The Primary Reason I’m a Preacher — John MacArthur

“Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.” — 1 Peter 2:1-3

While preaching on the verses above, in a sort of aside, John MacArthur stated his primary reason for being in the ministry. I personally believe it is also the primary reason the Lord has blessed his ministry:

If Peter was going to exhort his congregation through this letter, he could have chosen a number of approaches to this. He could have said to them, “You need to read the Word.” That’s what Paul said in 1 Timothy 4:13. He could have said, “You need to study the Word so that you’re not ashamed, rightly dividing it,” as Paul said in 1 Timothy 2:15. He could have said what the psalmist said in Psalm 19:14 what Joshua 1:8 says, what Paul said in Philippians 4:8, he could have said, “Think on the Word, meditate on the Word.” He could have said what Paul said in 1 Timothy 4:11, “Teach the Word.” He could have said what Paul said in 2 Timothy 4:2, “Preach the Word.” He could have said what it says in Acts 17:11 about the Bereans, “Search the Word.” He could have said what is instructed to us in the armor of the Christian in Ephesians 6, “Take the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God,” or wield the Word, but he didn’t. I suppose he could have said what is in Psalm 119:11, “Hide the Word.” Put it in your heart. All of those things are certainly critical.    Continue at Eric T. Young

Should We Interpret a Bible Verse Literally or Figuratively?

It depends on context. A person’s soul is in peril if he thinks Jesus was using poetic exaggeration when He said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). On the other hand, a Bible reader might maim himself unnecessarily if he fails to recognize the hyperbole in Jesus’ statement that we should cut off our hands and gouge out our eyes to avoid sin (Matthew 5:29-30). Like all people who have ever spoken or written, biblical authors use different styles of communication at different times.

Of course, everything the Bible affirms is true, regardless of its literary genre. Still, every time we open our Bibles, we must determine what style of communication is being used and read accordingly. As a primer, here are a few of the literary styles used in Scripture and some rules for interpreting them taken from Robert Stein’s helpful book, A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible.   

  

Historical narrative recounts events and is meant to be understood literally – not as fable. In this vein, Article XIII of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics insists that literary techniques not be used to evade historical accounts.[i] For instance, some scholars have tried to fictionalize the story of Jonah and the Fish, but Christ treats Jonah as a real person in Matthew 12:40-42, and so should we. More than 40 percent of the Old Testament and nearly 60 percent of the New is historical narrative, including much of the material in the Gospels and Acts.

– Songs and poetry are geared toward evoking emotion rather than speaking with scientific accuracy. With biblical poetry, the reader must determine the author’s message without misconstruing symbolism as narrative description. For example, the song in Exodus 15 poetically describes Pharaoh’s army as being “thrown into the [Red] sea” (15:1) even though it actually followed the Israelites through the parted waters before God sent them crashing back down.

– Proverbs are pithy sayings that express general truths or rules of thumb; they don’t convey ironclad guarantees. A classic example is Proverbs 22:6, “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.” While parental training generally sets the course for a child’s life, there are exceptions. (See BibleMesh blog article, “Is Proverbs 22:6 a guarantee?”)    Continue at Peter Cockrell

See also:

 My Second-Favorite All-Around Book on Bible Translation

 The History of Christianity in 25 Objects: The Gutenberg Bible

Presuppositional Apologetics: An Evaluation

Yesterday I spent some time describing the presuppositionalist school of apologetics. Today, I want to evaluate it. As you were probably able to tell from that post, I tipped my hand a bit and probably let on that I’m a fan. In fact, I believe that presuppositional apologetics is the best model among the various systems of apologetics, particularly because it is the school that most faithfully submits to the implications of Scriptural teaching. I believe this for several reasons.

Consistent with the Nature of Man and Salvation

First, presuppositionalism is the only school of apologetics that is consistent with what the Bible teaches about the nature of sinful man and the gift of salvation. All schools of apologetics will admit that their ultimate goal is not merely to win an argument or to show up a philosophical opponent. All Christian apologists defend the faith in order to honor God and to see people get saved. Yet it seems to me that other schools of apologetics—particularly evidentialism and classical apologetics—fail to bring their practice in line with what the Bible teaches about man’s depravity and God’s salvation.

Evidentialism treats man as if his problem is merely intellectual. It offers arguments and evidences for the likelihood of Christian claims and asks the unbeliever to render judgment. Classical apologists do the same thing, but they insert an extra step by arguing for theism in general before Christian theism in particular. However, both of these methods ignore the fact that the unbeliever’s problem is moral, not intellectual. All evidence will be interpreted in light of someone’s existing worldview. And the Bible tells us that the unbeliever is blind to the glory of Christ (2 Cor 4:4) and actively committed to suppressing whatever knowledge of God they do have (Rom 1:18) because they love their sin (John 3:20).    Continue at Mike Riccardi

16 Rules of Bible Interpretation

Jesus, in the preamble to quoting a verse from the Old Testament said, “…have you not read what was spoken to you by God…” (Matt. 22:31). He then went on to quote a verse from the book of Genesis. Think about that for a moment. Jesus believed (and held people accountable for doing so) that when someone read a verse from the Old Testament, they were reading something spoken to them by God. That is a very high view of Scripture, to be sure. 

The testimony of Jesus and of the Bible is that “All Scripture is God breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16). Therefore, when we open up a page in our Bibles, we are treading upon holy ground. The Bible, although a book, is also unlike any other book. It is not simply a book giving facts about God. The Bible is a book written by God. Certainly, human writers were involved, but the text of Scripture is inspired or breathed out by God Himself. Just having this concept in place would greatly help us in our Bible studies. 

What do I mean by that? 

Well, many people view the interpretation of God’s Word as “no big deal” really. To them it is nothing more important than the reading of any other book, at least in their methodology. Continue at John Samson

Are the Differing Narratives of Peter's Denials Reconcilable?

Jack C. from Chicago asks:

Regarding Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial and the ensuing narrative that describes the denial, Matthew, Luke, and John disagree with Mark in such a way that seems like an irreconcilable contradiction: both accounts logically cannot be true. No commentary has provided a satisfying explanation. Can anyone? Should this interfere with our belief that the Scripture is inerrant?

We posed this question to Craig L. Blomberg, distinguished professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary in Littleton, Colorado.

A generation ago, Harold Lindsell in his widely quoted Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976, pp. 174-76) found the differences between the Gospels' accounts of Peter's denials so great that he postulated that Peter actually disavowed knowing Jesus six times! The problem is that every one of the four Gospels has Jesus predicting that Peter would deny him three times and then going on to describe only three denials by Peter. The kind of harmonization Lindsell suggested unfortunately discredits the whole enterprise in many people's minds. But better ways exist to deal with the apparent discrepancies.  Keep Reading >>>

The Question of Canonicity

In my seminary classes this week, we have been covering the topic of canonicity. In today’s post I include just a brief portion of our class discussion.

 

Why do we consider the 66 books that make up our Bibles to be the inspired and authoritative Word of God?

While we could easily write many pages in response to this question, I believe the answer is ultimately a simple one. As Christians, we submit to the inspiration and authority of the Old Testament because Jesus Christ affirmed it as God’s Word. And, we submit to the inspiration and authority of the New Testament because Jesus Christ authorized His apostles to reveal His truth to His church.

The short answer to the canonicity question, then, is Jesus Christ. He determined the canon for us when He affirmed the Old Testament and authorized the New.

What follows is an introductory framework that fleshes this out in a little more detail:

1. By definition, the written Word of God consists of that which God has revealed through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:20–21 – “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation [creation or origination], for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”    Keep Reading >>>

Jesus Christ: The Interpretive Key to the Scripture

The Reformed Man Says.. The Arminian Man Says

Seven Common Fallacies in Bible Interpretation

1. Preunderstanding fallacy:

2. Incidental fallacy:

3. Obscurity fallacy:

4. Etymological root fallacy:

5. Illegitimate totality transfer:

6. Selective use of meaning:

7. Maverick fallacy:

Read it all HERE