#directly followed by 'i cant talk to people unless its on stream also i feel like im dying a little bit' | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

eksbdan-blog · 5 years ago

Photo

New Post has been published on https://passingbynehushtan.com/2020/01/07/what-is-the-word-of-god/

What is the Word of God?: A Prophetic Think Tank

What is the Word of God? A very dangerous question.

“This is a very simple question, and one to which a Calvinist, it would seem, could give a very simple answer. And yet that simple answer would hardly be adequate for an occasion of this kind, since the query to which a reply is sought involves such questions as these: Is it a natural or a supernatural Word? Is it a communication of truth, addressed to the intellect, or a behest or command, addressed to the will? Is it a written or a spoken Word or both? Does it represent a verbal or a factual revelation, or one that is both verbal and factual? Is it a Word spoken in the past, and now a finished product, or is it rather a continuous speaking of God? Is it wholly or only in part identical with the divine revelation? Is the Bible the Word of God or is it not?”1

The novelist Thomas Pynchon said, “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” Not that the question “what is the word of God?” is the wrong question. I would say that this question to Christians, and the World, is probably the most critical possible. But it’s the wrong question because we don’t use it to get an honest answer. We use it to stand for a pious intention for which no answer warrants unless it leads us into another red herring ever further from the Messiah.

Of course, it’s mere rhetoric if you are asking it to a people who already claim to know its answer. Rhetorical queries are fine for the great and most consequential questions, but only if the answer you wish to receive reflects reality. If it’s not, they are careless and empty, haughty, platitudinous, pretentious, and misleading of where we really are want to be in having real knowledge.

“Is it true that scientists said on Foxnews that in one week a two-kilometer asteroid is going to hit the earth and all life will dies.” “Yes, and our saviors, the spacemen, will land their rescue ships on Tuesday and will start to load passengers for the trip to Zeta Reticuli.”

That’s not really a serious question. Its meant to be funny by pretending to be serious, knowing that the answer you get can only be a funny retort or one of a serious but funny panic attack. What makes it the wrong question for a real searcher of truth and a real possessor of truth is that its meant to be a kind of ruse, prepared for an emotionally motivated disarming of the whole idea of spiritual threat by discharging it into something inert and harmless. “What is the Word of God” is asked today for no other purpose than misleading not for comedy, but feelings of piety. Asked so that a certain answer is forced, so that the implied threat about that Word, which is well known subconsciously, gives up a Holy turd instead of a Holy, but very uncomfortable truth.

That’s how it’s the wrong question. Not for the question itself but because of a wrong asker and receiver. What you need is the same question formulated so that the crucial, eternal, potentially deadly, and potentially saving answer cant be avoided and lost in manipulable conceptual generalities.

As Berkhof unintentionally demonstrates above, some questions, like what is a thing essentially, should not even be asked if the answer is too obvious. It’s like asking, “what kind of car do you have?” You answer, of course, a particular kind of Chevrolet sedan. But in Christianity, we don’t like the deepest exclusivist claims in our exclusivist faith. So, we then have to veer down into a rabbit hole and ask in our purely rhetorical, dissociative faith, “is it made of metal or wood?” “Is it animal, vegetable, or mineral?” “Is it objective or only subjective?” We never do get to taking on directly “Chevrolet sedan” in our philosophy and theology.

Another way is that of the common pew sitter. “What kind of car do you have? The answer is “Car.” In such a manner do we ask “what is the Word of God”: something demanding a certain model, but we get either “the whole Bible” or “a document purported to be from a supernatural source developed over time by a certain culture in the ancient Middle East.”

We know and believe there are all kinds of claimants to “the Word of God” type of scripture in the world. Their unattested version is very attractive when the idea of supernatural proofs scare us, or we just can’t accept them in any case. But if you think you’re in a religion that is represented primarily by its whole instead of its miraculous part, like in our Christian “culture war” idea of us against the World, you will be inclined to circle the wagons and want to defend the whole instead of allowing its leading edge to defend itself. To us, “go to the ant, thou sluggard” and “he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities” are both the Word of God, and so they are. But for what reason in our consciousnesses do we dare to think we are obligated to choose something else as this leading-edge of the Word of God when Christ and the apostles certainly, unequivocally, demonstratively, all day and all night, made it messianic prophecy?

Talk about a dissociate disorder.

The question is not crucially whether the Word of God is spoken or written, or whether it is that which was spoken in the past or spoken now. They are misleading questions, especially the one about whether the Word of God is historical or contemporary. Such genera of questions about the Word of God will not give you the answer to what is the Word of God because this is asking for only for its exterior categorical qualities. What we want to do is construct a question that forces an answer that goes to its particular content, and that content in which the New Testament writers, particularly Jesus, took for granted as being at its heart.

Here is our question: “what of/in the Word of God is required to use as a collective symbol of the whole thing?”

We all do it. We all have a conceptual point of contact in our minds with the idea “Word of God,” so this question is appropriate on a lot of levels if we ask honestly and are willing to answer honestly. But let’s not excuse ourselves for the corrupt natural tendency of defer-deny-misdirect-reconceive when the results of our natural tendencies are supposed to be 180 degrees opposite from what we are supposed to love. It’s about the single superior thought or impression we get when we ask or think about the Word of God and if it aligns with Christ as he revealed himself.

The far better question, again, is “what in the Bible, what scriptural stream of revelation, regardless of who is speaking, whether it is addressed to the will or the intellect, verbal of factual, is that which the New Testament writers took as what best represents the credentials of Jesus as the Messiah.” I beg you to remember that if Jesus is not Messiah, there may be some god out there, but he’s not Jehovah, and there is no indication that he cares about us or is not more inclined to come down and start plunking us with his cosmic pellet gun. If he’s not Messiah, then you’re still in your sins. If he’s not messiah, there is no Christianity, only another podunk world faith. This question for the Church is perfect because the “Messiah” is an exclusive propriety possession of the Bible. If you were to pick one name for “Bible,” that would be it.

Since it is Jesus who is the author and finisher of our faith (Heb 12:2), what about Jesus makes him the Christ to our faith is what should also first be treated as the Word of God in the capacity of an informational gatekeeper to our faith, without which knowledge and faith we miss in Jesus, the person. So, it’s not even about whether something in the Bible might not be the Word of God, but to what extent can we say what we first give attention to in the Word of God is Jesus.

Along this line, here are some questions to consider that will give us our answer.

1. What was the only possibility for the “phrase “Word of God” being used as one-part-of-the-whole according to the NT writers by the historical timing of their writings?

This one is easy, and we all know it.

We use “Word of God” as the whole of the Bible, but it’s not used that way in the Bible.

To the extent that the New Testament is primarily about merely reporting on the operational success of messianic prophecy in fulfillment and through that the clarification of previously unsettled questions, this is the extent to which the Word of God is single stream, namely, messianic prophecy. In other words, the extent to which it can be said the New Testament is following these prior prophecies instead of creating out of whole cloth new ones for own truth narrative is the extent that we can say that “the Word of God” is a single stream. Quintessentially, the words of the prophets fulfilled by Christ.

For the NT writers, the corpus of the NT was not written yet and established canonically. For all the writers of the NT, when they spoke of the Word of God, they were speaking about the Old Testament. The New Testament does not much explicitly quote itself. When the NT writers and Jesus quoted, they quoted the Old Testament, and they overwhelmingly quoted Messianic Prophecy. They referred not to its own unattested authority, neither does Jesus (John 5:31-32, 37, 39) to His own, but to the ability of the Tenach to prove their reports are not self-serving and their faith as divinely inspired by the worlds of the prophets.

2. What of this Word of God is quoted, and does it align with our operational definition of the Word of God?2

Bring up my web page here. Look at what of the Old Testament was quoted, and for what purpose was it quoted.

254 separate NT verses citing 231 OT verses

190 Combined OT quotations in the NT, conflating repetitions

137 OT verses are marked clearly prophetic, 30 are used in a strong prophetic argument, making a total of 167 out of 231 OT verses strongly prophetic.

Bring up this web page here. This page is a collation of Jesus’s words in the Gospel of John, giving an example of the pattern also found in the other gospels. Here is a more meaningful interpretation of the true NT prophetic content (Note: “PW” in the document, as I used it, stands for Prophetic Word, an appellation I give as a more instructive alternative to “Bible” or “Scripture,” or even Word of God if it is used in a sense too general to make messianic prophecy its heart).

“In John, there are 879 verses. Jesus speaks in 423 verses. Jesus cites OT prophetic scripture 33 verses. He states or implies a fulfilled prophecy in 120 verses. In other verses, he speaks eschatologically or speaks of prophecy yet to still set for fulfillment. This is 209 verses of the 423. The total is 362 of the 423. The total is 85.5%. The missing collation is in the verses where he expounds on a prophetic theme, explains how it works to faith, speaks of its importance, or generally where it is the root topic of discussion. In this category, all can fall into. All are essentially about Christ, His Word, its fulfillment, its application to faith, and its future. Speaking conservatively, these verses alone are at least 345. Most of these verses combine one category with another, making every verse in the service of the prophetic subject.

For example, in John 6:44, Jesus says: ‘No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.’ This combines the M category with the F category since it speaks of the future resurrection and also that no one will take part in it but those who believe the PW/Person of Christ.

The next verse, 45, we have: ‘It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man, therefore, that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” Jesus cites OT prophecy and states that this faith in the word of the prophets is the way to Him, meaning that it is in the M-S category. To this could easily be added the F category as well, since he still speaks of future fulfillment by future believers.

John 3:14 combines all four categories: It refers to Numbers 21:8 (S), cites it as prophetic and fulfilled by Christ (E), speaks of the supreme present and future importance of the PW and faith requirement in the PW (M and F)”

Now, this is my own work following my perspective, but I ask you to use the same model and come up with your numbers. Any way you do it, the Word of God, whether OT or NT, is the messianic, prophetic phenomena of God.

What is more than natural is that the Person of messianic prophecy would put it of first importance, found all his arguments on it, predicate all His theology on it, speak it almost exclusively and then die to fulfill it? That is because the Word of messianic prophecy is Christ.

That is what the NT writers called the Word of God. Unlike our view of the Word of God, it’s not pithy proverbs, philosophical principles, motifs and themes, stories, an instruction manual about how to pray, or even mainly about how to treat your fellow man or a dictionary of theological ideas. It’s not mainly about “Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.” It’s not about us. It’s about Jesus, but not about the Jesus we want Him to be or even only about the person of Jesus. It’s about Jesus the Messiah, and if it’s about Jesus Messiah, it is about how the prophets foretold Him and how he fulfilled that Word of God.

Every verse in the New Testament, including “Jesus wept” (John 11:35), is recorded for some kind of teaching of that truth long before we apply it to our own lives. An example of the deprioritized interpretation is this one: “Jesus Christ tenderly and deeply sympathizes in human sorrow” (Family Bible Notes). I don’t mean that the Bible is not for us, that it’s not showing Jesus demonstrating a mandatory capacity for human emotion or care for us, I mean that “Jesus wept” is for the main purpose of recording Jesus’s fulfillment of Isa 53:3 and Jer 9:1; 13:17; 14:17. The spiritual power of fulfilling Isaiah 53:3 and the implications for our faith through it is far more important than “Jesus Christ tenderly and deeply sympathizes in human sorrow.” But this kind of thing is what we like to call the main meaning of the “Word of God.”

3. In the NT, what kind of texts are used, and from where are they taken for positing theological arguments?

The better question is, “what of the fundamental theological NT propositions don’t come from Old Testament prophetic texts?” The answer is none. We will use an example from the Book of Romans.

For example, there are about 41 direct OT quotations in Romans (Romans 3:10-18 quotes directly eight total OT texts). There are many doctrines, but a good way to divide it by “righteousness needed” (Sin), “1:18–3:20; righteousness provided” (Faith), “3:21–8:39; righteousness vindicated” (The Cross, Atonement), “9:1–11:36; righteousness practiced” (Sanctification), “12:1–15:13.”3 If not prophesied, then it’s not theology.

1:18-3:20 Righteousness needed (Sin)

Paul established the doctrine of sin and what cure is needed. Paul here seems to be making a statement about the sin problem without stating what this sin is. Perhaps he is speaking of sins of performance? But that is not what he is talking about as the most important kind of sin.

Overlooked is that Paul opens the letter with a scriptural predicate that is to remain to establish his doctrine of sin by contrast. In Romans 1:1-4, we read, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures). Concerning his Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” That is a wholly, unabashedly prophetic statement.

He even says that the gospel was prophesied, and is, therefore, a prophetic gospel. It defines the basis for the new righteousness through a prophetic knowledge that sin is against (knowing and believing is righteous, not knowing, and not believing is the opposite).

Starting in 1:18, being that holding this knowledge of the truth unrighteously is the real sin, the baseline example for this sin against revelational knowledge is a sin against natural revelation “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” In man’s religious history, this led to a fundamental corruption of something so basic as the knowledge of the divinely established form of sex between men and women, effectively what we might call a kind of intellectual and biological inbreeding (as opposed to looking outside the human sphere for knowledge).

Paul continues not to talk about sin as ultimately against natural revelation, but by its example talking about the sin against Christ and his prophetic revelation.

In Vss. 29-31 Starts to talk more directly, using examples closer to home. He lays out a list of sins that flow from, as indicative symbols, of the great one. The problem is those deceived into thinking that they will not be judged by the Law when they are religious (circumcised). Not judged according to the law, but who judge those who are committing the same sins they are. But those who are not circumcised will be counted as righteous who keep the law these people are not following, which is true “the righteousness of the law” in v.26.

What is this? There is the false righteousness that comes from bodily movement around religion and natural affections and the true righteousness of the Law that is spiritual and faith in the prophetic revelation of Christ. Here is the whole of the thing Paul is talking about, that spiritual one, not any other primitive form. Its opposite is, again, quintessential sin, not the basic sins that Paul mentioned against the basic knowledge of God. (In Romans 8:4 he says the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in us who live not according to the flesh but to the Spirit)

He says that this righteousness is not carnal but spiritual: Romans 2:29: “But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” The advantage between the gentile and Jew is that the Jew is superior in that “unto them were committed the oracles of God” (3:2). The Jew has a better foundation upon which to be properly instructed. That is, by fulfilled messianic prophecy. Now we know what this inner, essential, righteousness of the Law is.

Continue to the next page…

Paul answers some questions that obviously raised in his time about how this righteousness of God can be effective to salvation if some of the Jews did not believe. About how God’s grace can abound more to His glory the more sinful we are, suggesting that more sin is better to show God’s grace and why we who believe are still considered sinners. He says everyone is a sinner (3:9) without having the righteousness of the Law. The Law of works (v.27) only shows how sinful we are and how impossible it is by our effort to satisfy it (3:19-20).

Paul cites the Old Testament scripture between vss. 11 and 18 to define sin eight times. This is not an enumeration of only carnal sins, but spiritual ones (not righteous, of no understanding, none that “seeks God,” “out of the way,” “unprofitable,” “none that do good.”). Paul cites the OT that applies to the present time in a way that it could never apply to the past because Christ fulfilled the law and the prophets, therefore using Old Testament passages that we would not consider prophetic as prophetic texts. It suggests that we might be wrong in our consideration of what scripture is prophetic and what is not.

This spiritual righteousness of the Law “without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference” (emphasis mine). Justification by faith without the deeds of the Law is through “faith in his blood” (v.25), “to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (v26). What is clear is from where the knowledge of this sin and curative righteousness comes: Christ and the Old Testament scriptures that speak of the Messiah. Faith in Jesus is through His oracles and in their fulfillments; faith in His blood is not a faith in His actual blood, but the blood represents His prophesied, propitiatory death.

We establish something quite different than our operational conception of this sin as a sin primarily of physical works and the reason why we would commit such sins, or for that matter what righteousness means, how we can have it and why we would follow it. In our way of thinking, sins are primarily of physical expression, and the reason we sin is that we don’t believe in “God” or “Jesus” or the “Bible” like we should. Or, it’s because we don’t know or understand the propositional “doctrines” and apply them. Perhaps because we don’t recognize that we are sinful. But if sin is spiritual, it is sin of spiritual activity. If it is so, it is a sin of not knowing, having no confidence in, relegating, misappropriating, obfuscating, or being primarily unmotivated by or denying the oracles of Christ. Any conception of righteousness coming through the performance of the law is the opposite.

3:21–8:39. Righteousness provided (Faith)

Romans 3:21: “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.”

Paul uses 5 OT texts to establish Abraham as the prototypical man of faith, starting in 4:1. What was the basis of Abraham’s faith?

Romans 4:13: “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.” This promise was prophetic that he would be the father of many nations (v.17 and 18).

Romans 4:21: “And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.” He was convinced of God’s faithfulness to fulfill the prophecy.

Not intended just for Abraham but for us, who also believe in God’s promises concerning Jesus, who is the one that Abraham believed would come to establish such faith: Romans 4:24-25: “But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification.”

Romans 5:6: “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.” “In due time” refers to the oracles.

All of Paul’s arguments use this understanding of prophetic faith as the basis of why it is superior to the law, why there is now no condemnation for those that are in the law of faith in Christ. Why it makes us dead to sin but alive to God, and how God can give us eternal life though we are sinners.

Again, all of our theology comes from the messianic stream of scripture.

9:1–11:36: Righteousness vindicated” (The Cross, Atonement)

“So this section is an attempt to explain God’s dealings with Jews as a vindication of righteousness. Paul does it by a clear exposition of the Scriptures. He will show that Israel’s rejection is related to the spiritual pride of the Jews (9,10), that Israel’s rejection is not complete because some are being saved (11), and that Israel’s rejection is not final because it will be reversed before the coming of the Lord (the end of chapter 11).”4

The problem with the above interpretation is there is no effort to define the scriptural basis of this “rejection” by the Jews. What did they reject, precisely, and what were they arguing was not true scripturally that these Christians believed? Well, their interpretation of the oracles of Messiah as applying to Jesus, of course. We can’t talk about “righteousness vindicated” without knowing what righteousness is and what it is not.

Romans 9:7-8: “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”

Paul uses no less than 20 Old Testament scriptures in this section. Ishmael was from Abraham as well, but Isaac was a prophetic type of all righteous Israel. Not all the Jews are saved, but only those of the promise. Paul is using a prophecy of these righteous Jews to argue that all those in Christ are among them. Christ is not merely telling them, “don’t’ worry, I say on my own authority you’re saved” or “if you have confessed your sins and say you believe in me to save you, you will be saved.” Paul used an exclusively prophetic argument that righteousness is through belief in what the prophets said would come in Jesus of Nazareth. You have to know it to believe it, and the more you know it, the more you believe it.

12:1–15:13. Righteousness practiced” (Sanctification)

Now, this is a no brainer after the preceding. What sanctifies? Why?

Everything about how we should behave is because of the kind of scriptures above. We are not honest if we say it’s because of anything else. We are not honest if we say the Word of God has anything else in it to accomplish this.

4. What of the Word of God is to be used in NT evangelism?

Again, easy.

In John 1:15 and 5:33, John and Christ use the phrase that John the Baptist “bare witness” of Jesus, the Truth.

We don’t interpret this witnessing just as gushing about how much Jesus loves us, how logical Christianity is, how it is compatible with science, that we had a dream or that we speak in tongues, or simply that “I believe in Jesus.” That is not biblical witnessing. Biblical witnessing is quoting the words of the prophets and proclaiming and explaining how Jesus fulfilled them. Quite a different kind of evangelism we preach today.

John’s witnessing is like this in John 1:23: “He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.” Messianic prophecy from Isaiah 40:3-5. It’s not his biblically and supernaturally disconnected theological proposition. He did not say, “I am John, and I am…” he equated himself with an Old Testament oracle. This Jesus also did:

John 5:31-32: “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me, and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.”

John 5:39: “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”

John 5:46: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.”

The Book of Acts is the best place to see 1st-century evangelism at work. Nineteen verses use Old Testament texts. There is not a glimmer of a case to be made out of a single evangelistic encounter where Paul used our bromidic form of evangelism.

5. What of the Word of God is used as the symbolic meaning of Jesus so that when we talk of one, we talk of the other and nothing else?

We need only to make one point to bring this home. By far, the most obvious and hardly even worth trying to defend.

John 1:1-5: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”

It is interesting how close this statement is to the opening of Hebrews:

Hebrews 1:1-8: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.”

What does this tell us? In John, Jesus is the Word. What is this Word? Hebrews clarifies it. Jesus’s place is at the right hand of the Father, the Son of God, not as some angel, but because he fulfilled Psalms 2, Psalms 97:7 and Psalms 45:6-7. He adds in 1:13: “But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool?” That the fulfillment of Psalms 110. That book of John says explicitly that Jesus is the Word of God should close the question. Still, it’s closed even further, if that were possible, when Hebrews says the same thing by quoting the Word of God instead of just making the statement (which, by the way, John subsequently and consistently does throughout his gospel). If Jesus is the Word of God, he is the Word of the prophets quintessentially.

What is the Word of God? Why is it so important?

I beg you to please meditate on this question very, very carefully.

If you are a believer and are at least of the mind to think that apologetics is important, I ask you this. Is occultism, adultery, murder, and any other form of sin you can think of coming anywhere near the importance of one which would allow them to be falsely claimed as ultimate examples, and hide as the mother-of-all-apostasies? Can you think of one more qualified as this one for that title, which allows you to have a relationship with Christ, but only by a useless half?

“But all sin is sin?” Yes, surely, but some represent, indicate another, far more profound and damning one of which there is no forgiveness. Because it’s a sin against the Holy Spirit, that that Spirit is sort of a non-threatening abstract, do you think that it’s rare and you are not a part of it until you know what it is, and before its too late?

If you use the phrase “the Word of God,” be careful that what is demonstrably and unequivocally and emblematically Christ is the same as what you know, or maybe he will say “I never knew you.”

Salvation is not only a matter of Christ knowing you, but you knowing him.

Christ and the Norming of Transcendence: Passing by Nehushtan

Prophesying, Preaching, and the Prophetic: Passing by Nehushtan

Matthew 5 and the Adultery of the Heart: Passing by Nehushtan

http://www.bible-researcher.com/berkhof1.html ↩

http://www.bible-researcher.com/nicole.html ↩

http://www.gotquestions.org/Book-of-Romans.html ↩

https://bible.org/seriespage/vindication-or-god%E2%80%99s-righteousness-his-relationship-israel-romans-91-1021 ↩

0 notes