Musings on interpretation

It is very interesting to note that we could deduce and induce how Jesus' audience understood his announcement, or gospel, that the kingdom of God is about to come. Like what scholars have mentioned, they must have understood this announcement as referring to the coming of their King, the Messiah, to establish God's rule over Israel and more importantly for them, over the Gentiles. That is why they naturally, be it his followers, skeptics or enemies, asked whether Jesus was the Messiah. And indeed he was, although he always veiled his identity until the final moments. This could also indicate that he knew all along his purpose, or the Father's way, was to die on the cross. He did not want to reveal his identity fully in order to deny his audience from mistakenly forcing him to become a political king, and to a revolt that would undoubtedly lead to disaster as how it played out in Jewish history.

Justification of the nations by works?

For those, in the name of the reformation tradition, who are overly eager, but yet uninformed, to deride and dismiss scholars who are genuinely looking into the issue of justification biblically would do well to read R.T. France's commentary on Matthew concerning the final judgement reflected in the separation of the sheep and goats by the Lord Jesus (preview below). It bears a striking resemblance to what Paul wrote in Romans 2:6-11 and what John recorded in Revelations 20:11-15.

Wright and Dunn

Thanks to Michael Bird, I am made aware of this video of Wright and Dunn.

An extremely short and initial review of Karen Armstrong's Case for God

Reading a portion of Karen Armstrong's new book, though rightly so she rejected the narrow fundamentalistic world view of Dawkins, I could not help, but to think that the God that she says the Western society is increasingly rejecting is a nothing more than mistaken perception of the God in the Jewish and Christian faith. No surprise in the end, the conclusion becomes a bit gnostic. ;-)

NPP, NRSV and ESV

Listening to Ezra Kok teaching on Romans yesterday was refreshing. He was able to make clear the basic tenets of NPP, especially those by Dunn.

What struck me during the teaching however was the level of compatibility with NPP exhibited by both NRSV and ESV, namely Romans 1:16-17.

Ezra was expounding on the sequence of words that would produce significant theological differences in terms of interpretation and meaning. He was explaining about covenantal nomism in layman terms and I found that at this particular point, NRSV seems to reflect this clearer than ESV. The already saved and righteous must continue to live by faith as a response to God's grace.

It makes me see clearly for the first time that different translations of the bible have their own nuances nd perhaps in this case, theological leanings. But, I am happy that there are many versions available.

Purpose of Romans

Here are some possibilities on why Paul wrote the letter to the Romans. 

• Some Jews were questioning the legitimacy of the Gentile believers and this caused some of these Gentile believers to become discouraged or shaken due to the questioning
• Paul wanted to encouraged the Gentile believers 
• To explain why Paul himself thought that the Gentile believers were accepted by God
• Having given the surety, Paul warned the Gentile believers from becoming proud and never to reject their Jewish brethren
• To bring together the larger group of Gentile believers with the smaller number of Jewish Christians in Rome , showcasing the example of being children of God to the world
• To ask for the support of Roman believers for his potential ministry in Spain 

For me, I think two of the key verses in understanding the purpose of the letter are the following:


"11 For v I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you— 12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged w by each other's faith, both yours and mine."

What is it with Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and N.T. Wright?

SBTS Panel Confronts Wright's View on Justification


Sad continuation to the earlier panel discussion moderated by Denny. It borders to character assassination. I was just reading Fee’s Paul, the Spirit, and the people of God‎ yesterday and he said almost the same thing as Wright did concerning the work of the Spirit and future justification more than 10 years ago! But, I do not see the panellists going all out to denounce him as someone leading the flock astray. Sad.