Galatians

By | February 15, 2011

This book isn’t that long, but it is potentially difficult to understand unless you go slow because there is so much packed in here. The reason why Paul writes is that some outsiders have come to the churches in Galatia and told them that in order to be good Christians they have to also be good Jews. That means they have to keep the Law, including being circumcised, eating kosher food, and keeping the Sabbath. This is nonsense, Paul says! It’s not just dumb, it’s dangerous!

Salvation comes free by believing in what Jesus did for us. By trying to do other things (like circumcision), you are saying that what Jesus did was not enough and you have to make up for it. This makes Paul very, very mad. He tells his readers that if they follow the Law, they will not be following Jesus and they will go to hell.

For details on what this “Bible Reading Guide” series is about, see the first post.

Some years ago, I wrote Galatians on one foot.

The Fear of the Lord

By | February 12, 2011

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (Proverbs 9:10).

“What the alphabet is to reading, notes to reading music, and numerals to mathematics, the fear of the Lord is to attaining the revealed knowledge of [Proverbs].”-Bruce Waltke

C. Bridges defines fear of the Lord as “that affectionate reverence, by which the child of God bends himself humbly and carefully to his Father’s law.”

The key to reading Proverbs is understanding that wisdom begins with a relationship with the living God. The one who reads this book and assumes that they can apply its principles in a mechanistic way in order to achieve some pleasurable life independent of God is gravely mistaken.

February 11

By | February 11, 2011

How much would you expect a bill from the emergency room to be when a little girl is there for less than six hours, no surgery is performed, and the patient turns out to have nothing wrong.  The answer is more than the average annual income per capita of 128 countries

The story of Eli Cohen, the Israeli spy who humiliated Syria, is summarized in the Jerusalem Post.

This prank on a Belgian phone company with notoriously poor service is long but funny.

The Skin Gun – this 3-minute National Geographic video shows some amazing technology.

I like stories like this and songs like this.

1 and 2 Corinthians

By | February 7, 2011

1 Corinthians

Paul started churches in many of the cities that he visited. But many of these churches had problems when he left. The church in Corinth was one of the worst. They were bitterly divided and they boasted in their sin. They took the Lord’s supper in a dishonorable way and they didn’t use the spiritual gifts correctly. Some of them were even denying that bodily resurrection was possible! Thus Paul had to write a long letter to try to straighten them out. This is good for us, because this book gives us a lot of answers that we wouldn’t otherwise have.

2 Corinthians

Paul’s first letter apparently didn’t work so well, so he had to write a second one. One of the big problems now is that some of the people in the church in Corinth think Paul is not an apostle or not a good apostle. So he has to spend a lot of time defending himself and what God has called him to. There’s a lot of scorn and sarcasm in the second half of the book.

Green Bay

By | February 6, 2011

We like to think that our visit to Lambeau Field this summer inspired the team.

IMG_6064

IMG_6074

IMG_6106
IMG_6098

No, this is not me with the kids.

Romans

By | February 4, 2011

This book, probably better than any other, gives the essence of the gospel. Man is sinful, but God saves on the basis of grace. Man can never do enough, but God has provided all that is needed for the one who believes. Some might think that because the Jews aren’t believing that they have been rejected from God’s plan, but Paul explains why this is not so (chs. 9-11). As in most of his books, he concludes with practical advice on how to live. One interesting thing about Romans is that Paul had never been to the city when he wrote this letter. Yet note how many people he knows (ch. 16).

If you prefer more detail, here is the summary of the book from my argument:

The letter to the Romans is a bold and clear statement of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The beginning of the letter is primarily concerned with truths of salvation and the conclusion of the letter focuses on the practices that should be manifest in the lives of believers as a result of these truths. As Paul states in the introduction, the gospel is indeed the power of God for salvation, and he develops how this is so first by declaring man’s universal need for salvation by virtue of being under the power and condemnation of sin. Deliverance is offered to all but only on the basis of faith in Christ’s substitutionary atonement. This principle of salvation by faith is not new but has been God’s means of working since the time of Abraham. The result of being justified by God is peace with God, a reality possible by virtue of union with Christ and his distribution of life to all who are in him. Those united to Christ are free from the condemnation of sin and the power of the law so that they can live victoriously by the Spirit.

Paul emphasizes the assurance that believers can have based upon God’s past work and his future promises. These are not negated by Israel’s rejection of Christ, but rather are explained as typical of God’s sovereign purposes and the nation’s unwillingness to submit to the righteousness of another. God’s promises will indeed be fulfilled in the nation of Israel following the ingathering of the Gentiles when all Israel is redeemed and forgiven. Given the abundance of God’s mercy poured out, believers must live in righteousness and love both towards one another as well as to outsiders. Jews and Gentiles in the church must not reject those whom Christ has accepted but love one another without passing judgment or causing believers to sin. Paul anticipates his arrival in Rome following his visit to Jerusalem and he looks forward to his fellowship with those who have now heard the gospel he preaches.

February 3

By | February 3, 2011

A little snow, a little cold, and school is closed for four days.  I had asked our church group to pray that I would stay well during this time of intensive study.  I didn’t think to ask that schools would stay open.

I did a few using either text from Scripture or from my argument, but somebody made a complete Word Cloud Bible.

The Simpsons expose PhD students.

If you identified with the last link, you probably would do just as well submitting your future articles to this journal.

Adopted for Life, by Russell Moore, is the free audiobook of the month.

Sovereign Grace Music has a big sale this month.

It’s not officially open yet, but you can get a sneak peak here

The Role of the Spirit in Bible Interpretation

By | February 1, 2011

At the end of a good chapter on the role of the Spirit in biblical interpretation, Robert Stein concludes:

“The role of the Spirit in interpretation is not an excuse for laziness. All the prayer in the world cannot substitute for a Bible dictionary, if we do not know the meaning of a biblical word. For understanding the biblical text, meditation is no replacement for looking up how the author uses such terms elsewhere in his writings. The goal of acquiring a correct mental grasp of the author’s meaning is not achieved by personal piety. To pray that the Spirit would help us understand the meaning of a text because we do not want to spend time studying the text or using the tools that have been made available to us (such as commentaries, concordances, dictionaries, etc.) may border on blasphemy, for its seeks to ‘use ‘ the Spirit for our own ends. The Holy Spirit brings to the believer a blessed assurance of the truthfulness of the biblical teachings, but he cannot be manipulated to cover for laziness in the study of the Word of God.

On the other hand, to pray that the Spirit would help us recognize the truth of the text (its significance) or to show which of the implications apply particularly to us and our situation (divine guidance) is both highly appropriate and devout. For what does it profit a study of the Bible, if we understand its meaning perfectly, but never submit to its teaching and obey its implications for our lives!”

Source: Robert Stein, A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible, 1994, pp. 70-71.

Apostrophe and S

By | January 31, 2011

I must see this mistake made at least once a week, but three times in a day still young has pushed me over the edge.

The rule, very simply:

  • if singular, put an apostrophe before the s;
  • if plural, put an apostrophe after the s.

Here are some examples:

I’m going to Jackson’s home.  This indicates that I am going to the home that belongs to a single individual named Jackson.

I’ve been invited to watch the Super Bowl at the Jacksons ‘ home.  From this you may correctly surmise that the home belongs to a family with the surname Jackson.

If I send a missive entitled “Bolen’s Newsletter,” then it is a newsletter from either Kelli or from me, but it is not from both of us.  If you are invited to come visit the Bolen’s house, you may correctly conclude that we have a pre-nuptial agreement that put the house in my (or her) name and excluded the other spouse from ownership.  [You ‘ll never get such an invitation.]  If tell you that I am going to visit my parent’s house, you will guess that either my parents are divorced or one is no longer living.

This is not an unimportant rule, because it helps to accurately communicate meaning.  You may do it incorrectly and I may figure out that you didn’t mean what you wrote (because I know that you or your parents aren’t divorced), but if you simply can’t get it right, I’d prefer that rather than putting the apostrophe in the wrong place, you do ‘nt use one.

More here.

Fig Leaf

By | January 29, 2011

I never would have guessed that when lines would be drawn at the school where I’m studying that I would find myself firmly on the side of Zane Hodges.  But I am.

Perhaps the memory that will stay with me most distinctly from my years of study here is the moment in one of my first classes when a student said that many professors at the school didn’t believe that most of the messianic prophecies in the Old Testament are about Jesus.  I almost called him a liar.  That was impossible, I thought.

Well, anyone who knows anything about the subject knows I am (was?) an idiot.  Did I really come to this school and not know this?  Yes.  It just wasn’t on my radar, I guess.  After living so long in Israel, I knew who saw Jesus in the Old Testament (believers) and who didn’t (non-believers). 

I was wrong.

Today I’ve read a large portion of a book that I read previously in 1996.  In a chapter written by Hodges (one-time professor at DTS), he names a couple of DTSers who denied that the OT predicted Jesus (for the most part).  I read this statement once, so I have no excuse for not knowing.  And I know I read it because I underlined the next sentence.  Make sure you read to the end.  He nails it.

Historically, liberal exegetes have denied direct Old Testament prophecy about the Lord Jesus Christ and have sought the meaning of such prophecies in the immediate historical context (i.e., the so-called sitz im leben) of the Old Testament. The wholesale abandonment of direct messianic prophecy by many evangelicals is a capitulation to this view, for which’typology ‘ is a fig leaf. 

Source: Zane Hodges, “A Dispensational Understanding of Acts 2,” in Willis and Master, eds., Issues in Dispensationalism, page 180, note 12.

For my readers who are less up to date on this issue, I ‘ll explain briefly how this works.  An OT passage that has always been understood as about Jesus is denied to be about Jesus by modern evangelicals.  It’s not about Jesus, it’s about David, they say.  But when you read Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 (for instance), he says that David said this about Jesus.  So was Peter wrong?  No, they say.  Why not, you ask.  Typology, they answer.  No need to explain, no need to show how one is a type, no need to show the pattern or correlation.  Usually they do offer up some words, but in my experience, they don’t answer the question.  It just comes back to—well, Peter said it’s about Jesus, but clearly in the OT context it is not, so they must somehow be related.  Let’s call it typology.  Typology covers over a multitude of sins, so they think.  The only ones who are deceived, however, are their evangelical students.  The Jews aren’t deceived.  They know.  Peter and Paul made it up.  There is no basis for believing that Jesus of Nazareth was the one predicted by the OT.  We only believe that he is because we assume our conclusion. 

I’m not buying it.  There is a better way, no fig leaves required.