Reputation
Top tag
Next privilege 1,500 Rep.
Approve tag wiki edits
Badges
1 13 31
Impact
~62k people reached

May
21
comment How should ἱλαστήριον (hilasterion) be translated in Romans 3:25?
Propitiation and expiation have different objects, though the same act. God is propitiated, whereas sin is expiated. That is, propitiation means that God is appeased and his wrath is turned aside; expiation means that sin and guilt is taken away, covered up, or atoned for. So the two go hand in hand--when God's wrath is turned aside, he covers our sin; when he covers our sin, his wrath is turned aside. More specifically, when God's wrath is diverted from us to Jesus, his blood covers our sin; that act in turn reconciles us to God.
May
17
comment Twenty plus twenty-five plus fifteen in Ezekiel 45:12
If that were the case, I would just say "three twenty-shekels is a mina"
May
11
comment According to Romans 5, is death caused by individual sin, or Adam's sin?
+1 for imputed righteousness (Christ to man) necessitating imputed sin (man to Christ)
May
7
comment How can we understand “another gospel” in its historical context?
Thank you--this is a very compelling argument that Paul had the Judaizers in mind when warning against competing "gospels". I actually appreciate you stopping short of the modern parallel; although those are the occasion for my question, I'd see it as more of an application of this text.
Feb
8
comment What hermeneutical approach does Hebrews use on the Old Testament
It's reasoning by analogy, but it helps
Dec
13
comment Why does Jesus include “persecutions” in the list of things received by his followers?
Hey @Shredder, I've been glad to see you getting involved in the site here. Can you augment your answer with support for this reading, either with other scripture, or with commentary support, or the like?
Dec
9
comment Who believes, is baptized, and is saved in Acts 16?
Interesting. I'd rather avoid modern-day infant vs believer baptism; I'm just trying to understand what scripture says.
Nov
17
comment Is the phrase “sin shall no longer be your master” in Romans 6:14 a command?
Excellent question. I sometimes find it helpful to consider that something can be both indicative and imperative, in different senses, or, in other words, can be both law and Gospel. For now, perhaps, we are being told to not let sin have mastery over us, but in a fuller Gospel sense, we will one day live where sin will not have mastery over us.
Oct
28
comment Who named the wrong priest in Mark 2:26?
As I said, that was an example of an unstated premise. My question wasn't the whole objection. There are many answers to this apparent problem that do not require that any of scripture makes a mistake.
Oct
28
comment Who named the wrong priest in Mark 2:26?
How do you know, for example, that there was only one? We know that there were multiple in the first century.
Oct
28
comment Who named the wrong priest in Mark 2:26?
I suppose the question is unanswerable if one does not agree with your premise that one or the other is wrong.
Oct
27
comment Why would God disapprove of rituals he ordained?
Excellent. I've always read it one way, but don't think I've ever seen a robust argument for it.
Oct
27
comment What is the actual word used in “Thou shall not kill?”
The actual words are "לֹא תִּרְצָֽח׃ ס", apparently
Oct
21
comment Is there a scriptural warrant for the literal-historical approach?
Cool; I think that edit will be helpful.
Oct
21
comment Who wrote the hymn in Philippians 2?
That's what I thought--just wanted to clarify
Oct
21
comment Who wrote the hymn in Philippians 2?
To clarify, you're asking who wrote the hymn? Or who wrote Philippians?
Oct
20
comment Is there a scriptural warrant for the literal-historical approach?
Hi Bob. I think this is a vitally important question. We can't simply take any approach we feel like to reading sacred scripture. That said, this question is really too broad, as it's asking for a survey of an open-ended number of methodologies. I wonder if it would help to focus on a specific approach, and see if there is biblical precedent for interpreting the text in that manner.
Oct
19
comment Which hermeneutical approaches support a literal interpretation of the Creation account?
This is a very thorough answer, but fails to do what the question asks, which is to provide a hermeneutic that yields the 24-hour day conclusion.
Oct
18
comment Where is the citation of John 7:38 taken from?
Indeed; I was thinking of 1 Cor. 3, where the "you" being labelled as "a temple" is referring to the whole church. Still, allowing that the individual being called a temple is plausible, it is rather far removed from the believer directly being labelled a source of living water. Christ, on the other hand, is referred to as such both directly and indirectly, and the phrase "let him come to me and drink" strongly suggests that he is the source of water in mind in this verse.
Oct
18
comment Where is the citation of John 7:38 taken from?
This might be out of scope for this question/answer, but would be a good follow-up. Briefly, however, I would argue that Paul is arguing that the church as a body is a temple, not that individual believers are temples.