Tag: NT

Salvation in the Present Tense: Are We “Being Saved”?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 12 Comments

The chorus of a popular hymn from the early 20th Century1 goes like this:

Saved… by His pow’r divine,
Saved… to new life sublime!
Life now is sweet and my joy is complete,
For I’m Saved, Saved, Saved!

It certainly is a thrilling reality, to know oneself as saved by God’s grace. The American church over the last hundred years or more, has so focused on the past tense, completed sense of salvation, however, that they’ve ignored the idea of salvation being in the present tense. The Bible actually speaks of three tenses when it comes to salvation: we have been saved (in the past: Eph. 2:5,8, 2 Tim. 1:9, Tit. 3:5), we also will ultimately be saved (in the future: Rom, 5:91 Thess. 5:9-10, 1 Pet. 1:5), and we are being saved now (in the present: 1 Cor. 1:18, 15:1-2, 2 Cor. 2:15).

One of the key passages, as you see above, for this concept of salvation being a present tense “being saved” reality, is 1 Cor. 15:1-2. Which says, “Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you”” unless you believed in vain. (ESV)”

Bill Mounce, a Greek professor and author, recently addressed how we should translate the Greek phrase for “being saved”, which some Bibles (like the King James Version) have as “are saved”. His comments reveal how the context of a book and one’s theology often help determine the translation of particular phrases. This is how language works. There is no absolute sense where the tense of a Greek verb has only one translation choice when it comes to putting it into English. That being said, I think Mounce’s case for 1 Cor. 15:2 being understood as “are being saved”, is quite strong. I also like his stress on the idea of being on “the straight and narrow” path, as the ultimate descriptive of our reality as Christ-followers.

Let me know what you think of this present tense salvation concept. I’ve shared thoughts related to this idea previously. A few posts which might help are listed below:

________________________________________

1 Words and music by Jack Scholfield (1918). Hear the tune in a new, contemporary choral arrangement here.

“Galatians (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)” by Thomas R. Schreiner

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Bible commentaries abound today. Scores of commentaries confront the would-be expositor of any book of the Bible, and almost nobody blinks at a new series of commentaries anymore. It goes without saying that the relative value of a given commentary is all over the map, and here perhaps more than anywhere else, a discerning eye is called for.

You guessed it, I’m getting ready for the “but you have to check out this new commentary series” line. But I really mean it. The new Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (ZECNT) series will live up to any amount of hype one can dig up. I’ve reviewed several commentaries, I own bits and pieces of a score of commentary sets, and have examined others besides, yet this series promises to be a true must-have, when it comes to exegetical commentaries.

Like many other students of Scripture, I’ve been schooled in Greek, but that was some time ago. I also aim to fix an opinion on any passage I plan to teach. But with the amount of scholarly material one must evaluate, the task can be a bit daunting. Opening a commentary for answers can lead to far more questions than originally conceived. And some commentators stand out for their pious, know-it-all approach to informing us of their thoughts on the subject.

In sharp contrast, Thomas Schreiner in his ZECNT commentary on Galatians, excels at making the task of studying and making judgments easy. He provides all the relevant arguments on a given question, both the pros and cons. He defends positions that he ultimately rejects, all in the effort of explaining what is at stake and how to best see the big picture in a given exegetical question.

The clarity and candor on display in Schreiner’s work is complemented by the brilliant (can I use that term of a commentary?) ordering of material conceived by the ZECNT editors. After allowing for an in-depth introduction to set the stage for the book, each unit of the text is addressed in such a way as to best help the teacher or preacher work through the material of the Text and see connections to the overall outline of the book, catching the flow of the larger argument. Greek is used throughout but never in an over the top way. Almost universally, the Greek follows the English, and the effect is to draw one into the Greek arguments more easily, encouraging and promoting the revival of long-forgotten Greek exegetical skills.

Each section begins with a literary context of the unit and a tie in to the over-arching outline of the book. Then the main idea is summarized in a few sentences. The English translation of the text is next given in a special graphical layout which highlights the relationship between the various clauses and phrases which make up the text. Following this, the structure of the textual unit is discussed and a more detailed exegetical outline is provided for the text just before a detailed explanation of the text (with footnotes) is offered. Finally, a pastoral application section concludes the discussion on the passage at hand. Theology is thus applied to life in a masterful way, which will help guide the teacher and pastor to make appropriate and relevant applications from the exegetical study he undertakes.

At the end of the commentary the major themes of the book are discussed, giving an overview, or summary of all that Galatians has covered. This section is a miniature biblical theology in a sense, and will be of great value to those seeking a bigger picture view of the book, before they dive into the separate pieces.

Now on top of all the positive things I’ve mentioned up to this point, Zondervan is to be commended for choosing a competent and careful scholar to pick up his pen for the Galatians commentary. Thomas Schreiner has written books on the question of Paul’s use of the Law, and on the more practical side of how the OT Law relates to Christians. He also is one who’s publicly disputed the New Pauline Perspective, standing for a conservative, Reformed view of justification by faith and imputation. The expertise and faithfulness Schreiner has shown over the years makes him eminently qualified to write this book. And furthermore, his attitude and style in writing remains irenic, open and fair-minded, even when he stands forcefully against a contemporary exegetical trend.

The problem passages are many in Galatians, and Schreiner succeeds in navigating them well. I’m particularly impressed by how the book maintains a pastoral perspective throughout. I shouldn’t be surprised, however, since Schreiner himself is a preaching pastor even as he fills the roles of professor of NT and associate dean of Scripture and interpretation for Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. A fine combination of learning and grace exude from the man himself and this book.

I can’t recommend the work more highly, and I’m now interested in checking out other titles of this exceedingly useful commentary series. If the Galatians volume is truly representative of the larger series, then the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament series is truly a must-have resource for the exegetically minded pastor and teacher.

Pick up a copy of this book at Amazon.com, Westminster Bookstore or directly from Zondervan.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Zondervan for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

“Faith in the Face of Apostasy: The Gospel According to Elijah & Elisha” by Raymond B. Dillard

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

In today’s church, the Old Testament is often overlooked. When attention is drawn to it, the focus tends to be on creation science, Proverbs for daily living, Psalms for devotional nourishment, and character studies for us to emulate. The Christian church largely focuses on the New Testament for its teaching and preaching. In a sense this is natural, because the New Testament is so definitive for church life. Yet the NT spends a lot of time focusing on the Old Testament, and the early church’s Bible was primarily the OT. In fact, the more one understands and appreciates the message of the Old Testament, the better he or she will be prepared to really be impacted by the teaching of the New Testament.

Thankfully, the last twenty or thirty years have seen a revival of interest in the Old Testament and the recovery of preaching it as a Christian testament. Moralistic surveys of the characters of the Old Testament might have some use, but they are being set aside today in favor of a biblical theological approach that sees a unity in the Bible as a whole. The narrative of Scripture is being seen again as thoroughly Christocentric, and countless believers are being revitalized in their faith through finding the glory of God in the Old Testament afresh.

A big factor in the renaissance of the study of the OT has been the impact of good Christian books. P & R Publishing has produced a series of helpful books on OT themes called The Gospel According to the Old Testament series. The first book in that series is Faith in the Face of Apostasy: The Gospel According to Elijah and Elisha by Raymond B. Dillard.

Dillard’s book and the series as a whole, parts ways from a simple anthropocentric approach to the OT. Such an approach centers on people and their needs, and looks to the OT for examples to follow, and life-lessons to learn. Dillard’s approach, in contrast, focuses on what we can learn about God from the story, remembering that all OT stories have the unique quality of being divine revelation. The “first question” in this approach, “will not be ‘What’s here for me?’ but rather ‘What do I learn about God from this passage?'” Once we learn “about what God is like” from the passage, we are then prepared to ask “How we should I respond to this God?” Dillard then goes a bit further. “For Christian readers of the Old Testament”, he says, “there is yet another step to take…. We need to ask, How can we see God in Christ reconciling the world to himself in the pages of the Hebrew Scriptures? That is, in addition to anthropocentric and theocentric ways of reading the Bible, there is also a Christocentric approach.” (pg. 124-125)

With these goals in mind, the book begins with a historical overview of the time period of Elisha and Elijah and the likely time when Kings was written (the Babylonian exile period). It is interesting to note that Elijah and Elisha are singled out and given almost 1/3 of the space of the entire book of 1-2 Kings. Dillard also traces how later Scripture uses the account of Elijah and Elisha, focusing particularly on the parallels Matthew draws between Elijah and John the Baptist, and Jesus and Elisha.

The book moves on to a treatment of all the texts in 1 and 2 Kings where Elijah and Elisha have an important role. Each chapter contains, two or three passages (quoted entirely) which are discussed individually followed by questions for further reflection. Having the Biblical text included allows for the book’s easy use as a devotional guide. The study questions make it handy for a small group study, and the material covered is simple and direct enough to allow for several uses. The themes developed and traced often throughout Scripture, make this an accessible theological resource, and the brief nature of the thoughts shared make it a perfect tool for pastors, who could easily prepare a longer sermon using the material Dillard offers as their starting point.

Dillard’s exegesis is sound and the application he draws is challenging, relevant and helpful. I particularly enjoyed how he brought to bear a detailed understanding of the historic worship of Baal (from the Ugaritic texts) and how this highlights many of the points made in the stories of Elijah and Elisha. From crossing the Jordan, to the chariot of fire, from the rain being stopped and with fire coming from heaven, all of this relates to the alleged domain and limits of the god Baal. Dillard also excels at translating the concerns of the agrarian age of Elijah and Elisha to our own contemporary problems. Along the way he also develops a thoroughly God-centered approach.

The anticipatory function of Elijah and Elisha (e.g., the confrontation with Baal on the spot of the future battle of Armageddon, the feeding of a hundred men from 20 loaves with food “left over”, and etc.) is highlighted well in this book, even as parallels with Christ are carefully and judiciously drawn. Sometimes more explicit NT connections are left for the discussion questions, and I credit the author with stopping short of stretching too far in finding types and analogies of NT truths in the stories. I was intrigued too by the fascinating parallels drawn between Elijah and Moses when they went to Mount Horeb, and the discussion of the redemptive role of miracles — restoring creation to how it was intended to be.

The stories of Elijah and Elisha are breathtaking, and life-giving in themselves. Just as Elisha’s bones brought a man to life, so too will this book bring life to your spiritual soul as you see those stories in a fresh and faith-filled way. The book may open your eyes to a Christian understanding of the Old Testament that you were unaware of. At the very least it will thrill you to the wonderful, covenant keeping God we serve, and His Son Jesus Christ. I highly recommend this book and others like it in The Gospel According to the Old Testament series.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Pick up a copy of this book at Westminster Bookstore, Amazon.com, or through P & R direct.

Are We “New Covenant Believers”?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 31 Comments

In the comments on a recent article I came across, someone made the following statement:

…Then move to something controversial: Zech. 12:10-14 and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. In guiding our people responsibly through that passage, we need to wrestle with similar “outpouring” language in the NT, but also with the limited object of the outpouring in Zech. 12:10, “the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.”

If we leave behind the matter of literalness, who is to say our application isn’t heresy (to quote Haddon Robinson)? Am I, a new covenant believer, in the house of David? Am I an inhabitant of Jerusalem? (I wish)… [emphasis added]

As I was typing up a response to the idea that we are not “new covenant believers”, I thought my answer might make for a good blog post. So I’m sharing my response for your benefit. Do I hit the mark? Does this make sense? I’d love your input after reading my reply below.

I want to challenge this a bit. And I’m just using Ted’s words here it isn’t about him it’s a bigger issue. What John is doing is trying to do justice to the NT teaching which is quite clear on how much continuity there is between God’s people before Christ and afterward. The comments here by the opposing view center only on Zecharaiah mostly.

If we just had Jer. 31, then yes, we aren’t “new covenant believers”, to use Ted’s terms. But the New Testament tells us the new covenant has begun. Jesus said as much in his inauguration of the Lord’s Supper ceremony for the church. “And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’ ” (Luke 22:20 ESV) Paul tells us that he is a minister of the new covenant:

“Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (2 Corinthians 3:5-6 ESV)

In context, the ministry of the new covenant is Paul’s ministry of spreading the gospel among the gentiles (4:1 “this ministry”… and 4:3-6 “our gospel”).

Furthermore, Hebrews says the old covenant is passing away and insufficient because the new covenant is here, see chapters 8 and 10 of Hebrews where Jeremiah 31:31-34 is quoted and applied as a current reality.

Not only are we “new covenant believers”, we are inhabitants of “Jerusalem” who is our true mother (see Gal. 4:26, Heb. 12:22) and seek a heavenly city in the same sense that OT believers sought a heavenly (not earthly) city (Heb. 13:14, cf. Heb. 11:13-16).

This NT language means something. The NT description of God’s people being a living temple is something that goes beyond OT realities. Something is happening in the NT and it will affect how we understand the OT. 1 Peter tells us that the OT authors often didn’t know what they were writing of, but were writing for our benefit (1 Pt. 1:10-12). And what happened to the OT saints is a lesson and instruction for us and was written for our encouragement (1 Cor. 10:11, Rom. 15:4).

I believe that following the lead of the NT apostles and Jesus, in how they used OT Scripture and saw that it culminated in Jesus Christ and the gospel of grace, is how best to interpret Scripture. Scripture doesn’t leave us without a hermeneutic. A redemptive-historical hermeneutic aims to follow the teaching of the Bible about itself and to understand how Christ truly sums up all things in His own ministry. He fulfills the Law.

I think John Davis’ last paragraph captures the NT age experience well. The new covenant is here but we aren’t experiencing it in all its fullness quite yet. That may mean a millennium, but it certainly means more than a millennium. Christ will reign and we will live on a restored earth for all eternity.

This post follows on the heels of my recent entry on Gal. 6:16 which I’d encourage you to read, if the thought of the NT depiction of the church in OT terms is new to you. Again, I’m interested in any input you might have regarding this question. Are we, or aren’t we, “new covenant believers”?

Eph 2 & Dispensationalism (part 2)

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

–continued from part 1

We are discussing Ephesians 2 and dispensationalism.   In yesterday’s post, we saw that Gentiles are added to the “commonwealth of Israel” and become full fledged members. They with believing Israel become “one new man”. At the very least this teaches that in the dispensation of the church age, there is no distinction between Jewish Christians and non-Jewish Christians. But I believe given the context of Ephesians as a whole, and the other end times passages in the NT that there is no going back to a 2 people structure.

An additional implication of this teaching, that there is only 1 people of God during the church age, would be that the book of James cannot address Jewish Christians independently of the church. So as it addresses the “twelve tribes in dispersion”, that would be seen to be a descriptor of the church which is like Israel, and was scattered throughout the world being spread through persecution (Acts 8), and also being considered “strangers” or “pilgrims” as 1 Peter ch. 1 describes them. The church finds solidarity with the patriarchs of the faith in Hebrews, and we find in Hebrews 8, and especially 10:15-25, that the new covenant is given to the Church as well.

Now we’ll pick up Ken Gentry’s next point, from his Ephesians and Dispensationalism post.

Paul sees Gentiles as receiving Jewish promises.

In our last comment we noted that Paul saw Jew and Gentile merged “” permanently “” in one body, the church (Eph 2:11–19). Now we would note that in the early part of that text he teaches that this new, merged body “” the church “” receives the Old Testament promises given to Israel. Consider Paul’s statement to these Gentile Christians:

“remember that you were at that time [before your conversion] separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph 2:12).

What is happening here? Paul is speaking of matters involving “the commonwealth of Israel.” He is declaring that before these Gentiles came to Christ they were “strangers to the covenants of promise.” This necessarily means that now that they have come to Christ they are no longer strangers to the covenants of promise.

Thus, they are now recipients of “the covenants of promise,” which include the distinctive Abrahamic Covenant with Israel (Gal 3:16–18). After all, he goes on to say that though they were “a that time” (Eph 2:12) excluded and strangers they now “have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Eph 2:13) and that Christ “broke down the barrier of the dividing wall” that separated Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14).

Thus, if Gentiles are no longer “excluded from the commonwealth of Israel,” if Gentiles are no longer “strangers to the covenants of promise,” if Gentiles “have been brought near,” if Jew and Gentile are merged into one body , and if that which distinguishes Jew and Gentile has been “broken down” (the “dividing wall” ), then by parity of reasoning: the Gentiles receive the promises given to Israel. How can it be otherwise? The two are now one, so that the promises to the old covenant people belong to the new covenant people who have been merged with them.

As members of the commonwealth of Israel, we are partakers in the covenants of promise. In my “understanding the land promise” series, I show how Rom. 4:13-16 teaches that we partake in the land promise as well (Matt. 5:5 & Eph. 6:1-3). Stay tuned for at least one more post in this series on Eph. 2.