Archive for category: Exegesis

   I spoke last evening at PRBC on Jude 1-4, just drawing out some thoughts and making application. And I was struck by a phrase that once again pressed upon my mind in a new and fresh way. I noted that one could (and someone probably has, I honestly do not know) with benefit write a book solely upon the greetings

   I was listening to a future debate opponent (I’ll let you guess which one) while riding yesterday. I was on a steep descent with lots of curves, the kind where you out run cars behind you no matter what–the kind of descent you really have to concentrate on–when I heard this gentleman assert that scribes had deliberately altered the text

This morning I got the following question through our website regarding this week’s memory verse and my comments on John 6:44-45: Why does your exegesis stop at 45b? Isn’t there room for a descriptive understanding of 45b that wraps things up in this section by stating that those who chose (implicit but a natural understanding from the previous verses, context,

“Every reading ever occurring in the New Testament textual tradition is stubbornly preserved, even if the result is nonsense…any reading ever occurring in the New Testament textual tradition, from the original reading onward, has been preserved in the tradition and needs only to be identified.” (Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical

I am so very thankful that in the interview on Issues Etc., Todd Wilken asked the perfect question of Bart Ehrman. I will be playing it on Thursday’s Dividing Line, but briefly, Wilken asked him what kind of conditions would have to prevail for him to believe the Bible was inspired and inerrant. This was similar to a question I

Titus 2:7-8 7 Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, 8 and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us. Teaching marked by integrity, dignity, and now, “sound speech.” Literally, “whole, healthy, sound” in

Titus 2:7-8 7 Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, 8 and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us. There is another aspect of in our teaching showing dignity that should be brought

Titus 2:7-8 7 Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, 8 and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us. Just as we noted when we looked at 1 Cor. 1:17 a number of

Titus 2:7-8 7 Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, 8 and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us. I was reading through this text sort of “on my way” to verse 11

kta,omai is a Greek verb used seven times in the New Testament (101 times in the LXX). It is used mainly by Luke (five times), once by Paul, and once by Matthew, in Matthew 10:9. In that verse it is rendered “acquire”: “Acquire no gold nor silver nor copper for your belts.” This is part of Jesus’ instructions to the

As I work on preparation for our conference and debate next week, I cannot help but rejoice, repeatedly, in the wondrous glory of God’s Word. Over and over again, as it comes under the most close scrutiny and attack, it shows itself to stand far above its most voracious opponents. There truly is a confidence that comes from facing the

Preaching again in 1 Corinthians 1 today , following the concept of “those who are perishing” from 1 Corinthians 1:18: For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. Note the parallels to: But thanks be to God, who

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Cor. 1:18) This is directly connected to what came before: why is it that preaching the gospel with the words of wordly wisdom, with “wise speech,” speech marked by earthly wisdom, can empty

Last Sunday morning I began a series of sermons drawn from 1 Corinthians 1 and 2. Toward the end of my time I commented briefly on Paul’s words in verse 17: For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

I had written about two pages in response to “Crimson Catholic” but decided I just didn’t have the time this weekend to continue it. I have to fly up to Mill Valley Sunday afternoon after preaching the morning service at PRBC, tomorrow is my wedding anniversary (talk about a patient woman!), and next week I talk with Bethany House about

The writer to the Hebrews presents an apologetic defense of the supremacy of Christ throughout his epistle, seeking to demonstrate that there is nothing in the “old ways” to attract the follower of Christ. In every aspect Christ is superior to the former administration, so that there is nothing in the “old ways” to attract the believer in Him. It

The issue here is not, “Is there more to the Scriptures than mere human words?” All Christians gladly confess this. Surely there is a spiritual, living dimension to the Word. We truly must separate the method of determining the intended meaning of the author from other issues such as, Is the meaning of the author in his own time and

First, many kind thanks to the kind brother who sent me my own copy of this as a gift. It is much appreciated–especially since it is large print. Not sure how Dan Wallace swung this, but I’m sure glad he did. The NET’s NT translation is quite good (sorry, have major reservations about the OT); and one of the greatest

A while back I mentioned that Solid Ground had published a hardback edition of Fairbairn’s 1858 work, Opening Scripture. Fairbairn was a leading Scottish Presbyterian in the mid-19th century, and this work provides a wide-range of exegetical discussions on important issues. We have the hardbacks in now, and, Solid Ground has done a run of softbacks as well. I’d recommend

I made a mistake tonight. I hit the FM button on my car radio and accidentally tuned in Harold Camping. I haven’t listened to him for many months, and my blood pressure and over-all health has benefited greatly. But there he was, and the first call I heard enraged me. The caller first asked about “fasting.” I was unaware that

It is fairly clear “Mr. Holding” (not his real name) has a lot of time on his hands. Long, rambling, insult-filled responses have already been posted on his site. Feel free, if you wish to abuse your sensibilities, to peruse them. I could only sit and read with a bemused awe as this man, a librarian (M.L.S.) seeks to impress

In the preceding installment we addressed J.P. Holding’s claim that Paul is using a “negation idiom” in Romans 9:16, based upon his particular interpretation of Jeremiah 7:22. We demonstrated that there is no reason to accept this argumentation, and good reason to reject it, from the text of Romans 9 itself. But there is another good reason to reject it:

So then it not on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (Romans 9:16, NASB) So then it is not of the man willing nor of the man running but of the God mercying.  “For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I

Libronics is happy again. Norton re-installed (n.b. to anyone who tries to de-install and re-install Norton SystemWorks: DON’T!), BibleWorks fonts close to where they were, things looking pretty much as they were (just running a LOT faster), and all the humorous Mac e-mails filed away (even got a blog entry out of my comments about the Mac cult–maybe Mac’s don’t

I was translating John 9 last night before going to bed, and was struck by the following dialogue (super-functional translation warning): The blind man said to Jesus, “Lord, I believe!” And he worshipped Jesus. Jesus said, “I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see may see, and so that those who see may become

Someone came into channel last evening and posted a statement from a Ph.D. student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School regarding the interaction between myself and Holding. Specifically, he was making a comment based upon John Piper’s September 1979 JETS article that I cited as I began my response. Specifically, he asked about the following: Heck, for that matter Piper and

At the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church we read through the New Testament in our AM services on the Lord’s Day, and the Old Testament in the evenings. Last night I read Isaiah 17. I noted the following as I was reading: 4 Now in that day the glory of Jacob will fade, And the fatness of his flesh will become

The discussion of Mr. Holding’s comments on Romans 9 has once again raised the issue of the importance of exegesis in theology and apologetics. For those whose faith is determined by externals (various forms of tradition, ecclesiastical, historical, philosophical, etc.), the text of Scripture is more a field of prooftexts that are malleable in nature: they can be formed to

Paul Owen, well known to our readers, has been reviewing Guy Prentiss Waters’ new work, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul (P&R, 2004). J. Ligon Duncan had spoken with me about this work while I was speaking at the 400th anniversary celebration of the beginning of the translation of the King James Version in Manhattan last year. He then

Some friends of mine recently showed me their new copies of A Reader’s Greek New Testament from Zondervan. I was immediately in love. There is nothing more enjoyable than spending some time in the text, just reading, and this particular volume will help all of you who have studied the language through “first year” in the past to pick up

With this installment I conclude my response to Dr. Svendsen on the issue of the extent and intention of the atoning work of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Dr. Svendsen expressed what he sees as the most fundamental disagreement between us in these words: Here I think is our most fundamental disagreement. I think this statement assumes something like “the death