Biblical Theology Blog: Recent Comments

Comment on What is Reformed Theology?

Marty — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:53:30 GMT

Great questions! I hope this helps:

1. Reformed Theology - I really like G.I. Williamson's study guide books on the Westminster Confession and the Westminster Shorter Catechism. He also made some significant contributions in updating Geerhardus Vos's Commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism. I would recommend starting with the Westminster Shorter Catechism, then moving to the Westminster Confession, and finishing with the Larger Catechism. Between the three, you will get a really good foundation in Reformed Theology. I don't always agree with Williamson's explanations or examples, but in general they are excellent.

2. Covenant Theology - This is a somewhat controversial subject in that it means different things to different scholars. Within Reformed Theology, Covenant Theology generally refers to the various covenants of works as well as the Covenant of Grace. These subjects are covered in the aforementioned books on Reformed Theology.

3. Abrahamic Covenants - I see three covenants within the Abrahamic narratives of Genesis. These three covenants are respectively found in Gen 12:1-3, 15:7-17 (specifically see 15:12-16), and 17:1-17. Most scholars collapse these passages into one covenant structure, but if you consider each one contextually, I don't think it makes sense, as each one has different stipulations, covenant signs, etc. For example, in terms of redemptive history, you can see that Gen 12:1-3 is the one that seems to project into the current era as well as the world to come, whereas Gen 15:12-16 is just for a short period in redemptive history circa 1800-1400 BC.

In Christ, Marty

Comment on What is Reformed Theology?

Peter B — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:54:14 GMT

Marty, could you recommend a couple books, perhaps even a website that would be useful for further study of Reformed/Covenant Theology?

Also, can you talk a bit about the three Abrahamic covenants? Specifically, where they appear in the Bible, and why most people identify only one instead of three.

Thanks,

Comment on Lady Gaga Bad Romance Slides

Sam — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 03:29:16 GMT

Wow... I should really stay away from Lady Gaga!

Comment on When Does Human Life Begin?

Marty — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 02:11:42 GMT

You Wrote:

"Psalm 139:13-16 indeed looks to God as the originator of creation both personal and communal. However, “The idea that some of us human beings would terminate and kill unborn children warrants pure condemnation” is not present in this text. Neither is the idea that “Those that do it deserve to be aborted themselves, meaning blotted out of God's book of life.” How the leap is made across a chasm of nothingness from the text to arrive at these statements is confounding."

Response:

I think that the strongest refute is Psalm 139:19-20 itself:
^{Psalm 139:19} Oh that you would slay the wicked, O God! O men of blood, depart from me! ²⁰ They speak against you with malicious intent; your enemies take your name in vain!

The idea is that the wicked are the ones attacking and destroying God's creation, specifically people made in God's Image who are fearfully and wonderfully made. They are described as men of blood and they speak against God with malicious intent. Even worse, the wicked take His name in vain, calling themselves true worshippers of God when they are not, deceiving themselves and others.

Comment on When Does Human Life Begin?

Marty — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 02:04:11 GMT

You Wrote:

"Psalm 51:5-6 is most likely not speaking about biological conception. The “mother” of the speaker, in terms of the liturgical setting of the Psalm, is Israel. And even if one were to speak of the poet's own original personal and individual proclamation, there is no reason to think this is speaking of biological conception on a natural basis that has no continuance or dependence upon a specifically Jewish oriented location around Torah. We have more reason to suppose that the author is speaking of a lawless conception such as, for instance, being born of an adulterous relationship, than of having some natural sin inherent at the point of conception without point of reference in the Hebraic social world. And if we were to go as far even as to take the scribal addition to the psalm as being representative of the true historical reality of its social location—meaning this is really what David himself wrote in the situation of his sin with Bat-Sheva and Uriah, it should most appropriately be interpreted as metaphor and poetry that seeks to communicate the repenting mind of a man who knows the depth of his guilt and is not trying to stand before God in innocence, rather than a literal statement tying the reasons for his sin with Bat-Sheva and Uriah to his own nature at the moment of creation, which is actually God's doing and which would therefore make God responsible for his sin. Therefore, it is highly unlikely there is anything in this psalm that points to the moment of conception itself or as having some meaning in and of itself in terms of morality, and therefore, no ties are possible whatsoever to the issue of abortion.

Response:

I am not sure what your sources are, but there are some pretty radical assertions here. My argument is a simple Qal Vahomer argument: If we are sinful from the time our mothers conceived us, then we have moral potential at conception. If we have moral potential, then this would suggest that we have human dignity at conception.

So, I guess I have some questions for you:

1. Why is the "mother" of the speaker Israel? If I render the text, as you suggest, it makes no sense: "Surely I was a sinner from birth, sinful from the time Israel conceived me?"

2. In terms of the psalm's original liturgical setting, I think you are trying to cite Gunkel and Mowinckel, but I wasnt able to figure out exactly where this came from... So, it kindof sounds made up... If you are citing someone else's argument, it would be helpful to know where its coming from. References are always helpful.

3. I think that its hard to say that David did not write this Psalm, nor many others. Why would you think this is a metaphor? Consider the historical context...

Comment on When Does Human Life Begin?

Marty — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 01:16:39 GMT

Since you brought up 3 points, I think its probably best to try to respond to each one. As to your first point:

You Wrote:

"Gen 1:26-27 speaks in terms of category or type (male and female humans as opposed to male and female fish or male and female land animals) and not in terms of biological progression or state."

Response:

No, that's not right. The differentiation between male and female is only made for human beings in Genesis 1. Plants, animals, fish, and birds are described as being made "according to their kind" but there is no differentiation made in terms of sex. Gen 1:27 is different and clearly makes the point that both men and women are images of God and that collectively Humanity is also an image of God. As for biological progression or state, the text is all encompassing: a person is an image of God regardless of biological progression, whether young or old.

You Wrote:

"Thus, it says nothing at all about or toward conception, nothing about or toward the zygote, and neither can it speak about or toward DNA (a modern understanding born of the scientific revolution)."

Response:

I disagree. The ancients understood that unborn children were either male or female, as we do today. They also knew that human life began at conception. The idea that life does not begin at conception is a modern idea. Many moderns reject the idea that life begins at conception on so-called scientific grounds. However, the scientific evidence merely reinforces the ancient idea, particularly Gen 1:27.

Comment on Fall 2008 Joshua Class

Marty — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 00:50:10 GMT

Hi,

Thanks for reading and contributing. I teach these classes in Manhattan as part of Redeemer Presbyterian's SOGF. Redeemer is well known in the evangelical and particularly Reformed community, so you can easily guess "the center of mass" of my theology.

If you believe that "God's justice is arbitrary, capricious, and undefinable..." and that "he can punish a righteous person for no reason other than his choice to do so..." then what's the point in following this so-called god? This god is unjust, cruel, and sadistic. Unfortunately, this is the broad, but distorted interpretation many have from the book of Job. In fact, I was watching Southpark one night and this very interpretive issue came up with a similiar conclusion to yours. Fortunately, the God of the Bible is not "aritrary, capricious, or undefinable" nor does he "punish a righteous person." I would commend you to get a good commentary on Job and outline the arguments of Job, his 3 friends, Elihu, and God. If you want to talk about each of their arguments, I would be happy to discuss this with you further.

Take care, In Christ, Marty

Comment on Fall 2008 Joshua Class

slaveofone — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 06:03:22 GMT

Shalom

I am not part of these classes and therefore I have not even heard or participated in the things you are discussing in this post, but I am a student of scripture and a follower of Christ, and I have a few comments on this post...

“Through examining critical Old Testament texts, we will see that God always acts justly and gives sinners ample opportunity to repent.”

What about Job? The theology of Job is that God's justice is arbitrary, capricious, and undefinable to us—that he can punish a righteous person for no reason other than his choice to do so. This directly contradicts the theology of whatever “critical” texts you are looking at. That is just one text in scripture out of many that would throw the intended pedagogical theology of your class entirely off.

Comment on When Does Human Life Begin?

slaveofone — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 05:48:50 GMT

Shalom

I am not part of these classes, but I am a student of scripture and a follower of Christ, and I have a few comments...

Firstly, Gen 1:26-27 speaks in terms of category or type (male and female humans as opposed to male and female fish or male and female land animals) and not in terms of biological progression or state. Thus, it says nothing at all about or toward conception, nothing about or toward the zygote, and neither can it speak about or toward DNA (a modern understanding born of the scientific revolution). To speak of this text as indicating human life at conception can only be done from within the interpreter's own meaning and not the text's.

Secondly, Psalm 51:5-6 is most likely not speaking about biological conception. The “mother” of the speaker, in terms of the liturgical setting of the Psalm, is Israel. And even if one were to speak of the poet's own original personal and individual proclamation, there is no reason to think this is speaking of biological conception on a natural basis that has no continuance or dependence upon a specifically Jewish oriented location around Torah. We have more reason to suppose that the author is speaking of a lawless conception such as, for instance, being born of an adulterous relationship, than of having some natural sin inherent at the point of conception without point of reference in the Hebraic social world. And if we were to go as far even as to take the scribal addition to the psalm as being representative of the true historical reality of its social location—meaning this is really what David himself wrote in the situation of his sin with Bat-Sheva and Uriah, it should most appropriately be interpreted as metaphor and poetry that seeks to communicate the repenting mind of a man who knows the depth of his guilt and is not trying to stand before God in innocence, rather than a literal statement tying the reasons for his sin with Bat-Sheva and Uriah to his own nature at the moment of creation, which is actually God's doing and which would therefore make God responsible for his sin. Therefore, it is highly unlikely there is anything in this psalm that points to the moment of conception itself or as having some meaning in and of itself in terms of morality, and therefore, no ties are possible whatsoever to the issue of abortion.

Thirdly, Psalm 139:13-16 indeed looks to God as the originator of creation both personal and communal. However, “The idea that some of us human beings would terminate and kill unborn children warrants pure condemnation” is not present in this text. Neither is the idea that “Those that do it deserve to be aborted themselves, meaning blotted out of God's book of life.” How the leap is made across a chasm of nothingness from the text to arrive at these statements is confounding.

Comment on Hebrew Language Resources

Anonymous — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 04:28:31 GMT

Chad, I am trying to reconnect with an old friend from HS named Chad Haarer from Scottsdale AZ, is this you. If so, please email me, stafferman@gmail.com. Thanks!