The Book of Galatians is unique in many ways because of its polemic nature, aimed as it is against Christians in churches who have listened to false teaching and abandoned (or are close to abandoning) Paul’s teaching. It has not been well-served with commentaries, although some historical works are of note. Remember, I have preachers in mind for these recommendations. Balance is important. Other works are worth looking at, such as Phillip Graham Ryken’s contribution to the REC, but Stott …
Blog Posts
A review of David B. Capes, Matthew Through Old Testament Eyes, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2024, 389 pages, pbk. I have already reviewed the previous volumes from this series. All three were what I would call average to above average works, containing useful content, although my repeated refrain was that in my opinion they fail to live up to the title. If you want to write a NT commentary “through OT Eyes” then you really can’t superimpose the NT on it. …
Part One Union with Christ The truth that the existence of the Church presupposes Christ’s resurrection can be supported tangentially by other doctrines, such as our union with Christ. As we have already seen, the phrase “in Christ” and its variations, although it can have a number of meanings depending on context, always signifies the close bond between the justified sinner and their Savior. This is seen in the Epistle to the Philippians (e.g., Phil. 1:1:1, 14; 3:9-10; 4:21). …
Here are some thoughts about the relation of the Church to the resurrection of Christ. If this is sounds it destroys any notion that the Church can be found in the OT, and eliminates one of supersessionism‘s major arguments for throwing off the label of replacement theology (i.e., that the Church has always existed). This comes from the forthcoming book. The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is an eschatological event. His risen glorified body which proclaimed in itself …
This again is a repost of an article I wrote years ago which I believe bears the repetition. Part Three Review Hitherto in this set of posts I have called attention to several issues tied together with the word “disingenuous.” To be disingenuous is to lack candor or sincerity. To be less than forthcoming. I have applied this term to those who, for whatever reason, will not clearly tell people exactly what it is they are doing with Scripture passages; …
Part Two I said at the end of the last post that we would be thinking about what God thinks of those who enter into covenants and fail to perform the words of those covenants. But I find am going to put that subject off until next time, until I am satisfied that I have driven home my point about the disingenuous god whose word is something of a mask; a mask behind which this god’s real intentions lurk. I …
This is another reposting of a piece originally titled “A Disingenuous God?” Part One I’ve mentioned analogies in this series, so let me give one of my own. Suppose someone made you a promise concerning something of great importance to you. This person then went a step further and, to show his intent to make good his promise, entered in to some solemn ritual involving a self-maledictory oath. You could surely trust the promise right? But wait. Suppose you knew …
Previous installment 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; …
Previous installment This reposts an essay from ten years or so ago. 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’m going to repost a group of articles I wrote years ago about the God of Supersessionism. I have been having fun lately on ‘X’ with people who want to correct me on my view of the covenants with the usual fodder of ‘the NT reinterprets the OT.’ One of these individuals informed me the “the Covenant” in Genesis 1-3 was plainly in view. When I asked him (repeatedly) to show me this “covenant” he implied I needed to receive …
