the stretch faster than Fred Taylor’s hamstrings.
3. It is fairly certain that I will regain my crown this year. That statement may mean absolutely nothing to most of you, but I tell you that it means almost nothing to me. So there.
I’ll throw updates out there for the interested every so often. You can check out our league here.
David
August 24th, 2007
Next Posts
Previous Posts
