I have been asked some questions which I find are better fitted to another post than an interminable reply in the combox. The questioner is my friend Paul Duncan, and I hope he will not be embarrassed if I address my comments directly to him, though with other readers in mind. Hi Paul, I am back in town and will try to answer your questions as asked in the comments on the fourth post. However, I shall have to point …
Category: Biblical Studies
This post will summarize the main points I would wish to make about how best to understand the seeming tension between Paul’s teaching about the “Seed” in his discussion of faith in Galatians 3. I believe if we are not going to turn much of the testimony of Scripture on its head we should not go down the road suggested by Grover Gunn in his explanation of the passage and his inferences based thereon. In disagreeing with Gunn I am …
So far we have seen that there is something in the contention that the Apostle Paul does have in mind the covenant promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; promises which include the land given to the nation of Israel, in his theology of the Seed (singular) in Galatians 3. But what is that “something”? Gunn, along with supercessionists generally, believes that because the Genesis passages cited or alluded to by Paul include the land-promise, that the Church – the “New …
I’m going out of town again for a few days, and, what with Christmas and everything, I don’t expect to be posting much till the New Year. I wanted to finish this topic off with this post, but I’ve actually become a little engrossed in it, so expect at least one more effort. Part One here Grover Gunn is sure that Paul is quoting Genesis 13:15-17 and 17:8, 10 from the Septuagint to make his argument in Galatians 3:16. There …
One of my readers (Justin) wrote to ask me if I might say a few things about this post by former Dispensationalist Grover Gunn. I don’t have time or inclination to respond to the whole paper, but I shall at least try to address Justin’s specific problem. Before commenting let me reproduce Justin’s question: The Question: “Hello Paul. Thanks indeed for this. I have a question relating to this. I’m sorry the text I’ve copied below is long. Perhaps when …
I have noticed people clicking on my little commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, which I did some time ago, so I thought it would be helpful to some to put them altogether. Et Voila! Introduction to Ephesians Ephesians 1:1-14 Ephesians 1:15-23 Ephesians 2:1-10 Ephesians 2:11-22 Ephesians 3:1-21 Ephesians 4:1-32 Ephesians 5:1-21 Ephesians 5:22-6:9 Ephesians 6:10-20 Commentaries on Ephesians …
It is a common feature of discussions with some fellow believers to hear them say that the New Testament interprets the Old. This maxim, which is almost a cliché in some circles, is seldom explained. It is usually taken for granted. “Surely,” we are told, “you understand how the NT throws light on passages in the OT?” “Surely you see how NT authors point to fulfillments of OT promises?” Naturally, we are not commending a program of hermeneutics which totally …
More On Plain-Speaking We are looking into the matter of plain-speaking. In theological discourse one strives for precision and tries to avoid ambiguity. However, the language of “expansion” found often on the lips of supercessionists – those who will insist that the OT prophets mean something OTHER than what their actual words convey – is, I believe, calculated to be ambiguous. The theology of replacement (i.e. one designated subject is replaced by another), ethnic Israel is now the church; the …
A Plea For Plain-Speaking I am considering this matter of plain speaking in theological discourse, and have noted my dislike of those views which put something in a such way that it is easy to mistake the intentions. We are used to being given the run-around by the Cults – for they deal in duplicity – but evangelical brothers and sisters can do this sort of thing too. I only wish to issue a plea for plain-speaking. Any “liberal” scholar …
This is the last set of my “Theses” about Creation. I hope they have stirred some thought. You can read the previous posts here: part 1; part 2; part 3. 16. This doctrine leaves room for man, as he comes from the hand of the Creator, to be responsible to believe God and to obey God. Whatever the effects of sin, this is man as God created him to be. The obedience of man to the good dictates of God …