A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament, by Philip Wesley Comfort

A Commentary on the Manuscripts and text of the New Testament, by Philip Wesley Comfort is an interesting and a potentially helpful resource in studying the NT.  I appreciate that summaries are given about the various manuscripts that are referred to in the commentary, including their symbols, which are what Comfort uses to refer to the different manuscripts as he comments on the different readings of any particular verse. 

Most of the variants appear to be rather small and do not appear to change the meaning of a verse much, for instance some manuscripts saying 'Jesus Christ' in a certain variant and others reading simply "Christ",  whichever reading a Bible translator chooses to use doesn't make a major difference as either way we know to Whom it refers.   Comfort mentions a variant of Romans 8:28 which I found interesting, he translates the variant as, "God turns everything to good" which of course is different from "all things work together for good."  He says that "this is the original wording according to three early MSS….It is God who turns everything to good; it is not just that everything works out for the good."*  But I don't think that that concept is lost by using "all things work together for good" because God's being the One working all things together for good is evidenced by the verses that follow (and by realizing the sovereignty of God that is taught throughout the Bible).  It is an interesting variant though. 

Comfort's eschatological views are evidenced in his commentary on the number of the beast in Revelation, "A variant reading is 'his number is 616…Either reading could be original…whichever one John wrote, they both symbolize Caesar Nero…"  I take it that Mr. Comfort is not premillennial.  Also, I disagree with some of his commentary on the variants of 1 Cor. 14:33, " 'For God is not the  author of discord but of harmony, as in all the gatherings of the saints.'  This reflects the reading of the three earliest MSS…contra NA…which join this phrase with the beginning of 14:34.  The difference in meaning is significant:  harmony is the rule of God for all the gatherings of the believers…"…Paul was not saying that women should be silent in all the Christian gatherings, only in Corinth, which must have been experiencing problems with women speaking out of turn during the prophesying."  But even if the statement, "as in all the gatherings of the saints" doesn't connect with vs. 34 that doesn't imply that the command about women not speaking in the assembly only applied to the Corinthians church.  I don't see that implication at all.  Paul says, "It is shameful for a woman to speak in the Church."  That sounds like a very general statement that encompasses all church gatherings.  Besides, what about Paul's telling Timothy that women shouldn't teach or hold authority over men but should remain quiet while learning (1 Tim 2:11-15)?  Was he referring only to the women of the Corinthian church?  I think not.  

But,  I do like the book overall, and really appreciate Mr. Comfort's work in putting this book together enabling one to learn about the different variants of the NT even if one doesn't agree with all of Mr. Comfort's comments on them.

Many thanks to Kregel Academic for sending me a free copy of this book to review!

One of the places where this book may be purchased is at Amazon.com

*I omit certain parts of quotations as they are mostly symbols of various manuscripts referred to that I don't know how to replicate in type.

Readings in Baptist History - Joseph Early Jr.

Readings in Baptist History: Four Centuries of Selected Documents by Joseph Early Jr.  is a very different (at least for me)way of learning about Baptist history, or any history.  Instead of reading about events, one reads documents from those events in generally the order they were written.  This book is, as it says on the back cover, "An Entire Library in One Book", though it should be noted that several of the documents given in this book are abridged.  It is more of an overview of Baptist history rather than a deep dive into it, but it is an interesting overview.  It contains evidence of good and bad theology(including the bizarre) down through the centuries, and interesting perspectives on various theological controversies amongst the Baptists  themselves and between them and other denominations.   

The concern of many Baptists in regards to making sure they keep holding to the Bible and not man's opinions, the fight against accepting whatever spirit of the age in which they lived, was encouraging to see, and a good encouragement for us to remember to be on the lookout for attacks on the truth in our day.  The statement keeps coming up in the documents is that that the Bible is "the only rule of faith and practice", as one document states: "If it be allowed that reason or sanctified common sense shall determine in matters of faith and practice, it shall still be an open question as to whose reason and sanctified common sense shall make the decision.  If reason or common sense shall be the rule of any part of faith and practice then it is certain that we shall see division, contention, strife.  Le the Bible be the rule of faith and practice and our only difficulty shall be understanding our rule."

It was intriguing too to see various controversies connected with various historical events.  For instance, there is a document from the time of the American Revolution where Baptists are critiquing the paedobaptists because they were imposing a tax on Baptists and yet were complaining about the British Government taxing Americans without representation: "And now dear countrymen, we beseech you seriously to consider these things.  The great  importance of a general union through this country in order to the preservation of our liberties, has often been pleaded for with propriety.  But how can such a union be expected so long as that dearest of all rights, equal liberty of conscience is not allowed? ….You have lately been accused with being disorderly and rebellious, by men in power, who profess a great regard for order and public good.  Why don't you believe them, and rest easy under their administration?  You tell us that you cannot, because you are taxed where you are not represented.  Is it not so with us?......And as the present contest between America and great Britain is not so much about the greatness of taxes already laid, as about a submission to their taxing power.  So (though what we have already suffered is far from being a trifle yet) our greatest difficulty at present concerns the submitting to a taxing power in ecclesiastical affairs…"  

Overall, I think that it is a pretty interesting overview, oh, and I liked that the language of the documents was updated in some places for easier reading.  My only big complaint is that some of the documents seemed too short and I wanted to know more about that time period, or what was going on…(like in Russian Baptist history) which is probably the curiosity that the book is meant to produce, inducing an active desire for more information on Baptist history, so people will go out and research on their own. 

I'll end with a quote which I liked from a 1611 declaration of faith and which I found particularly interesting (though I didn't agree with the whole confession as I didn't think it held completely to the Rule of faith and practice): "That the members of every Church or Congregation should know one another so that they may perform all the duties of love one towards another both to soul and body.  Matthew 18:15.  1 Thessalonians 5:14. 1 Corinthians 12:25.  And especially the elders should know the whole flock, of which the Holy Ghost has made them overseers.  Acts 20:28. 1 Peter 5:2, 3.  and therefore a Church should not consist of such a multitude that they cannot have particular knowledge of one another."

 

Many thanks to the folks at B&H Academic who sent me a free review copy in exchange for my review (which did not have to be favorable).

 

This book may be purchased at Amazon.com and directly from the publisher (and also from other bookstores)

Exposition of Romans chapter 11 - by Martyn Lloyd Jones

Martyn-Lloyd Jones' enthusiasm about this 11th chapter of Romans is evident in every chapter of this book.   My dad likes to point out that the most interesting messages are given by people who are actually interested in what they are speaking about.  Lloyd-Jones is definitely interested and excited about sharing what he has learned in God's word, and so this commentary(a collection of his sermons on this chapter)is very interesting.  In Romans 11 Paul is continuing his explanation of what is going on with the ethnic people God chose, namely the people of Israel, and whether or not God is done with them as an ethnicity.  The majority of Jews were rejecting the Gospel, while most of the people who were responding to the 'call' were  Gentiles.  

Despite his apparently Amillennial views, Lloyd-Jones emphatically rejects the view that the term 'Israel' is speaking of the 'Church' anywhere in this passage.  He explains that it is speaking of the ethnic people descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and refutes arguments against it.  Here is an overview of his view, he explains this passage as, God is not done with the people of Israel(Paul himself being evidence of this), God has a 'remnant' of Jews, in every age, who are believers.  Lloyd-Jones believes that the Olive tree in this passage is the people of God, and expounds on what Paul is saying in this passage  in his  speaking about how God has cut off the Jews because of their unbelief, and has grafted in 'wild olive branches'/the Gentiles. 

I liked his address of an objection some people might bring up in regards to Paul's warning the Christian Gentiles about becoming arrogant, and the statement, "if thou continue in His goodness: otherwise you too shall be cut off".   Some might think that this passage teaches that a person can lose their salvation.  Lloyd Jones explains that the only persons who will heed the warnings given to Christians are true Christians.  The people who do not care and do not heed the warnings of God prove that they are non-Christians.  I'll give an excerpt here:  "…these passages are ways in which God actually secures the perseverance of His saints and people……The only people who are ever frightened by a statement such as this are true Christian people.  Nobody else.  The whole trouble with these others who think they are Christians - temporary believers, temporary professors, call them what you like - the trouble with them is that they are always self-satisfied, they are perfectly happy, nothing ever disturbs them at all, and they can read through the warnings of the scripture without anything troubling them…..it is through passages similar to this that God ensures and secures the perseverance of His own people.  It is only to His own people He ways, 'Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling', One of the best tests of assurance is that we know something about fear and trembling.  'Knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men'.  This is God's way, then, of securing the final perseverance and the ultimate glorification of His people." 

Amongst other things, I disagree with his view that the only future plan God has for ethnic Israel is their spiritual salvation as a whole.  My problem is not with his view that there is coming a day when Israel as a nation will come to believe in Christ, and they will all be saved.  My problem is that he does not believe that when Israel is saved they will dwell in the land of Israel, and that there will be a Millennial reign of Christ on this earth.  "We have given an explanation of what is meant by 'all Israel' but what is meant by 'being saved'?  This is most important.   What Paul is concerned about is the salvation of 'all Israel'.  He does not say anything here about the future of the Jewish nation from any kind of governmental point of view, or even in terms of the land of Palestine.  That is not what he is talking about.  He is talking about its salvation and Jews are going to be saved in exactly the same way as anybody else."  He seems to think that all 'premillennialists' believe that the Jews will be saved by a means other than Christ's sacrifice.  Perhaps some do believe that way, but I do not.  The Jews will be saved the exact same way Gentiles are saved, but when the Jews are saved they will be given the land of Israel that was promised to them forever when they are a righteous people.  They will not become righteous on their own, God will have given them His own Righteousness through Christ, that will fulfill the requirement for their continued residence in the land promised to them(Isa 60:21; Ezek 37:21-28;Deut 32:43…etc.).  

He quotes Charles Hodge, speaking of the correct interpretation of prophecy, "'Great events are foretold but the mode of their occurrence, their details and their consequences can only be learned by the event'…Now history, you see, tells you not only about the great events it gives you the details….Prophecy tells us about the great events that are going to happen, 'but the mode of their occurrence, their details, and their consequences can only be learned by the event' - by when it happens."  He goes on to illustrate this by the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the Messiah, "All they knew was that there was a promise concerning a Messiah.  But you and I with the Gospels in our hands and the knowledge of the story, look back and read the Old Testament prophecies and see the amazing character of it all, the detailed information that was given: hidden of course at that time, but to us perfectly clear because we are looking at it in retrospect.  That is what Charles Hodge is saying.  He says you must not go to prophecy and expect it to be a sort of detailed account of what is going to happen…The principle, he says, of the interpretation of prophecy therefore is this, that it is concerned with the big things not with the details."  But there were some details given in prophecy, for instance, that the Messiah would be born of a virgin, would come out of Egypt, be born in Bethlehem, would perform miracles…etc.  Of course they didn't know how they would all work out or fit together, but these most definitely were details concerning the Messiah. It is the same with the Premillennial view, we know that Israel will be brought back to the land of Israel,  they will be saved by Christ's sacrifice, they will never disobey again, Christ will reign over them…etc.(Ezek. 37; Jer. 32:38-42; Jer. 31:31-37; Zech 12:10; Rev 20;…etc.)  These are details, we do not know exactly how or when they will happen, but we believe that they will happen. 

Despite the fact that his Amillennial views pop up in various forms throughout the book, despite the fact that he sometimes confuses me when he is citing a view that he is about to critique and at first I think that he is giving his own view, and despite some other disagreements(like his view that Paul changed certain quotations of the Old Testament by inspiration of the Holy Spirit), I still think that this is a good commentary.  I especially liked his review of the doxology at the end of the book.  I'll end with a quote from that section.  Here Lloyd Jones is critiquing people/churches who think that we should have a 'dialogue' with people of other religions, to deal with it as an intellectual debate,  to listen and learn from them.  Rather than being too dogmatic in our belief in the Scriptures as the source of truth, we should be open to their views:  "…Now that is the trouble with modern man.  It is that man, by nature, is sinful, has got a carnal mind, hates God, and the devil whom he unknowingly serves, has blinded the minds of them that believe not.  It does not matter how clever or able he is.  The devil has blinded his mind 'lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them'.  That, according to the Apostle and according to the whole of the scriptural teaching, is the one and only explanation as to why men and women do not believe.  Therefore what have I to learn from such a man?  What has a man who is blinded by the devil got to tell me about these matters?  Why should I have a dialogue with him?  No, no, I am sorry for him.  The man is blinded, he is ignorant, he knows nothing.  I have the knowledge which alone can help him.  It is not mine, it has been given to me, it has been revealed to me, and it is my duty to tell him.  I am doing him a disservice by letting him talk.  He is not capable of expressing an opinion.  He is in the dark, 'dead in trespasses and sins'.  That is the whole of the scriptural teaching.  But, the modern teaching denies this utterly and absolutely, and this is the spectacle by which we are confronted, that the modern church is paying compliments to the unregenerate man and says, 'Now we must preach less to you, we have been speaking too much, let us sit down, you talk, I want to listen, I want to learn from you'.  I do not hesitate to assert that this is a denial of Christ.  Not only do I not learn from the natural unregenerate man, I do not learn from the Hindu or the Muslim, the Confucian or the Buddhist; they have nothing to tell me.  The Bible, and the Bible alone, contains the knowledge and it is given by God….The greatest need in the world tonight is the authoritative proclamation of this one and only gospel." 

 

Many thanks to The Banner of Truth for sending me a review copy of this book!(My review did not have to be favorable)

This book may be purchased at Amazon and on the Banner of Truth website

NIV Chronological Study Bible

I usually love chronological Bibles as it is very interesting to read the Bible through in the supposed chronological order, and I was quite excited to get this one. This Bible has full color throughout, and the headers that note the changing of epochs  are so vivid they almost look 3d.  But sadly, some of the pictures were inappropriate/indecent and it's not very nice to have such things in one's Bible, let alone have them be so visually crystal clear.  

The NIV Chronological Study Bible seeks to present the Scriptures in their probable chronological order, with historical notes, chronologies, maps and pictures throughout.

I thought it was interesting that they note that, "The Bible is not a theology book arranged according to topics: God, man, sin, salvation, etc.  Nor is it simply a chronicle of events from creation to the final consummation.  Historical events are often the Bible's subject matter, but these events are always reported from a particular perspective.  That perspective is theological history.  It is in the arena of history that he has chosen to make himself known. "  But I must add that though it is not arranged according to topics, it is still a, or rather, the theology book.

I'm not positive as to why it is called a 'study Bible', as the notes seem more historically and culturally informative than exegetical.  Sometimes they do delve into concepts a little more, but I found myself disagreeing with them.  I'll give three instances:   First, they seem to not believe in a literal six day creation.  And second, in 1 Corinthians 7, they come to the conclusion that Paul allows divorced Christians to remarry.  Third,  they are feministic in their explanation of the role of a wife in a marriage, they make it seem like male headship was a cultural thing, not a Biblical institution. For instance, "If female authority was allowed in the church, opposition may have increased against the small Christian community." and, "The model for how to best win over these husbands to Christianity involves adopting the societal norms of a wife's submissiveness…."   And in another place they sound like they are apologizing for the Apostle's statement:  "Paul's command 'Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands' (Eph 5:22) is at least partly related to concern for Christian witness within the surrounding culture, and is quite mild in comparison to the rest of his culture."  They are apparently disregarding 1 Timothy 2:11-15 which  makes the differing roles of males and females to be of God, not from the culture.

Also, I didn't like some of the chronological arrangement.  For instance, they have prophecies from Isaiah being read after the fall of Jerusalem.  Part of their reasoning is that, "Other prophetic passages speak of times later than the traditional date of composition for the passage itself.  For example, parts of the Book of Isaiah refer to events that took place centuries after the prophet Isaiah lived.  Though Isaiah prophesied in Jerusalem during the 8th century B. C., the passage of Isa 44:28; 45:1 refers by name to Cyrus, a Persian king who lived in the 6th century .  For this reason , some chapters form the Book of Isaiah appear in the time of Cyrus…"  Umm… didn't God have the prophets prophecy LOTS of things that hadn't happened yet?  It would hardly be unthinkable for God to have the prophets give out a particular name of someone in the future.  Besides, right before God starts prophetically addressing Cyrus He states,"I am the Lord, the maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself, who foils the signs of false prophets and makes fools of diviners, who overthrows the learning of the wise and turns  it into nonsense, who carries out the words of his servants and fulfills the predictions of his messengers." 

All in all, there are too many negatives for me to highly recommend this Chronological Bible. 

 

I am grateful to have received a free review copy of this book from the Book Look Blogger program(My review did not have to be favorable)

 

This book may be purchased from Amazon and from Thomas Nelson

Interpreting the Pauline Letters - John Harvey

Focusing on Paul's letters, but not on any one of his letters in particular, this book is basically a resource for studying Biblical letters. Harvey delves into proper methods of researching the text, its variants, and the historical background of the time of Paul.  He also gives recommended steps in studying the original Greek and advise as to how it can be presented.

I particularly liked Harvey's summary/overview of Paul's teachings throughout his letters.  When dealing with Paul's speaking of the change that takes place at salvation, quoting 2Cor. 5:17, "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come' he explains, "That statement points to something far greater than a minor shift in belief or behavior; it describes nothing less than a total transfer from one sphere of existence to another."   I also liked his overview of the backgrounds of each place to which Paul wrote his letters.  

What I didn't like was that Harvey didn't seem like a big advocate for verse-by-verse/book-by-book preaching.  Not that he was absolutely against it, but he seemed to be advocating focusing on people's needs and applying the scripture to those, which might bring about more of a selective approach to the Scriptures.  Don't we discover our needs from God's Word? Not our felt needs necessarily, but our true needs, whether we feel a need for them or not. Perhaps I would add the word duties, and not merely "needs" but 'must-knows'(which isn't really a word), so how about 'imperatives'?  These things may be what Mr. Harvey meant, but isn't a verse-by-verse/book-by-book approach the best way to discover all of our needs and duties, in the correct order we're supposed to deal with them and all of the instruction pertaining to them?

But overall, I think that this is a good 'handbook'.  It gives a good amount of background information and summaries.   Also, the chapters on translating and interpreting the passages from the Greek are handy.  I think that it is a good overview of Paul's letters.

Thanks to Kregel Academic for sending me a free review copy of this book!(My review did not have to be favorable)
 

From God to Us- How We Got Our Bible - By Norman Geisler and William Nix

This is an excellent look into the transmission of God's Word.  Instead of starting out with material proofs or by appealing to ones feelings regarding the inspiration of the Bible,  Geisler and Nix hold the Holy Scriptures as the ultimate authority and use the Bible as the main and first proof of its own inspiration and authenticity.  Their method reminds me of a quote I read once that went something along these lines: "The Scriptures revolve on their own axis.  They do not disdain indirect assistance, from secular investigations; but they mainly depend on their own inexhaustible resources and treasures."(E. W. Grinfield)  The authors of this examination use the prophets and apostles own references and quotations of each others God given Scriptures as evidence.  And in regards to the Old and New Testaments they use Christ's quoting and referencing it as special proof.  They first emphasize belief in the God of the Bible and in Jesus' divinity, and then demonstrate that Christ's usage of Scripture as God's Word leads to a logical imperative conclusion that the Scriptures are therefore the Word of God.  "Jesus said, 'Scripture cannot be broken' (John 10:35). On numerous occasions our Lord appealed to the written Word of God as final arbitrator for faith and practice.  He claimed Scripture as His authority for cleansing the temple(Mark 11:17), for rebuking the tradition of Pharisees(Matt. 15:3, 4);.. for settling doctrinal disputes(Matt. 22:29).."   

After letting the God's Word be its own proof, the authors then move on to secondary matters, other logical reasons as to the Bible being the truth.  I like that with these secondary proofs, such as Archaeological evidence supporting the Bibles claims, the authors make sure to point out that this evidence is merely supporting evidence, this evidence does not make the Bible true, the Bible is true regardless.  This is the same way they treat the development of the Canon, "Canonicity is determined by God and discovered by man." The Words of God are inspired whether or not man has come to the conclusion that they are inspired.  I like those points. 

Moving on to the development of the Canon, the collection of books that we hold as God's Word, they then look into its transmission and translations down through the centuries.   This is not a high level overview of the Bible, it is an intricate look at how God has chosen to preserve and compile His Word by means of human beings copying, translating, and collecting it, examining older copies of it  and collating its  manuscripts.  It gets quite detailed about the various old manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments  we have to work from.  But I found those details very interesting.  Also, Geisler and Nix keep repeating what various manuscript symbols mean, they don't just assume you'll remember them after merely seeing them one time.  And having short-term memory I appreciate that.

 Now as I say(or at least think) with regards to any book I have read besides the Bible, there are things that I do not agree with in this book, but overall it was very informative.   Speaking of not completely agreeing with any other book, the quote I want to end with from this one fits very well:

 "No article of faith may be based on any noncanonical work, regardless of its religious value. 

The divinely inspired and authoritative books are the sole basis for doctrine and practice.  Whatever complimentary support canonical truth derives from other books, it in no way lends canonical value to those books.  The support is purely historical and has no authoritative theological value.  The truth of inspired Scripture alone is the canon or foundation of the truths of faith."

I received a copy of this book from the publisher for the purpose of this

review. Thanks MoodyPublishers!