BibleExposition.net exists to share ideas related to the exposition of God's Word and explore topics related to the Bible in general, theology (both biblical and systematic), archaeology, ministry, and life.
Rod Decker has scanned and posted the complete text of A. T. Robertson’s inaugural lecture at Southern Baptist Seminary in 1890. Robertson is best known for his work in New Testament Greek. You can download the document here.
Michael Heiser has posted his ETS paper entitled"The Concept of Godhead in Israelite Religion." The argument of the paper is that the Old Testament can be read in a way that affirms at least a Binitarian concept of godhead. You can download the paper here.
“In a debate over Gentiles in Acts 15, Peter makes their inclusion in his ministry God’s choice. Because faith eliminates distinctions between Jews and Gentiles in God’s eyes, to make Gentile believers become proselytes is to defy God. Peter inverts readers’ expectations by comparing believing Jews with believing Gentiles: so with Gentiles so also with Jews (15:7–11). But the inversion is temporary. James characterizes God as taking Gentiles under divine care in accord with Amos 9:11–12 LXX, and Amos confirms God’s inclusion of the Gentiles in fulfillment of the Davidic promise. In contrast to peter’s inversion, God adds the Gentiles to the Jews: as with Jews so also with Gentiles.”
Robert L. Brawley, “The God of Promises and the Jews in Luke-Acts,” in Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson, ed. Richard P. Thompson and Thomas E. Phillips (Macon, GA: Mercer, 1998), 291-2.
Yesterday I referred to a post by Todd Bolen on the acoustics of Mts. Gerizim and Ebal as it relates to Joshua 8:30-35 and Deuteronomy 27:14.Mark Hoffman followed Todd's post with a visual of one of the points in Todd's post by using Google Earth. See Todd's post here and Mark's post here.
Nijay Gupta has an excellent post concerning a common mistake in theological research. He writes,
We must be cautious, though, of too eagerly searching for answers outside of the text. What often ends up happening is this: We think Paul (or Luke or whoever) connects concept A to concept B. Why does he do that? Let’s look at the contemporary literature. Ok, we see that Philo links concept A to concept C. And we see Jubilees link concept C to concept B. Thus, Paul was influenced by Philo and Jubilees and THAT explains the mysterious relationship of A to B….right?
I think that Gupta is dead on with this caution. Raed his entire post here.
“That Christ’s vicarious sacrifice for our sins was the central element of the gospel that Paul received on the Damascus road may be inferred from his persecution of the Hellenist Christians. Even [J. D. G.] Dunn agrees that the Hellenists rejected the Jerusalem temple out of their belief that Christ’s death was the eschatological atonement that ended all sacrifices. After seeing the crucified Jesus as vindicated by God on the Damascus road, Paul joined them. It would be most unnatural if Paul had failed to see the appearance of the risen Christ as a confirmation of their belief. So we will have to conclude that at Damascus Paul accepted their kerygma that Christ died for the sins of humankind.”
Seyoon Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul's Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 49.
