Saturday, June 23, 2018

Review: Best Books


John Glynn, BEST BIBLE BOOKS: NEW TESTAMENT RESOURCES, (Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2018).






For anyone interested in commentaries, this book is for you. It belongs on the desk of every Bible student, scholar, and Pastor. It is an excellent reference for anyone who buys and uses commentries. It is a revision of earlier works by Mr. Glynn. It is up to date. However, there have been changes from earlier editions: some good, some not so good.

There are certain things that disappointing.

The new editor has decided not to use the classification of text theological.

It does not cover older works by such scholars as Calvin, Luther, Eadie, and early commentaries which are still in print. Most commentaries are newer from the mid 80’s as the latest with few exceptions.

The classifications of best; good; and better are a little confusing.


There are good things to like about the book and are helpful.

The how to build a personal library, designed layperson, Bible college students, and Pastors.

It covers more than commentaries, such introductions surveys and theologies of the New Testament.

The heart of the book is commentaries on each book of the New Testament. They are divided into three sections: technical, semithnical, and special studies.

On each commentary, he comments on its approach, format, and usability. This section alone is most valuable.

This should be in every Pastor’s libaray. It is an over all improvement of the older edition, and a reliable resource.

Thanks to Kregel  Ministry for a copy of the book  in exchange for my review. 

Thursday, June 21, 2018

Christological of Hebrews


In Hebrews the use of the O.T. is mainly Christological. Christ is the crucial figure in the fulfillment of the O.T. text. The preacher does not refer to contemporary Judaism, but to the Old Covenant and priestly institutions as revealed in the Pentateuch.Christ stands in continuity with this system by fulfilling it.”[1] Christ is the goal of the Old Testament revelation. It appears that the readers had an insufficient view of Christ and His work, grace, and the Abrahamic promise. Cockerill observes: “To practice the old before Christ was to anticipate his fulfillment, to practice it after, however, is to deny his sufficiency.”[2] The theme is Christ being superior to the Old Testament ritualism— ritualism that is coming to an end. Christ’s superiority is brought out by the continued use of the word “better,” indicating Christ is better than the angels, Moses, and Abraham. One of the most significant Christological statements in Scripture is Hebrews 1:3-4, which centers upon His person. Christ is the Son of God, the Savior, and exalted Lord. The preacher presents one of the strongest theologies of Christ of the New Testament. The theology sections include:
  • He is the revelation of God (1:1-4).
  • He is superior to the angels (1:5-2:18)
  • He is superior to Moses (3:1-4:13).
  • He is the Sympathetic High Priest (4:14-5:10).
  • He is the Priest like Melchizedek (7:1-28).
  • High Priest is made perfect by Sacrifice (8:1-28)
  • Christ the Perfect Sacrifice (10:18)

The sermon centers upon Christ as High Priest (8:1, 13:10), which is the author’s most distinctive contribution to Christology. Only He deals with this subject. The doctrine of Christ’s High Priesthood is the theological center of the epistle.[3]


[1]  Gareth Lee Cockerill, NICNT: HEBREWS, 21.
[2]  Ibid, 40.
[3]  David MacLeod, “The Doctrinal Center of the Book of Hebrews,” BIBLIOTHECA-SACRA, July 1989, 293.

Friday, June 15, 2018

Brief understanding of John 2:23-25


REAL OR NOT? 


This section of John is one of the most challenging passages to grasp. It marks a transition from his wide-ranging ministry to a small ministry of individuals. This section has cause contention and debate weather their faith was fake or real. Scholars seem to be divided on the issue of faith. Some see it as speaking of weak faith (i.e., D. A. Carson, Frederic Louis Godet, Andreas J. Kostenberger, George R. Beasley-Murray, F.F. Bruce). Others see it as real faith although it may have been immature (i.e., Rodney Whitacre, Zane C. Hodges, Merrill C. Tenney, Ramsey Michaels, W. Hall Harris). Therefore, it calls us to a careful study of the passage.  In this transitional summary we see:

2:23 The Setting: “Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover,” marks the location of the events. While in the city, Jesus began to gain a following among the people. How long He was in the city is not explicitly given. We can deduce he was there during the Passover celebration and long enough to do wonderous deeds and start a following by his listeners.  

The reaction of the people: “many believe in His name.” A limited phrase, not found in other literature of the time, and found mainly in John’s writings.[1] The same expression is found in 1:12. It is clearly expressing that those who believe are those who “received Him” becoming the children of God. The majority of scholars imply this is not saving faith. There is no indication in the text this is not genuine. Two points indicate they are true believers:[2] (1) Damaging to the non-genuine is the fact affirmed in 3:18 that man is condemned because they do not believe in the Son. (2) The motif is one of John’s favorite expression for regenerating faith (cf. 1:12, 3:16, 18, 36; 4:39; 6:29, 39, 40; 7:38-39).

Beholding His signs which He was doing.” Many indicate that the people believed because of the signs (miracles—KJV). The Greek word[3] used means a sign, mark and miraculous token of Divine authority and power. However, if we are honest, the verse or phrase does not say their faith rested in the miracles or signs. Signs/miracles may be aids of faith, but it is not the object of faith in this verse. If signs are understood as miracles, Michaels points out there were not miracles recorded in this stay in Jerusalem.[4]  The text does not give any miracles. The cleansing of the temple may be considered as a sign of Messiahship. The Davidic covenant “laid the theological foundation for the everlasting kingdom of the eschatological Messiah.”[5]  

2:24 “But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for knew all men.” It is a difficult verse. A couple of observations; First the word “entrusting,” is the same word as “believing” of verse 23. It is an imperfect tense, representing the habitual attitude.[6] Second, the word is found in the negative in verse 24. There is a contrast been Jesus and the people.  Many view the faith of the people as a bogus. These hold the signs was the reason or the object of their faith, thus, rejection by Jesus. It was based on His knowledge of people.  Tenney points out that Jesus “was not satisfied with a superficial faith, even though it was genuine as far as it went.[7]  The phrase indicates that their faith is not passed through the dawn of discipleship. Hodges holds that Jesus is not downgrading their faith, which brings eternal life, rather Jesus is speaking of the subtheme of intimacy of fellowship (cf. 15:14).[8]

2:25 This is evidence of the omniscience of Jesus (cf. 1:47-48). It is a point of deity. Jesus “needed not that any should testify of man; for the knew what was in man.” It is interesting this statement is given just before he meets with Nicodemus.



[1]  Rudolf Bultmann, pisteuw, pistiV,” TDNT, 6:203.
[3] Shmeia [acusative] meaning a sign.
[4]  J. Ramsey Michaels, NICNT: JOHN, 172.
[5]  Gordon H. Johnson, “Messianic Trajectories of God’s Covenant Promise in David,” Herbert W Bateman IV, Darrell L. Bock, Gordan H. Johnson, JESUS THE MESSIAH, [Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2012] 65.
[6]  Leon Morris, NICNT: THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, [Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1977], 207.
[7]  Merrill C. Tenney, EBC: JOHN, 46.
[8] Zane C. Hodges, “Problem Passage in the Gospel of John, Part 2, Untrustworthy Believers,” BIBLOTHECA SACRA, April 1978, 139-152.

Monday, June 4, 2018

review of Hermeneutics of Biblical Writers




The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers by Abner Chou (Grand Rapids MI, Kregel Academic, 2018, $23.99)


Abner Chou gives us a different way to look at hermeneutics. His hermeneutic centers upon two important features: Intertextuality and Prophetic hermeneutic. He holds the New Testament writers follow the hermeneutic and logic and was the modus operandi of the apostolic rationale.  He contends that Prophetic hermeneutic of the Old Testament continues in both apostolic and Christian hermeneutic.

He says there are presuppositions that evangelical hold: (1) Authorial Intent. The quest is impossible and pointless if we cannot know authors intent. (2) The meaning and significance of the text. They are not the same. We are to what Scripture says (meaning), how it applies (significance). (3) The reality of Intertextuality. These are allusions to other text to help us understand the author’s intent and rationale. This method dates back to ancient hermeneutical practice. It shows in the interconnection of Scripture. All three of these presuppositions have long be held and practiced among scholars. Interestingly, he did not use these when asking the question did Jesus misuse the Scripture in the use of Exodus 3:6. Jesus used it as a text for resurrection, yet the Exodus passage does not use it as such. The author says Jesus is not interpreting the text but extracting an implication from the text. However, he does not make implication part of the presuppositions or mythology. He notes Jesus was sound in doing so.

The rest of the book argues strongly for the prophetic hermeneutic. His thesis seems to be that intertextuality of the Old Testament demonstrates the exegetical and theological work of the prophets. He maintains the prophets knew the Scripture and used it in their writings. He maintains, although complex, that the prophet’s accuracy handled the Word, and did not engage in hermeneutical revision. They expounded upon the theological ideas of law and covenant. The concept is not novel.

One the key concepts is that the prophets wrote mostly for the future, in accord to past revelation. The New Testament writers continued the same style of Hermeneutic. He gives the evidence for initial evidence for continuity. Author views the New Testament apostles parallels the prophets.  He writes on the New Testament passages of Old Testament quotes. All though not will agree with his observations and interpretations (cf. Dan. 7).

The book is not easy to read. It is a challenge to understand and  I recommend some understanding of hermeneutics. However, it is worth consideration for the Bible student, Pastor, and scholar.

 A free copy was provided by Kregel Academic of Grand Rapids in exchange for my personal review.


Saturday, June 2, 2018

Reflections on Romans #9






ROMANS 1:19-32





We have seen that the wrath of God is revealed on all unrighteousness and glory (1:18). This section (1:19-31) now give what this involves. The section opens with the word “Because” which indicates the reason God is evident within them and to them. It connects verse 18 with 1:19-31, which expand the reason for wrath’s revelation.  

It seems that this section can be divided into three sections:

The natural revelation of God (1:19-20.)  In creation, mankind was created in His image (Gen. 1:26-27). The image is reflected in mankind. Paul reflects this in the statement “that which may be known of God is manifest in them” (1:19). It is an act of internal revelation. The word manifest[1] means to bring to light, to show, to reveal. The object of the manifestation is “to or in them.” It preposition is connected with the dative plural personal pronoun and could be translated, “in them,” “in their midst,” or “among them.”[2] No matter which translation is preferred, it is clear God had revealed Himself so He can be known to all. Verse 19-20 has a two-fold purpose:[3] (1) To justify the truth of suppressing the truth. (2) To show men are without an excuse regarding God’s wrath because of their sin.
The thought here concerns the revealing of the creative God. “God has shewed it unto them.” The revelation involves the following features: [1] “The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen” (1:20). The heavens declare the glory of God. Murray identifies the invisible as not received by the senses but apprehended in the mental conception.[4] However, the language is that of visibility (seen)[5] and mental apprehension (understood).[6] Notice this knowledge is in conjunction with the creation (“being understood by the things that are made”). The context indicates in creation both external observation and apprehension. It shows there is a creator and reflects God’s glory. The invisible things are God’s attitudes of “His eternal power and Godhead.” These attitubes explain there is a God, but not who he is nor all of his work. Origen (Ad Romonos) first made the distinction of what can be known about God and that which may not be known and requires more revelation. Paul has in mind the essential qualities of the power of God and His deity. The word[7] for Godhead means divinity, devine majesty, or deity. These attitubes are general but clear enough to show God’s deity. The results of this type of revelation are mankind being inexcusable. 

The Rejection of God by man (1:21-31). While God was evident to mankind, they rejected the revelation of creation. Johnson observes: “The section moves from the declaration of Gentile sin (1:18-32) through Jewish sin (2:1—3:8) to the climax of the apostolic diagnosis that "all the world" is guilty, with every mouth stopped, speechless in the terror of condemnation before a holy and righteous God (3:9-20).[8]  

This section is divided into two sections.
First, the stages of rejection (1:21-23). These give the reason for the wrath of God being displayed. “When they knew God.” contorls the verses, designates they had the knowlege of God. They rejected God despite this knowledge. 
(1)   They gloried [him] not as God.”  
(2)   neither were they thankful.” 
(3)   became vain in their imaginations,”
(4)   their foolish heart was darkened.” 
(5)   Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
(6)   Changed the invisible things of Him into image make like corruptible man, to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

These are all the actions of mankind, not God! Mankind rejected God, in no the other way around. The cause was sin and their blindness of heart. Thus, they “exhanged” the glory of for an image. It is evident in every primitive culture that existed. Most Jews could hardly identify with this because of the superior attitude as God’s chosen. As false as that belief may be. Schreiner observed: “They would not smile on the sins of others but condemn them, whereas the evil of the Gentiles was outside the covenant of the one true God.”[9] However, such an exchange is spoken of the Jews in the Old Testament (Psa. 105:20 LXX; Ex. 32; Jer. 2:11). They are not exempt from the process or the condemnation.

Second, is the reaction of God (1:24-31). Paul’s argument was to mankind was intended was to sonship God’s power and divinity. However, they descended to worship idols made of gold, silver, or stone. It denotes mankind’s rebellion. “Wherefore,”[10] in this case denotes its resulting action of God. Cranfield says the word indicates the response to the perverseness described 22-23.[11] The action of God is described three times as “giving them up or over” to certain things (1:24, 26, 28). The phrase describes the wrath of God in its primary stages. Thus, there are three statements of divine punishment of God for their rejection and rebellion.

God gave them over to three things: [1] Physically he came them over “to uncleanness through the lust of their own hearts.” It speaks of God abandoning them to their lifestyle. Wrath is not God seeking revenge! Instead, it is a withdrawn from these people to go and do their destructive way of life. Paul classifies this lifestyle as “uncleanness” which generated from the “lust of their own heart.” Uncleannesss is the evil desires of the heart being carried out in their ego, personality, and will.[12] John Robinson is quoted as saying, “He leaves pagan society to stew in its own juices.”[13] God’s wrath is His withdrawn because of their idolatry (1:25)

[2] Emotionally, God “gave them up unto vile affections.” (1:26). The word “vile”[14] means primary dishonor. These affections turn to that which is unnatural, distorted, and perverted. The conjunction “even” expands on vile affections. It also clarifies the sexual impurity of verse 24. Paul’s argument is against homosexuality which involves females and males (1:26-27). Why does Paul draw attention to this sin? The reasons are: [1] It is a sin that was prominent in the Roman world. [2] It was built in many of the temples and religious systems. [3] It was justified as normal. [4] It was deplored by the Old Testament (cf. Lev. 10:13; 20:22). [5] The justice of God: “receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet” (1:28). Here we see that law of the harvest is in effect, what we sow we reap.

[3] God gave them up intellectually “to a reprobate mind.” Denney says this is a “mind which cannot stand trial.”[15] The cause for such a mind is because they “did not like to retain God in their knowledge.” God is light, were there is no God there is only darkness. The emphasis of the text is on man and their rebellion against the knowledge of God.

The reprobate mind controls the person. The word reprobate originally uses in mining and is primarily used for metals that would not pass the test, thus not approved. The reprobate mind is a mind that will not pass the test of God’s justice. Such a mind leads to vice; thus, Paul list these vices:
(1)   Filled with unrighteousness.
(2)   Fornication.
(3)   Wickedness.
(4)   Covetousness.
(5)   Maliciousness.
(6)   Full of envy.
(7)   Debate.
(8)   Deceit.
(9)   Malignity.
(10)           Whisperers.
(11)           Backbiters
(12)           Haters of God.
(13)           Despiteful.
(14)           Proud.
(15)           Inventors of evil things.
(16)           Without understanding.
(17)           Covenant breakers.
(18)           Without natural affection.
(19)           Implacable.
(20)           Unmerciful.

The Summary of Results of Sin (1:32). By their actions, Paul is declaring that apart from Jesus Christ, Gentiles and Jews remain unrighteous sinners. Therefore, summarize it all in three great truths.  

[1] “Knowing the judgment of God.It is the natural knowledge man has within them. It is not supernatural knowledge. Moo points out that the absence of law is not without significance in this passage.[16] Paul is not dealing with those under the law. The judgment of God is still upon them.

[2] They know the consequence that they deserve judgment and death. The continual consequence of the fall of humanity onward (cf. Gen. 3).
[3] Yet, knowing these truths man persists on going his own way. They take “pleasure in them that do them.” Sadly, this is the universal history of humanity. It can only be changed by faith and grace of Christ (Eph. 2


[1] ///////////////////////////////////////////////////efanerwsen [verb; aorist active indicative], pain, clear, or manifest. 
[2] Richard N. Longenecker, NIGTC: THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, [Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2016], 206.
[3] Douglas J. Moo, NICNT; THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, [Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1996], 103.
[4] John Murray, NICNT; THE EPISLE TO THE ROMANS, [Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1975], 38.
[5]  Kaqopatai meaning to look, to perceive, discern.
[6]  Nooumena to perceive, observe, to be attevtive.
[7]  qeiotnV. Meaning dvine nature, deity.  
[8]  S. Lewis Johnson, “God Gave them Up,” BIOLIOTHECIA SARA, April 1972, 125.
[9] Thomas R. Schreiner, BECNT: ROMANS [Grand Rapids, Baker,1998], 81.
[10] Dia, [conjunction] meaning wherefore, on the account of, therefore. In this context it denotes reason bases of what was said.
[11] C.E.B Cranfield, ICC: ROMANS, [Edinbugh, T& T Cark 1980]. 120.
[12] R.C.H. Lenski, ROMANS, 108.
[13] Richard N. Longenecker, NIGTC: ROMANS, 216.
[14] atimiaV, [genitive], meaning dishonor; shame; vile; or infamy.
[15]  James Denney, EGT: ROMANS, [Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, reprint 1983], 594.
[16]  Douglas J. Moo, NICNT: ROMANS, 121.