How the Covenantal Nature of the Church Disallows the Prevalent Individualistic, “Contractual” Ecclesiology (Gregg Allison)

The Church is the Church of the New Covenant. It is the New Covenant community. And Gregg Allison [1] rightly perceives that apprehension of this reality destroys the popular individualism in much contemporary church culture.

The dilemma: individualism and “contractual ecclesiology.”

AllisonHe cites Michael Horton who calls this unfortunate phenomena “contractual ecclesiology,” by which Horton means the following:

In evangelical contexts, the church is often regarded chiefly as a resource for fellowship. For the uniquely individualized personal relationship with Jesus, the church is not only dispensable but perhaps also a hindrance to personal growth. … [A] voluntaristic emphasis emerges, with human decision as the contractual basis for … ecclesial [church] existence. [2]

Many view the church as a ‘contractual reality,’ i.e., something that comes into existence  when fellow Christians just so happen to commit to one another (what is seen as an otherwise optional activity). In other words, the church is the product of Christians deciding to form a community. Thus the church’s existence is thought to be based on fellow ‘contractual’ agreement.

Continue reading

Tremper Longman III on the Proper Use of Commentaries

LongmanToday in the library I was working on updating our “Recommended Old Testament Commentaries list” and came across this helpful advice from Tremper Longman.
There is a right way and a wrong way to use a commentary. Actually, there are two wrong ways. The first is to ignore completely the use of commentaries. Some people do not consult commentaries because they believe that, since all Christians are equal as they approach the Scriptures, scholars have no privileged insight into the biblical text. The second error is to become overly dependent on commentaries. “These people have devoted their whole lives to the study of the Bible. How can my opinion measure up to theirs?”
Those holding the first position are wrong because they forget that God gives different gifts to different people in the church. Not all people are equally adept at understanding the Bible and teaching it to others (1 Cor. 12:12–31). Those holding the second position err in the opposite direction. They forget that God has given believers the Spirit by which they can discern spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14–16).
The right way to use a commentary is as a help. We should first study a passage without reference to any helps. Only after coming to an initial understanding of the passage should we consult commentaries.
Neither should we let commentaries bully us. Many times they will be of great help, but sometimes the reader will be right and the commentaries will be wrong.
Tremper Longman III, Old Testament Commentary Survey, 5th Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 17.

Scot McKnight and Robert Paterson on the Saving Significance of Christ’s Death in Acts (an Artificial Conversation)

king-jesus-gospelI like to maintain the habit of reading multiple books simultaneous. An interesting thing that happens occasionally is when two or more books happen to ‘interact’ over an idea as I read these books in conjunction. Something like this happened as I just finished Scot McKnight’s The King Jesus Gospel and am near the front end of Robert A. Paterson’s Salvation Accomplished by the Son.

In The King Jesus Gospel (which, by the way, is a good book, although many conservative evangelicals like myself will quibble over emphases and the way he frames/words things), McKnight makes the point that too often evangelicals have reduced the Gospel to the cross of Christ to the exclusion of “the full Story of Jesus, including his life, his death, his resurrection, his exaltation, the gift of the Holy Spirit, his second coming, and the wrapping up of history so that God would be all in all” (119). However, this was

Not so in the early gospeling [i.e., evangelism], for in those early apostolic sermons [he is referring to those in the book of Acts primarily here], we see the whole life of Jesus. In fact, if they gave an emphasis to one dimension of the life of Jesus, it was the resurrection. The apostolic gospel could not have been signified or painted or sketched with a crucifix. That gospel wanted expression as an empty cross because of the empty tomb (120).

That’s true. McKnight is right.

But, without necessarily pitting McKnight’s argument against Peterson’s (to follow), one might get the impression from McKnight that the apostle’s gospeling in the book of Act’s didn’t provide much comment (if any) on the theological, redemptive significance of Jesus’ death. … And that’s where Robertson’s observations serve as a helpful conversation partner.

Continue reading

Israel Trip (Photos)

About two years ago, my parents had the opportunity to take a study tour of Israel. And about two years ago my parents decided to send me instead of themselves. Therefore, I offer a big thanks to them for providing me with this opportunity. And I’d like to ‘dedicate’ this post to them.


I spent the past 10-11 days on a study tour in Israel. We visited an unbelievable amount of locations (more than are represented in the photos here); and I took a enormous amount of photos (around 1,250!). I’d like to share an incredibly narrowed down selection of those photos. The following are some of my amateur iPhone shots that I took throughout the trip. Enjoy!

**Click on photos for larger images.

 Jerusalem Area

Mount of Olives from Mount Scopus.

Mount of Olives (left) and Jerusalem (right) from Mount Scopus.

Continue reading

Interpretation and potential textual emendation of “offer the fruit of our lips” in Hosea 14:3 (English 14:2)

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Eric Tully’s Advanced Hebrew Exegesis of Hosea course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Please note: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references below, which can at times be different than what one will find in our English translations.


If rendered somewhat ‘literally,’ the last line of Hosea 14:3 [Eng 14:2] reads something like, “And we will restore [shalom] the bulls // our lips.” Nonetheless, the only English translation that seems to preserve (something like) this reading is the KJV: “So we will render the calves of our lips.” The average, cursory reading of this line easily hints that something is askew, that either this Hebrew text has somehow been corrupted or misread, or, some interpretive explanation needs to be provided to make sense of this seemingly odd line. It is the goal of this paper to investigate this matter.

Significant factors are at play in this exegetical issue. (1) Should פָרִ֖ים be rendered as derived from פַּר (bull) or emended to פְּרִים (fruit)? (2) How do פָרִ֖ים and שְׂפָתֵֽינוּ relate to each other and the preceding verb, וּֽנְשַׁלְּמָ֥ה? A sampling of emerging views, as represented by both English translations and commentators, follows. As cited, (1) the KJV retains a more literal reading of the MT. In this view, פָרִ֖ים serves as the direct object of וּֽנְשַׁלְּמָ֥ה. פָרִ֖ים שְׂפָתֵֽינוּ is taken as a construct chain. But what this rendering would mean is difficult to determine. (2) Seemingly the most popular view, well represented by the RSV (cf. YLT, NASB, HCSB[?], NIV; NLT[?]), “And we render the fruit of our lips,” is simply to emend פָרִ֖ים, derived from פַּר (bull), to פְּרִים (fruit). In support of this emendation is the LXX’s reading, καρπὸν χειλέων ἡμῶν (“fruit of our lips”) (cf. the Peshitta). With this rendering, the interpretive question is, To what does “fruit of our lips” refer? Garrett (271) suggests this refers to “simply one’s words or what one says.” This understanding makes good sense of the immediately previous lines which call for the people to return with words, presumably words of repentance. But note, against both views #1 and #2 is the fact that פָרִ֖ים is absolute form, not construct. As such, to understand פָרִ֖ים שְׂפָתֵֽינוּ as a construct clause is odd. On the other hand, Wolff (231) argues that this final ם is an “enclitic ם” and “an archaic Canaanite case ending.” (3) Some preserve פָרִ֖ים, as derived from פַּר (bull), but understand Hosea’s mere “our lips” (שְׂפָתֵֽינוּ) to be a rather terse way of expressing things like (a)the offering of our lips” (ASV), (b)the praise of our lips” (NET; cf. NLT), (c) the vows of our lips” (ESV). According to sub-views a and b, and in contrast to view #1, פָרִ֖ים does not serve as the direct object of וּֽנְשַׁלְּמָ֥ה, but that for which “___ of our lips” (שְׂפָתֵֽינוּ) serves as a substitute. In other words, this “___ of our lips” (שְׂפָתֵֽינוּ) is offered as if they were bull offerings. Against this view, Garrett (271) notes, “This interpretation suffers from the fact that the notion of offering one’s ‘lips’ as ‘bulls’ makes for a very harsh metaphor.” On the other hand, sub-view c proposes that “___ of our lips” (שְׂפָתֵֽינוּ) is the direct object of וּֽנְשַׁלְּמָ֥ה and פָרִ֖ים is a modifier. For example, according to the ESV, the bull-offerings complete “the vows of our lips.”

In conclusion, it seems best to emend פָרִ֖ים, derived from פַּר (bull), to פְּרִים (fruit). This decision has manuscript support in both the LXX and Peshitta and the interpretive support of the context, namely the call to repent with words (cf. “fruit of our lips”). This emendation does not alter the consonantal text either, adding credibility to this option. In contrast, view #1 seems to make little sense. And view #3, and its various sub-views, seem to stretch the grammar beyond its legitimate bounds. View #2 is therefore preferred.