The Temple

Typology & Daniel 6

Here are the links I promised to those of you in OT Survey and Bible study on Daniel.

Tonight’s Old Testament Class covered the issue of typology.    Good article on Typology  by W. Edward Glenny from Journal of Evangelical Theology (JETS).  Here is another version of the same article by Glenny, easier to read as it is all on one web page.   Here is an overview type article from Wayne Jackson that is really similar to the material in Bernard Ramm’s chapter on Typology from  Protestant Biblical Interpretation.    Since I don’t have a link to Ramm, this will have to do.

Tonight’s Bible Study covered Daniel 6. Daniel 6 is a good example of a passage that has clear typological elements (innocent man wrongly accused and sentenced to death only to defy death and emerge from a grave alive; visitor races to the “tomb”/pit/den at dawn to find hero not dead but alive;  global kingdom proclamation similar to the great commission) and yet is not classically considered typology.  For a good article on the historical challenges with Daniel, check out this PDF file by A.R. Millard, “Daniel 1-6 and History,” Evangelical Quarterly 49.2 (April-June 1977).


March 11, 2009 Posted by | Bible, Christianity, Theological | , , , , | Leave a comment

Evangelical Textual Criticism

Here is a blog link for all of you intellectuals out there interested in textual criticism.

Evangelical Textual Criticism.

February 11, 2009 Posted by | Bible, Bible Study Links, Links, Theological | , | Leave a comment

Matthew taught by Al Mohler

I have been listening to Al Mohler teach Matthew on his program called Powerline…good stuff.

October 16, 2008 Posted by | Bible, Christianity | , , , , | 2 Comments

Teaching Videos Available…

If you were not aware and were interested, you can download video of all of our teaching sessions at Nuevo Community

Included in the downloads are the full sermon series on Luke, Hebrews from chapter 4 on, our most recent series on the Holy Spirit entitled “The Promise of the Father” and our present series on Doctrine.

“The Faith” (our Wedenesday Night Class offerings) is also included:  Systematic Theology; New Testament Survey,  Hermeneutics (How to Study the Bible).

Let us know if you use and enjoy these resources.

September 25, 2008 Posted by | Bible, Christianity, Sermons, Theological | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tim was such a little devil

Posted by ShoZu

My mother would die if she saw this photo.
A mixture of religious superstition and evangelical mythology. I have written previously about modern misconceptions regarding Satan, such a cute little devil.

Here is a summation of some of our superstition and mythology with regard to Satan. Maybe you have more to add – or a contrary  “satanic” opinion.

“Satan is the evil equivalent to God.”
Most Christians would not agree with this statement, but would unwittingly use it in composing their picture of Satan. When I hear people talk about Satan, they ascribe god-like powers to him like omniscience and omnipresence. In constructing this picture of Satan, he is given credit for numerous bad events in the lives of people all around the world. This dualism is not a Biblical idea. God is sovereign.
Satan cannot read minds, it is very possible that he cannot communicate with Christians apart from their senses, and he cannot be at multiple locations at the same time. It is possible that he doesn’t know your name, or that you exist. Since we don’t believe that demons procreate and that there is not an infinite number of them, it is possible that there are more humans than there are demons. You don’t have a personal demon assigned to you.  As a result, most of your evil behavior really cannot be blamed on him or them, it is probably just you.

“Satan reigns over hell”

You’ve may have heard this joke, or one with a similar scenario:

The Pope, Billy Graham, and Oral Roberts were in a plane crash over the Atlantic Ocean. Tragically they all died and went to the pearly gates together. St. Peter was surprised to see them. “Oh, dear! We weren’t expecting you and your quarters aren’t ready yet. We can’t take you inand we can’t send you back!” Getting an idea, he picked up the celestial phone and called Lucifer. “I have three gentlemen who are ours, but
their places aren’t ready yet. Could you put them up for a couple of days? I’ll owe you one.”
The Devil reluctantly agreed.

Two days later, St. Peter got a call. “Pete, this is Lucifer. You have to come get these three guys that are yours. This Pope guy is forgiving everybody, the Graham fellow is saving everybody, and Oral Roberts has raised enough money to buy air conditioning!”

The idea is that God rules over heaven and all that is good, and that Satan rules over hell and all that is evil. Not a Biblical idea. Satan is consigned to the lake of fire in Revelation, along with those whose names are not written in the book of life as well as death and hades. Satan does not rule over hell. He is described as thrown into it and is tormented there. God is the ruler over all of his kingdom.

“The Serpent in Genesis is Satan”
The Old Testament is remarkably silent in its information about Satan. The earliest Jewish commentaries on Genesis 3 (the Targums, rabbinical paraphrases of Scripture which preceded the Talmud), are noteworthy for their complete lack of reference to any supernatural evil being in Genesis 3. The identification of the serpent as Satan is not even made semi-explicit until Revelation 12, where the phrase “that ancient serpent” is identified as the devil and Satan. Genesis portrays the being as simply a serpent, who apparently at that point had legs, and through the curse is consigned to crawl on its belly.
This point will cause discomfort in most of my readers, I am simply trying to point out the paucity of teaching in the Old Testament regarding Satan.
First of all, the Hebrew term meaning “satan” is simply a word that means “adversary.” When you see the word “Satan” in the OT, the translators have decided that the term “adversary” should be personified and given the title “Satan”. Try this, look up in the OT all the references to “Satan” and notice how many of them still make perfect sense if you substitute the word “adversary.”
In Numbers 22:22 the “angel of the Lord” is described as a “satan”, our translators use the term “adversary” here, but in fact the word is “satan”. This is a fascinating picture because it is more reflective of the usage of the term in Job, the “major” place in the OT where Satan is spoken of. But even in Job, “Satan” is not pictured in rebellion against God, rather, he carries out God’s bidding, and stays within God’s guiding boundaries. Hardly the typical picture of the rebellious and snarling demon.
My point? We read into the text our preconceived notions about Satan and as a result ascribe meaning that is not present in the text or the mind of the author or the original readers. This mishandling of the text fosters confusion.

“Lucifer is the name of Satan”

I have written previously about this phenomenon.
This is the most remarkable myth surrounding Satan. Lucifer is not a Biblical term for Satan. In fact, the term is a Latin term that was not introduced into the Biblical text until the first Latin translations (Jerome’s Vulgate in the 5th century AD &  the Vetus Latina which is a hodgepodge collection of Latin translations that preceded the Vulgate by about a century). The only place “lucifer” occurs is in Isaiah 14:12, but remember “lucifer” is a Latin term and the book of Isaiah was written in Hebrew. The Latin language is thought to have had its beginnings in the 5th century BC, some three centuries after the writing of the book of Isaiah. Safe to say that Isaiah never heard of the word “lucifer” and certainly didn’t write it in his prophecy.
In Isaiah 14:12 the term he uses is “helel” which means light source, the ESV translates the term “Day Star” with unfortunate capitalization. Even in the Vulgate the term “lucifer” is not capitalized. Jerome was translating the Hebrew term “helel” with the Latin equivalent “lucifer” which means source of light. It was in the Middle Ages that the passage in Isaiah came to be associated with the figure known popularly as “Satan” and not until the King James Translators chose to translate the term “lucifer” as a name by capitalizing and transposing as opposed to simply translating. It is also interesting to note the dependence of the KJV translators (at least here) on the Vulgate!
Long explanation made short: there is nowhere in the Bible a figure known as Lucifer.

My point? We make more of the devil than we should.

September 9, 2008 Posted by | Bible, Christianity, Isaiah, Theological | , , , | 5 Comments

Walk by the Spirit…

Could you help me out? Please define the above term off the top of your head – no Bible study or looking up verses, just a quick definition you would give to a 8-12 year old. What does it mean to “Walk by the Spirit”?

Put your answer in the comments section…thanks.

Technorati Tags:

March 3, 2008 Posted by | Bible, Christian Living, Christianity | 6 Comments

Great Quotes about the Bible

Tim Challies has gathered some great quotes about the Bible, check them out here.

June 10, 2007 Posted by | Bible | Leave a comment

I Once Was Blind…

Lasik surgery today. Thanks to all you wonderful people at Nuevo Community Church. Here is one of my favorite stories in the Bible:

Mark 8:22-25 22 And they came to Bethsaida. And they brought a blind man to Jesus and implored Him to touch him. 23 Taking the blind man by the hand, He brought him out of the village; and after spitting on his eyes and laying His hands on him, He asked him, “Do you see anything?” 24 And he looked up and said, “I see men, for I see them like trees, walking around.” 25 Then again He laid His hands on his eyes; and he looked intently and was restored, and began to see everything clearly.

Here’s to seeing clearly – both physically and spiritually…

Technorati Tags: , , ,

March 12, 2007 Posted by | Bible, Personal | 1 Comment

Paul’s Argument for the Existence of God

God forbid we ignore the arguments proposed in the Scripture for His existence. Paul offers the most famous argument in Romans 1.

Here is what it says:

18: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise they became fools…

Paul argues that the knowledge of God is innate (evident within them).

A denial of God is suppression of the truth

Paul argues that the knowledge of God is not only innate, but observable (evident to them).

Really Paul appeals to two things here. He appeals to knowledge that he says is basic to all humanity. It is a foundational belief. It is as basic as other ideas that we have such as the principle of non-contradiction. We seem to know without any learning or observing, that things cannot be two different things at the same time. “A” cannot be “A” and “not A” at the same time. Small children know this. I am an incurable tease. One of the games I play with children has to do with this idea of contradiction. I will call something green when it is actually red. Their response is generally immediate and strong. Now I know that they were taught that it was red, but they were not taught that it was not green, but they know this innately. They never respond, “oh, it is red and green?” It is knowledge of this sort that we are saying is knowledge of God.

If it is innate, why aren’t all people theists. Paul answers that question as well. Atheism and unbelief are suppressions of the truth. He identifies this as unrighteousness. Now this isn’t only a moral judgment, it is a judgment of justice and truth. This truth is known to all, unbelief is a rejection of what is genuinely and innately true. This suppression Paul also claims leads to futility in thinking (purposelessness, nihilism) and a cloak of darkness. He also picks up on the Old Testament declaration that this rejection of God is foolishness

It is upon this basic belief of the knowledge of God that a naturalistic argument can be made. The evidence that we can perceive and see teaches us about God’s attributes, power and nature.

Paul really appeals to two lines of argumentation here: what is known in philosophy as foundationalism and the teleological argument.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

March 12, 2007 Posted by | Bible, Christianity, God's Existence, Philosophy | Leave a comment

Acts 1:1-11; Coming on the Clouds

This post is a follow up on the Second Coming post a few days ago. I asked the question what is the real meaning of “coming on the clouds”? Here I want to relate the saying to the real meaning of the ascension. It is my opinion that too much emphasis is placed on the physical movement of Christ as it is described here, as opposed to the significance of the picture as it is set up for us in the Old Testament. Continue reading

March 8, 2007 Posted by | Acts, Bible, Eschatology, Theological | 3 Comments