Category Archives: Theology

Review of Biblical Literature – 10/13/2008

Edward Adams
The Stars Will Fall from Heaven: Cosmic Catastrophe in the New Testament and Its World
Reviewed by Lorenzo DiTommaso

William Sanger Campbell
The “We” Passages in the Acts of the Apostles: The Narrator as Narrative Character
Reviewed by Jean-François Racine

Andrew D. Clarke
A Pauline Theology of Church Leadership
Reviewed by Stephan Joubert

Benjamin Fiore
The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy, and Titus
Reviewed by Korinna Zamfir

Bas ter Haar Romeny, ed.
The Peshitta: Its Use in Literature and Liturgy: Papers Read at the Third Peshitta Symposium
Reviewed by Robert A. Kitchen

Daniel Hillel
The Natural History of the Bible: An Environmental Exploration of the Hebrew Scriptures
Reviewed by Norman Habel

Werner G. Jeanrond and Andrew D. H. Mayes, eds.
Recognising the Margins: Developments in Biblical and Theological Studies
Reviewed by Peter R. Rodgers

Matthew Levering
Ezra and Nehemiah
Reviewed by Ralph W. Klein

R. J. R. Plant
Good Figs, Bad Figs: Judicial Differentiation in the Book of Jeremiah
Reviewed by Mark Brummitt

Fernando F. Segovia and R. S. Sugirtharajah, eds.
A Postcolonial Commentary on the New Testament Writings
Reviewed by Jonathan A. Draper
Reviewed by Hans Leander

Robert B. Stewart, ed.
Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse in Dialogue
Reviewed by Christopher Heard

Ilse Wegner
Eine Einführung in die hurritische Sprache
Reviewed by Ignacio Marquez Rowe

Stephen Westerholm
Understanding Matthew: The Early Christian Worldview of the First Gospel
Reviewed by David C. Sim

Battle for the Beginning MP3 Audio by John MacArthur

Brian says:

John MacArthur‘s podcast on oneplace.com recently featured a series of talks entitled: The Battle for the Beginning. Although not reflecting the complete content of his series, this 20 part podcast covers the main material of his view of the Genesis creation narrative. Contrast his young-earth view with William Lane Craig‘s old-earth view (available on his podcast as well) in order to have a firm grasp of both angles. I found both the young-earth view and old-earth views very informative.

This batch will also be added to The Ultimate Apologetics MP3 Audio Page.

Part 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |

12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20

Enjoy.

The Law and Laws: A Biblical Overview

The above article is something worth reading if you are interested in understanding the use of the Law in Scripture and how it applies to us today. Here is an excerpt:

I. Introduction

Paul says in Romans 7:14 that “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.” Our attitude towards God’s law ought to mimic the Apostle Paul’s positive attitude. A very important interpretive principle should guide and direct our understanding and our application of God’s law to our lives and the lives of others, a principle that is often neglected or dismissed in this day and age: the principle of periodicity.

The Princeton scholar, Geerhardus Vos, summed this up well at the beginning of his book on Biblical Theology by stating:

  • The method of Biblical Theology is in the main determined by the principle of historic progression. Hence the division of the course of revelation into certain periods. Whatever may be the modern tendency towards eliminating the principle of periodicity from historical science, it remains certain that God in the unfolding of revelation has regularly employed this principle. From this it follows that the periods should not be determined at random, or according to subjective preference, but in strict agreement with the lines of cleavage drawn by revelation itself. The Bible is, as it were, conscious of its own organism; it feels, what we cannot always say of ourselves, its own anatomy. The principle of successive Berith-makings (Covenant-makings), as marking the introduction of new periods, plays a large role in this, and should be carefully heeded.

Therefore, one of the foundational principles of correctly interpreting the Scriptures is that one respects and listens to the covenantal context of any given passage in Scripture when the meaning is being interpreted and application is made. To better understand the law, one must apply the principle of periodicity in studying the function of the law in the pre-fall, post-fall, and New Testament eras.

II. The Principle of Periodicity and the Pre-Fall era

First, in the Garden of Eden, Adam was under a covenant of works: there was law. The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) states, “God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience . . .” (19.1). In that garden the tree of life and the testing tree of the knowledge of good and evil contained the seeds of the gospel. The tree of life was essentially a symbol of the best life that awaited Adam if he were to pass his probation in that garden. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil signified the law because it was given as a “trial of obedience and by sin (no less than that) [was] made the occasion of death and the minister of condemnation.”

Recognizing the role and application of the law as conditioned by the covenantal context is especially important in the differences evidenced between the pre-fall situation and that situation following the fall of mankind. For example, works play a fundamentally different role in the pre-fall covenant, a covenant of works, than they do in the post-fall covenantal period, in the covenant of grace. In the pre-fall covenant, works function as a condition of acquiring life; in the post-fall covenant they follow the act of justification and demonstrate that one has life in the Son.

Let’s now turn our attention to the periods after the fall…

[Continue Reading]

2008 National Desiring God Conference

The Power of Words and the Wonder of God

All the video from the conference is now online:

You can also read Dr. Piper’s message here. Abraham Piper provides this summary for us:

The way we talk can undercut the cross. This much is clear in 1 Corinthians (1:17; 2:1). But does all eloquence minimize the gospel? Does the pursuit of verbal impact necessarily preempt the power of Christ?

Both George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards were eloquent, each in his own way. Did this “empty the cross of its power”? More than that, the Bible itself contains many portions that are nothing less than eloquent. How do we make sense of this?

A pointer is found in the context of 1 Corinthians. Here Paul makes clear that there is a kind of eloquence that exalts self and therefore cripples the cross. But this isn’t the only brand of eloquence. There’s another kind, a distinctly Christian eloquence, that humbles self and exalts Christ.

Our eloquence will never be the determining factor in causing someone to believe the gospel, but it still makes a difference. We can hope for at least 5 benefits from Christian eloquence:

  1. keeping interest
  2. gaining sympathy
  3. awakening sensitivity
  4. speaking memorably
  5. increasing power

[HT: Abraham Piper]

The N.T. Wright Project

Some students from Princton Theological Seminary have started a research project for the purpose of studying the foundational works of theology by N.T. Wright. Here is their description of the project:

Rarely in the course of our seminary study do we have the opportunity to study theologians whose work is currently transforming the life of the church. Tom Wright is one such theologian, and a small group of us at Princeton Theological Seminary, together with one of our professors, Ross Wagner, have decided to spend this semester immersed in Wright’s work. We hope to carefully read some of his most foundational writings and to engage each other through this blog on the issues and ideas which emerge from this study. From time to time we will have guest authors from a wide spectrum contribute, and we also invite those of you in church, parachurch, or seminary communities to read and respond to our blog posts as a way of keeping this project closely grounded in the church today. Welcome and enjoy!

I encourage everyone to keep up with this blog, especially if you don’t have the ability to read Bishop Wright’s works in full by yourself. These students will be summarizing and analysing and discussing much of what he has written and I think we will all benefit from their work. May God bless this project!

LORD, Language, & Liturgy

Pastor Jeff Meyers, over at Corrigenda Denuo, has posted three very helpful articles (12 points in all) on the topic of the Hebrew name for God, Yahweh. This is a very interesting subject to me and I encourage you all to read it and consider what he has to say about it. I would tend to agree that there is no reason we should keep translating the word “LORD” or “Lord” when that is not specifically what the name means. Yahweh is not simply a title, as “Lord” or “LORD” is. It is God’s covenant name and we need to recognize that when we study, teach, and worship the Triune God with that name.

Here are the articles:

Lord, Language, & Liturgy – Part I
Lord, Language, & Liturgy – Part II
Lord, Language, & Liturgy – Part III

Here is a good excerpt regarding what I mentioned above:

1. Yahweh was given to Israel as God’s “memorial name” (Exod. 3:15). This personal name of God was revealed to Israel so that they might use it in prayer and thus remind God of his covenant so he would act for them. God’s personal name for Israel was not “Lord” but “Yahweh.” As Psalm 20 says, “Some trust in chariots and some in horses but we will memorialize the name of Yahweh our God.” The name of the God of Israel was not “Lord” or “LORD” but Yahweh. They were to call on God to remember (that’s what “memorialize” means) his covenant by using the name he gave them for that purpose. I should say here also that all the gnostic theologizing about what this name really “means” is a distraction. Yahweh is not a “term” that refers to something else, like God’s infinite majesty or whatever. Yahweh is a concrete name given to the Israelites to use, to call out in prayer and praise in their worship.

2. “Lord” is a title not a name. You can make the word “Lord” into all caps, italicize it, bold it, or whatever, but that doesn’t change the fact that it means “Master” or “Sir” and is not a name, certainly not God’s revealed personal name. So when one translates passages like “Let them praise the name of Yahweh” as “Let them praise the name of the LORD” you muck up the meaning badly. In fact, this is not really a translation at all but an altering of the text for some external purpose. God’s revealed name in the Hebrew Scriptures is not “Lord” or “LORD” but Yahweh.

3. The abbreviation YAH is not replaced with LORD in our English translations. We still say and sing “hallelujah,” which means “praise Yah[weh].” Why don’t we sing “hallelu-LORD”? Silly, you say? Just as silly as replacing YHWH with Lord. If saying the whole name is so spiritually hazardous, why isn’t saying part of the name just as dangerous? But YAH was not even replaced by superstitious Jews who refused to say the whole name for fear of judgment. In addition to Hallelujah we still have all the proper names that include Yahweh in them, like Joshua (Heb: Yah-shua – “Yahweh saves”). The best we can say is this is inconsistent; the worst is that it’s evidence of how stupid this superstitious avoidance of the name Yahweh really was and is.

4. Later Jews superstitiously refused to vocalize the name. I’ll get to when this happened in a moment. But the practice of replacing Yahweh with Lord was an act of rebellion, pure and simple. God gave this name for the Jews to use in memorial prayers, Psalms, and worship. Not using it means that they thought they were wiser than God. This is part and parcel with the Pharisaical “fencing of the law.” In order to avoid transgressing the 3rd Word (“taking the name of Yahweh in vain”) the wily Pharisaical Jews decided to just avoid the word altogether. And we want to follow that tradition?

American News Media: “Americans are Stupid”

If there’s anything that I come away with tonight regarding the third and final Presidential debate, it is this: The national news media outlets have told, more clearly than ever, that the American people are stupid and scared and that they will end up electing the candidate who can speak with the most eloquence and stay the calmest during a debate.

“As long as you look ‘presidential’ then we think you are going to win!”

That is basically what I heard every single news outlet and media pundit say tonight after the debate. But are they right? Is the fact that so many of us are facing uncertain times and wondering about job security and retirement going to dictate that the majority of States elect a president who presents himself the best and talks a good talk and says he walks a good walk?

Honestly, I don’t know… I’m sitting here writing this and I’m wondering how so many people could be in favor of giving all three sectors of elected government over to the control of the Democratic party this coming November? I’m sitting here wondering if I will actually be able to blog about these things in just a few years time if the Internet becomes regulated and our freedom of speech is taken away from us by an unchecked liberal ideology that “scared” people decided to give control of their lives over to one early November day in 2008?

The liberals in this world are not interested in free speech unless it benefits them. They are not interested in freedom unless it’s the way they say things should be. This is why an Obama Presidency will be one of the most uncertain times that America will have ever had to face. If the Senate and the Congress decide to roll out all the party favors with a Democratic President who will sign things into being… what it there to stop this country from having its foundation of freedom destroyed and the most socialistic laws implemented in its history? Remember, the Constitution is only a force if you have “checks and balances.” But when all the means are controlled by one ideological center that wants to enforce its rule of law on everyone… then no old piece of paper will make a difference anymore than rotting crap will be avoided by people who could care less about cleaning it up.

Well, enough of my lamenting… Because I do have hope… And it’s NOT in this country called America. I have hope that one day, no matter what may come in the near future to American politics, I will inherit a New Heavens and a New Earth where righteousness dwells and suffering and sin are no more! Through the power of God’s Spirit I can accept whatever His sovereign hand will bring me and I can press forward toward the upward goal of knowing Christ Jesus, the true Lord and Ruler of this world! Because of His Kingdom and His Rule at the right hand of the living God, I can rest in His promise that He is making all things new. Even though I may one day lose my freedoms that have been so good to have in this amazing country, I will still bless the name of Yahweh and I will always proclaim… Maranatha, Lord Jesus! Maranatha!

“For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.” (Romans 11:36)

In Christ and In Defense of the Faith,
Glenn Jones

The Trinitarian Love of God

From John Owen’s Christologia

No small part of the eternal blessedness of the holy God consisteth in the mutual love of the Father and the Son, by the Spirit. As he is the only-begotten of the Father, he is the first, necessary, adequate, complete object of the whole love of the Father. Hence he says of himself, that from eternity he was “by him, as one brought up with him: and was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him,” Proverbs 8:30 – which place was opened before. In him was the ineffable, eternal, unchangeable delight and complacency of the Father, as the full object of his love. The same is expressed in that description of him, John 1:18, “The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.” His being the only-begotten Son declares his eternal relation unto the person of the Father, of whom he was begotten in the entire communication of the whole divine nature. Hereon he is in the bosom of the Father – in the eternal embraces of his love, as his only-begotten Son. The Father loves, and cannot but love, his own nature and essential image in him.

Herein originally is God love: “For God is love,” 1 John 4:8. This is the fountain and prototype of all love, as being eternal and necessary. All other acts of love are in God but emanations from hence, and effects of it. As he does good because he is good, so he loveth because he is love. He is love eternally and necessarily in this love of the Son; and all other workings of love are but acts of his will, whereby somewhat of it is outwardly expressed. And all love in the creation was introduced from this fountain, to give a shadow and resemblance of it.

Love is that which contemplative men have always almost adored. Many things have they spoken to evince it to be the light, life, lustre and glory of the whole creation. But the original and pattern of it was always hid from the wisest philosophers of old. Something they reached after about God’s love unto himself, with rest and complacency in his own infinite excellencies; but of this ineffable mutual love of the Father and the Son, both in and by that Spirit which proceeds from them both, they had neither apprehension nor conjecture. Yet, as herein does the principal part (if we may so speak) of the blessedness of the holy God consist, so is it the only fountain and prototype of all that is truly called love; – a blessing and glory which the creation had never been made partaker of, but only to express, according to the capacity of their several natures, this infinite and eternal love of God! For God’s love of himself – which is natural and necessary unto the Divine Being – consists in the mutual complacency of the Father and the Son by the Spirit. And it was to express himself, that God made any thing without himself. He made the heavens and the earth to express his being, goodness, and power. He created man “in his own image,” to express his holiness and righteousness; and he implanted love in our natures to express this eternal mutual love of the holy persons of the Trinity. But we must leave it under the veil of infinite incomprehensibleness; though admiration and adoration of it be not without the highest spiritual satisfaction.

Again, he is the peculiar object of the love of the Father, of the love of God, as he is incarnate — as he has taken on him, and has now discharged, the work of mediation, or continues in the discharge of it; that is, the person of Christ, as God-man, is the peculiar object of the divine love of the Father. The person of Christ in his divine nature is the adequate object of that love of the Father which is “ad intra” — a natural necessary act of the divine essence in its distinct personal existence; and the person of Christ as incarnate, as clothed with human nature, is the first and full object of the love of the Father in those acts of it which are “ad extra”, or are towards anything without himself. So he declares himself in the prospect of his future incarnation and work, “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth,” Isaiah 42:1. The delight of the soul of God, his rest and complacency — which are the great effects of love — are in the Lord Christ, as his elect and servant in the work of mediation. And the testimony hereof he renewed twice from heaven afterwards, Matthew 3:17, “Lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased;” as it is again repeated, Matthew 17:5. All things are disposed to give a due sense unto us of this love of God unto him. The testimony concerning it is twice repeated in the same words from heaven. And the words of it are emphatical unto the utmost of our comprehension: “My Son, my servant, mine elect, my beloved Son, in whom I rest, in whom I delight, and am well pleased.” It is the will of God to leave upon our hearts a sense of this love unto Christ; for his voice came from heaven, not for his sake, who was always filled with a sense of this divine love, but for ours, that we might believe it. This he pleaded as the foundation of all the trust reposed in him, and all the power committed unto him. “The Father loveth the Son, and has given all things into his hand,” John 3:35. “The Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself does,” John 5:20. And the sense or due apprehension of it is the foundation of Christian religion. Hence he prays that we may know that God has loved him, John 17:23, 26. In this sense, the person of Christ is the “prooton dektikon” — the first recipient subject of all that divine love which extends itself unto the church. It is all, the whole of it, in the first place fixed upon him, and by and through him is communicated unto the church. Whatever it receives in grace and glory, it is but the streams of this fountain — love unto himself.

[HT: The Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies]