RECOMMENDED: On Recovering a Practice of Devoting Ourselves to the Public Reading of Scripture (Article by Scott Newling)

Kirk E. Miller

I just read/listened to this article by Scott Newling, “Devoted to the public reading of Scripture,” advocating a recovery of the actual practice of devoting ourselves to the public reading of scripture in our churches.

As 1 Timothy 4:13 says,

Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture….

Scott Newling says,

Let me be blunt: when we reduce the Bible reading in order to privilege something else in our meetings we are shifting the congregation’s understanding of what church is. When we choose not to read some bits because we deem them inappropriate, we forget that God wrote them—and that in his wisdom he knew what he was doing when he did. When we choose not to read parts because they seem irrelevant or unclear, we teach our congregations and ourselves that God’s word isn’t eternal or understandable. When we choose to not read the Old Testament because it is ‘unfamiliar’—how else are we going to get familiar with it? The non-Christian world certainly isn’t going to help us. If we find Scripture to be boring, it’s not God’s fault, and the solution isn’t to silence God! If we find a part boring, we must ask God to give us interest in it, because we love him and want to know what he has to say. The Bible is well aware that some bits are harder to understand than others (2 Pet 3:16-17). But where did we get the idea that the solution to this is to stop reading?

When we choose to reduce Bible readings for something else, do we then in effect say that our means, our words, are better than God’s to grow people?

I loved this article. It reflects a lot of my own convictions on the matter and thoughts I’ve been having for a little over a year now.

You can check it out over at Matthias Media’s The Briefing. Click here.

RECOMMENDED: “Mystery and Fulfillment: Toward a More Comprehensive Paradigm of Paul’s Understanding of the Old and the New” by D.A. Carson

Kirk E. Miller

I just finished reading D.A. Carson’s chapter “Mystery and Fulfillment: Toward a More Comprehensive Paradigm of Paul’s Understanding of the Old and the New” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, volume 2 subtitled “The Paradoxes of Paul.” These two volumes, the first of which deals with the variegated nature of 1st century/Second Temple Judaism while the second addresses the interpretation of Paul himself, are a collection of essays which seek to respond to the claims made by what has been called the New Perspective on Paul (or better: New Perspectives [plural] on Paul).

The following is my attempt to summarize the main argument of the chapter:

Carson presents the “coherent tension” between mystery (which entails some degree of discontinuity) and fulfillment (which entails some element of preceding anticipation and thus continuity) in Paul’s thought and applies to a response to the proposals of the New Perspective.

He argues that the New Perspective on Paul, which in many ways views Paul as not diverting from Judaism but, rather, in essence advancing what could be understood as a sect of Judaism in continuity with Judaism and as fitting the criteria of “covenantal nomism,” fails to grapple with the way in which Paul’s thought, although containing a strong sense of continuity with the Old Testament and its religion, which is evidenced by Paul’s pervasive “fulfillment”-framework, nonetheless has strong currents of discontinuity, which are evidenced by his inclusion of mystery concepts alongside his “fulfillment”-framework.

In other words, he argues that the New Perspective on Paul, which stresses significant continuity between Paul and  Judaism and/or “covenantal nomism,” fails to handle with integrity the continuity and discontinuity framework in Paul, a framework evidenced by the existence of “mystery” and “fulfillment” concepts in Paul.

Although I have significant interest in the conversations and debates inspired by the proposals of New Perspective, I actually set out to read this chapter because of its interaction with matters pertaining to redemptive history, issues continuity and discontinuity, typology, the role of the law, the relationship between the Testaments, the concept of mystery in Paul and the NT, etc. Carson provides some helpful insights into these matters as he “utilizes” them in his interaction with the New Perspective.

In other words, if either the New Perspective or any of the other topics interests you, I’d add this essay to your reading list.

Goodreads Review of Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships by James Brownson

Kirk E. Miller

Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church's Debate on Same-Sex RelationshipsBible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships by James V. Brownson

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

If you hold to the traditional, historic Christian position on same-sex relationship (like myself), this is a fantastic book to read in order to engage with the best of the revisionist position. It is well written, structured, and formatted. And his position, although one with which I disagree, is one with which to wrestle. In other words, this is not a “pop” apologetic of the revisionist position. This is a rather scholarly defense. (Don’t read this if you merely want to be able to “straw man” the revisionist view.) I find its position unconvincing and unacceptable; but this position that I hold to be dangerously wrong is nonetheless well presented and argued here. It serves as a fantastic representation of the revisionist position. And it would greatly serve as a catalyst for strengthening and forming a well thought out traditional position on marriage and sexuality. With that said, even though I disagreed with Brownson’s final proposals, I nonetheless learned from him and agreed with much he had to say leading up to those conclusions.

View all my reviews

Jeremiah 31:31-34 and the New Covenant Promise

Kirk E. Miller

The following is an exegetical analysis of Jeremiah 31:31-34 submitted to Dr. Eric J. Tully in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course OT 6217 Poetic and Prophetic Books at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, IL in April, 2015. The components/sections of the following paper were determined by the paper requirements.

Macro-Structure

The phrase הִנֵּה יָמִים בָּאִים נְאֻם־יְהוָה only occurs four times within Jer 30-31 (30:3; 31:27, 31, and 38).[1] In 30:3 it occurs in what appears to be something like a superscription or introduction (30:1-4) to the following collection of oracles (30:5-31:25), which ends with Jeremiah’s waking from the sleep in which he presumably received these oracles (31:26). This use of this phrase to head off this section seems to indicate that the phrase functions as a structural marker. Interestingly, the three other occurrences of this phrase in Jer 30-31 appear in much higher concentration, all within the short span of 31:27-40. This suggests (1) that 31:27-40 is a distinct literary unit from that of 30:1-26 and (2) that the occurrences ofהִנֵּה יָמִים בָּאִים נְאֻם־יְהוָה within 31:27-40 mark off subsections.

Continue reading →

Free-Willers in the Hands of an Angry Guy: Jonathan Edwards’ Philosophy of Human Freedom

Kirk E. Miller

The following is a paper originally submitted to Dr. Harold Netland in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course PR 6411 History of Philosophy of Religion II at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL, April 2015.

Free-Willers in the Hands of an Angry Guy: Jonathan Edwards’ Philosophy of Human Freedom As Primarily Presented in Freedom of the Will

In the preface of his monumental work, A Careful and Strict Inquiry into that Modern Prevailing Notions of that Freedom of Will, Which is Supposed to Be Essential to Moral Agency, Virtue and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame,[1] Jonathan Edwards asserts that knowledge of ourselves, with particular reference to understanding the nature of human freedom, is next to knowledge of God as subjects of chief importance. Upon it rests all matters of religion, virtue, and the doctrines of grace (preface; IV.XIV).[2] Therefore, against the backdrop of the “Modern Prevailing Notion” of human freedom (i.e., libertarianism), Edwards seeks to establish what he sees as a more sure and stable philosophical conception of freedom upon which such things can rest securely. He finds his answer in theological deterministic compatibilism.

This paper seeks to succinctly analyze that philosophy of human freedom as Edwards primarily presents it in his monumental work Freedom of the Will.

Continue reading →