Nehemiah 2 notes

[1] And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that wine was before him: and I took up the wine, and gave it unto the king. Now I had not been beforetime sad in his presence.

·         So having heard that Nehemiah was the cup bearer, it’s not surprising that he is bearing the cup for the king. The cupbearer was an intensely honorable and loyal person, with the highest moral character. Only the most carefully vetted person would be trusted, which tells us something of the character of Nehemiah.

·         The month of Nisan was approximately March, four months after hearing the news initially. God had apparently not provided the right time for Nehemiah to bring the subject up, which is a tricky situation.

·         The cup bearer was to be happy at all times as an indicator of his state. If he was feeling badly or was sad it would communicate to the king that something was amiss or he was in danger. The ancient monarchs also would not want a bunch of sad or ruined people around him, he wanted the happy healthy ones. Being sad in his presence could spell doom for the person.

[2] Wherefore the king said unto me, Why is thy countenance sad, seeing thou art not sick? this is nothing else but sorrow of heart.

·         Obviously the king was concerned about Nehemiah if not for his own sake, and it did not appear that Nehemiah was suffering except for a broken spirit.

·         The king is pretty perceptive, obviously Nehemiah was trying to be happy and do his duty.

Then I was very sore afraid,

·         This could mean death for Nehemiah.

·         It also might mean a lost chance for the Jews, which would be the biggest failure of all. If the Jews offend the king he would think little of wiping them out, continuing their oppression, or any number of unpleasant alternatives.

[3] And said unto the king, Let the king live for ever: why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire?

·         This is exactly why Nehemiah has ascended to the place he has. The tempting thing is to lie and fudge, but Nehemiah comes right out with the answer. The king appointed him because he was honest and true, spoke his mind, and was not a kind of ‘yes man’ sycophant.

·         The tombs and the gates together represent the past and future of Jerusalem.

·         At this point Artaxerxes likely does not know that Nehemiah is talking about Jerusalem. The same city that he had a stop work order put on.

[4] Then the king said unto me, For what dost thou make request? So I prayed to the God of heaven.

·         It seems like there is no time here, but in reality there may be a short gap where the king looks at Nehemiah as he prays and thinks this through.

·         Before he speaks, he prays. He has a very short amount of time and still he uses it to ask God for help.

·         This is indicative of a robust and continual prayer life. The NT tells us to pray continuously, and Nehemiah is a good model for this.

[5] And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it.

·         Nehemiah wanted to personally address the issue. It’s not enough that it gets done. This is wise because the King would know him to be a trustworthy person.

[6] And the king said unto me, (the queen also sitting by him,) For how long shall thy journey be? and when wilt thou return?

·         It’s interesting that the queen is recorded as sitting by here. This indicates that the King was at a banquet and is throwing a party when Nehemiah asks him these things. Imagine the waiter at your restaurant looking unusually grim.

·         The king immediately asks the obvious questions: how long, how much, how far, what is your plan for returning?

So it pleased the king to send me; and I set him a time.

·         The answers are not given, but guessing he said he would be gone about a year. It’s interesting that he stayed on 12 or so years more, what could have happened was he built the wall in such short order that the king decided to leave him there to keep governing for a time.

·         It could also be that he gave himself 12 years, about the time Ezra took to do it, and stayed on as Governor in the remaining years.

[7] Moreover I said unto the king, If it please the king, let letters be given me to the governors beyond the river, that they may convey me over till I come into Judah;

·         When Ezra was appointed there was not as much a pressing need for these letters. When Nehemiah goes, the nations are hostile, and successful. There is a great need for them.

[8] And a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king's forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which appertained to the house, and for the wall of the city, and for the house that I shall enter into. And the king granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me.

·         But you will notice that he does not request access to the stone quarries, just the access to the royal forest to procure the timber needed.

[9] Then I came to the governors beyond the river, and gave them the king's letters. Now the king had sent captains of the army and horsemen with me.

·         Undoubtedly this was part of the request. Nehemiah would need an armed escort if he was going to make it across the distances. A large party like Ezra’s would go unmolested, but a single man, the dress or robes of a fancy, high ranking eunuch, was sure to be noticed.

[10] When Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, heard of it, it grieved them exceedingly that there was come a man to seek the welfare of the children of Israel.

·         This is what we expected, and this is what we find. The three chief antagonists were resting pretty comfortably on the fact that Judah had been humiliated. That someone in the king’s presence had come with a royal commission to undo their work troubled them.

·         Sandballat was the governor of Samaria (the title Horonite suggests he might have come from Beth-horon in Samaria (formerly was under the tribe of Ephraim, Josh 16:3 for example). Sandballat was married to one of the priestly families either at this time, or more likely shortly after this. See Nehemiah 13:28.

·         Tobiah was a servant to the King, he may have been the one to carry the permission to Samaria regarding the burning of the walls. Tobiah is a Jewish name, and he was well connected to the priests, see Nehemiah 13:4, so he was a turn coat.

·         If they opposed Nehemiah, they opposed the King. This called for them to be clever.

[11] So I came to Jerusalem, and was there three days.

·         Nehemiah takes time out to think over his next move. He decides at this time what is the best course of action after seeing everything for himself.

·         Most likely Nehemiah had set down a plan, telling no one, nor writing it down, of what he would do to fix everything once he got there. Once arrived, Nehemiah spends the time reconciling and improving the plan he had made with the reality before him.

·         That’s what happens when you have this kind of person appointed to the task. Ezra was a priest acting as a project manager, and it takes him 13 years. Get a real project manager and you can have it done in under 2 months.

[12] And I arose in the night, I and some few men with me; neither told I any man what my God had put in my heart to do at Jerusalem: neither was there any beast with me, save the beast that I rode upon.

·         He sneaks out at night so that nobody will know what he knows. Nehemiah is going to conduct an intelligence operation in secret

[13] And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, even before the dragon well, and to the dung port, and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire.

·         He starts on the west side. He then goes around in a circle, counter-clockwise and inspects the walls.

·         The dung gate was more of a sewage drain, not really used for heavy travel. It was on the southern end of the city.

·         The word viewed is a medical word that means to probe a wound. He was carefully examining the holes in the wall and the quality of the stones that had fallen from them.

[14] Then I went on to the gate of the fountain,

·         The southern most point in the tip of the wall that would be used for going in and out.

and to the king's pool: but there was no place for the beast that was under me to pass.

·         This is a small circuit around the royal residence and sepulchers

[15] Then went I up in the night by the brook, and viewed the wall, and turned back, and entered by the gate of the valley, and so returned.

·         Nehemiah then follows that course up to the Horse, East, Muster, Sheep gates, past the fish gates on the north side, the old gate on the near western side, then comes back down.

[16] And the rulers knew not whither I went, or what I did; neither had I as yet told it to the Jews, nor to the priests, nor to the nobles, nor to the rulers, nor to the rest that did the work.

·         Nehemiah puts everything together first. There is a long list here, the nobles, the priests, the rulers and the Jews, all four groups, have no real knowledge of what Nehemiah is up to.

[17] Then said I unto them, Ye see the distress that we are in, how Jerusalem lieth waste, and the gates thereof are burned with fire: come, and let us build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a reproach.

·         Now Nehemiah unveils his plans, and that’s to rebuild the walls so that the city can once again prosper.

[18] Then I told them of the hand of my God which was good upon me; as also the king's words that he had spoken unto me. And they said, Let us rise up and build. So they strengthened their hands for this good work.

·         Nehemiah relates the story of his diary, about how he felt and thought. And the result was that the people stood up and said, ‘let’s build it.’

·         They may have been waiting for something like this to happen that they could get out and start building. They could have been eager to repair that wall, but were forbidden by the king and his army.

[19] But when Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian, heard it, they laughed us to scorn, and despised us, and said, What is this thing that ye do? will ye rebel against the king?

·         Nehemiah has already foreshadowed this hostility from earlier.

·         Their taunt is that this is the Jews rebelling against the King, but their statement is “you are too weak to rebel, why bother building the walls?” This is interesting, because the letter they sent to the king was that the city was rebelling.

·         Aeshem the Arabian is likely the leader of a tribe of Arabs in the southern regions. He too has no love for God’s people.

·         They are just like sin in doctrine today: unless you are off balanced and scared you will never obey. If we have eternal security then you will just rebel against God. Is this not the same argument used?

[20] Then answered I them, and said unto them, The God of heaven, he will prosper us; therefore we his servants will arise and build: but ye have no portion, nor right, nor memorial, in Jerusalem.

·         A strong rebuke. Get lost clowns, God has appointed me to watch over this city, and there is no way that you are going to prosper here.

·         Opposition to Christ means that you are enemies of God.

·         Nehemiah dismisses them outright as enemies of God.

Nehemiah 1 notes

Background:

·         The first 12 chapters of Nehemiah cover about 1 year’s time. This is 446-445BC.
Remember that Ezra has made a habit of taking the scrolls and compiling them.

Ezra 1 – Letter from Cyrus ordering a repopulation of Jerusalem, and temple worship
Ezra 2 – Recorded count of the returnees
Ezra 4 – Letter to Ahasuerus from the building opposition, and reply from the King
Ezra 5 – Letter to Darius requesting permission to continue building
Ezra 6 – Letter from Darius granting permission
Ezra 7 – Letter from Artaxerxes granting Ezras trip
Ezra 8 – Recorded count of the returnees
Ezra 10 – Record of the divorcees

·           

     Nehemiah is therefore the story that Ezra records about how the walls came about being rebuilt. He continues to do what he has done before, namely, take scrolls and records and write them down together.

·         Nehemiah is a wealth of information because he keeps a ‘diary’ of all the things he did. This was necessary as a wise and careful cup-bearer, because he needed to have records of who brought in what food and when, for example.

·         Remember back to Ezra 4 also. Ezra puts off all the people who had their marriages with foreigners, and then begins to build the wall. From their perspective this was an overtly hostile action, and as a result they write a letter to the king, demanding he stop Ezra. They receive an army and tear the walls down. Ezra cleans everything up within the first year, and then begins building the walls and fixing the city in 456BC. It takes him about 11 years to do this.

·         Now from Nehemiah’s perspective all he knows is that Ezra was sent on a commission to go rebuild the city as necessary.

·         It’s also worth mentioning that the only other place Nehemiah is found in the Bible is Daniel 9:24-27, the famous passage. V25 speaks to Nehemiah rebuilding the walls and streets in time of trouble. It’s worth noting also that the timer starts when Ezra arrives in the city with orders to put things in order, and the 483 years added to that stop when Christ walks through the gates during the Triumphal Entry.

[1] The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah. And it came to pass in the month Chisleu, in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan the palace,

·         Interestingly, Esther and Mordecai were named after Mesopotamian deities Ishtar and Marduk, however, by this time Nehemiah has a distinctly Hebrew name.

·         This is November 446BC.

·         Shushan was a stronghold where the royals would go during the winter. It’s also where Esther takes place. Obviously, without knowing anything else we know Nehemiah has ascended in society.

[2] That Hanani, one of my brethren, came, he and certain men of Judah; and I asked them concerning the Jews that had escaped, which were left of the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem.

·         Nehemiah would be curious to see Jews in the city looking for an audience with the King.

·         The exiles had sent Hanani, a sibling of Nehemiah (see 7:2) because they knew that Nehemiah was in a position of power, and they would have better luck sending his own family.

·         Nehemiah has out of date information regarding the state of the exiles

·         Jerusalem, central to the promises of the Messiah, would be key for faithful Nehemiah.

[3] And they said unto me, The remnant that are left of the captivity there in the province are in great affliction and reproach: the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire.

·         Imagine getting this kind of unexpected news from the people. Ezra was supposed to be taking care of them under the hand of God and Nehemiah finds that everything was burned down. It was possible that given no wall the temple could be plundered and destroyed.

·         The whole of the wall was not annihilated, there were merely large holes in the wall where the soldiers had wrecked them, and the heavy gates were all burned and stood open. The devastation however, was not total.

[4] And it came to pass, when I heard these words, that I sat down and wept, and mourned certain days, and fasted, and prayed before the God of heaven,

·         Nehemiah responds with weeping, fasting, and sorrow. He mourns certain days, which is likely his off days when he did not have to appear before the king

·         This is insightful because he begins with prayer to God, and fasting in secret. These are the same things Jesus told us to do, not to look haggard, but to do it in secret. It’s also commendable that Nehemiah recognized that first and foremost prayer was the answer.

·         Nehemiah prays and asks God what to do for roughly four months.

[5] And said, I beseech thee, O LORD God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments:

·         Here is the tacit admission that the people had not kept His commands or precepts, and had brought on themselves the just return for their sins.

·         God’s special covenant and mercy is only available for those who love and do worship Him, it is not for those who hate Him. As He says in 1 Sam 2:30 “Far be it from me to bless those who hate Me”

[6] Let thine ear now be attentive, and thine eyes open, that thou mayest hear the prayer of thy servant, which I pray before thee now, day and night, for the children of Israel thy servants, and confess the sins of the children of Israel, which we have sinned against thee: both I and my father's house have sinned.

·         This is a good start to a prayer. Nehemiah understands, as few of us perhaps do, that there are prayers which God completely ignores. This principle is set down in Proverbs 15:8, 29, Isaiah 1:15, to name two.

[7] We have dealt very corruptly against thee, and have not kept the commandments, nor the statutes, nor the judgments, which thou commandedst thy servant Moses.

·         Here an admission of total guilt. They were in the exile justly. This is a bold move. Imagine if we prayed for God to remove Barak Obama from office, by beginning the prayer that we had sinned, that we deserved the punishment, that God was just and right to send him to rule over us because of our sins.

·         Nehemiah has in mind here chiefly Deut 30

·         Nehemiah takes upon himself the sins of the people. Although he has not done this sin yet he understands that he comes from their stock, and their sin is his sin. In the same way we understand that Adams’ transgression was in fact our own transgression.

[8] Remember, I beseech thee, the word that thou commandedst thy servant Moses, saying, If ye transgress, I will scatter you abroad among the nations:
[9] But if ye turn unto me, and keep my commandments, and do them; though there were of you cast out unto the uttermost part of the heaven, yet will I gather them from thence, and will bring them unto the place that I have chosen to set my name there.

·         So here he appeals to God’s promise and God’s mercy. And this is the right way to pray. We cast ourselves on not only the merciful nature of God, but on His promises to save, because God cannot lie.

[10] Now these are thy servants and thy people, whom thou hast redeemed by thy great power, and by thy strong hand.

·         Nehemiah appeals to the fact that God has already brought them out of the Babylonian captivity, and he begged God to show mercy and compassion on them.

·         These same people were wicked and rebellious, compromising and weak, and Nehemiah calls them God’s own and prays for them. This is a shadow of the prayer Jesus gives for His own in John 17.

[11] O Lord, I beseech thee, let now thine ear be attentive to the prayer of thy servant, and to the prayer of thy servants, who desire to fear thy name: and prosper, I pray thee, thy servant this day, and grant him mercy in the sight of this man.

·         This man likely refers to the king. Upon hearing the bad news Nehemiah prayed, then looked to pitching a rescue mission to the king. He was not content to sit back and do nothing, expecting miraculous delivery, he knew, just like the story of Ezra, that God often works through action.

For I was the king's cupbearer.

·         The cup bearer was the person who brought the cup to the king and proved it wasn’t poison. He also coordinated the overseeing of the food prepared. This position bought access to the king and his confidence.

Recovering from Arminianism & Romans 9

In dealing with the question "Why are the Jews not saved if God gave the Jews great promises of salvation?" Paul answers "Not all national Israel are spiritual Israel. The reason the nation was not all saved is because not all of them are chosen for salvation. Not every individual to a man was selected by God for eternal life."  To prove this point he quotes a number of times where God chose one person and passed over another, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.

The Arminian (and by this I mean also myself at one time) takes this to mean that the nations were chosen. God chose the nation of Israel, and passed over the nations of Ishmael. But does this stand up? No! Paul has been using the individual to explain the nation, not using the nation to explain the nation. It doesn't make sense to say "the reason the nation of Israel was by in large not saved is because God chose the nation of Israel for salvation" but it does make sense to say "the reason the nation of Israel was not saved by in large is because not everyone individually was chosen for salvation." If you follow that logic you get to the nation of Moses, and the nation of Pharaoh, which is a complete collapse of reasoning. So it's talking about people, and how some are chosen, and some are not.

To cap this argument Paul sets the corner-stone in verse 13 - "Jacob I have loved, and Esau I have hated."
This is the crown jewel of his exposition, the climax of the argument and this is where the weak kneed scholar buckles under the logical consequences of what Paul is saying- so desperate is the Arminian to find a way out that he completely upends the meaning of the reference quote and doubles down on his nation theory.
 Malachi 1:2-4 - "I have loved you," says the LORD. "Yet you say, 'In what way have You loved us?' [Was] not Esau Jacob's brother?" Says the LORD. "Yet Jacob I have loved; But Esau I have hated, And laid waste his mountains and his heritage For the jackals of the wilderness." Even though Edom has said, "We have been impoverished, But we will return and build the desolate places," Thus says the LORD of hosts: "They may build, but I will throw down; They shall be called the Territory of Wickedness, And the people against whom the LORD will have indignation forever.

Reading this again, stripped of my Arminian bias, it has become clear that I've been looking at it wrong - the destruction of the nation of Esau is a consequence of the feelings God has for the individual. God so hated Esau that He would not let him have descendents or a land, or a people. It's a proof. The people are asking for proof, and He gives it to them. How, how has God loved us? God tells them He loved Jacob, and they are Jacobs children, and they are blessed through their faithful ancestor. Meanwhile, God hated Esau and would not bless him, and would not bless his heritage.


And that only makes sense right? Because otherwise Paul is really taking wild liberties with the text of Malachi in Romans, bending it completely beyond recognition, taking two nation groups and pushing them into a defense of individual predestination. But if you understand that Paul is quoting it rightly, that the men themselves are hated and loved, then you understand that Malachi is not about two nations it's about two people. Paul is just taking a direct quote, meaning for meaning, and omitting the proof portion in Malachi.


Which means that Jacob God loved, and Esau He hated.

More on the Covenant of Works

So I've been ahead on my Nehemiah class, giving me some breathing room to think about the COW. Not a lot mind you, but a little.

Gentry and Wellum postulate that since Jesus is prophet, priest, and king, and Jesus is the new and better Adam, then the original Adam was prophet, priest, King. I'm not sure about that drawing the three fold office back out of it, but I think that might not be a bad principle to think in terms of Adam as God's son. Not a slave or stewart so much as a child after His own image, after His own likeness.

Now I just read that Dr. Bob is going to tackle this topic, so I think I'm going to hold off until he's finished. This will be updated after I get his thoughts on it.

The appearance of Buddhism wisdom

I was reading Wizard of Earthsea to my daughter last night, and there is an interesting passage that caught me off guard, where the pupil Ged is asking how to transform pebbles into diamonds permanently, not just make them appear to be diamonds. His tutor tells him that he must know fully the consequences of an action before doing it, bringing rain here for example, may mean drought for someplace else, so when you intend to do good you may do evil with it. His admonition contains an example: lighting a candle casts shadows.

Now that sounds right until you think about it for a moment. Why should lighting a candle create darkness? Candles create light and light banishes the darkness. What happens if you don't light that candle? Everything stays in darkness, and nobody gets any kind of light. If there is a shadow of any kind created by lighting a candle, it's where the light has not penetrated, a failure to create more light.

Suddenly the wisdom of the Budda doesn't seem so impressive anymore.

The woman who ran the Kingdom

Something struck me in Daniel today, listening to Chuck Swindoll on the way to the gym:
Look at the state of the Kingdom after Nebuchadnezzar dies - his own line was completely uninterested in ruling, merely in stuffing themselves with food and getting drunk with wine. Starting at 5:9

Then King Belshazzar was greatly troubled, his countenance was changed, and his lords were astonished. The queen, because of the words of the king and his lords, came to the banquet hall. 

Why? Because she was busy elsewhere. Like in running the Kingdom.

 The queen spoke, saying, "O king, live forever! Do not let your thoughts trouble you, nor let your countenance change. There is a man in your kingdom in whom [is] the Spirit of the Holy God. And in the days of your father, light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, were found in him; 

Now I can't imagine this well, because I'm not a woman, but imagine being married to a deadbeat ruler who cared not one whit for the lives of the thousands or millions of people that he oversaw, of hearing of the advancing Persian armies and the wars on your border and knowing that it was all up to you.
In fact the state of things was so bad that this worthless king didn't even know about the affairs of his own father. He has to be told:

and King Nebuchadnezzar your father--your father the king--made him chief of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, [and] soothsayers. 

How long can an empire (or a republic) stand when there is no man willing to be a man, but only a boy? Or worse, an intemperate beast, enslaved to his own animal appetites?
What strikes me in this is not the extraordinary writing on the wall, but the ordinary appointed course of providence to bring judgement on the lazy, the evil, and the stupid. Their own lives give them their own due reward.

Catholic vs. Calvinist Radio

The Catholic radio station has a priest on who covers Reformed theology, because he himself used to be a Presbyterian before converting. Needless to say I find this very interesting and was eager to hear what he had to say on this stuff, particularly the traditional views on things like Perseverance of the Saints.

When I tuned in they were saying that this study found people in the Presbyterian church who didn't believe in the Trinity. There were also minor doctrinal disputes on things not specified in the Westminster confession of faith. This, they said, would never happen in the Catholic church because sacred tradition, which is equivalent to the Biblical authority, would fix this.
What they didn't mention was that these surveys are done church wide and include the non-believers who are visiting but identify themselves as 'seeking.' So when you have people inside the church building reporting that they don't believe in the trinity, you have some non-believers being exposed to the gospel. Assuming they don't stay that way, that's a good thing. The way to remedy this is problem is to never take inventory of the peoples belief in your church, but to turn a blind eye and pretend everyone believes exactly what the priest does, who as far as I can tell is generally a non-believer himself.
The other topic I heard the ex-Calvinist priest talking about was the difficulty of reconciling perseverance of the saints with the passages that talk about the need to be watchful lest we lose our salvation. When he was a Reformed preacher that discrepancy never sat right, he never could get his mind around it. His answer? To become Catholic. Perseverance was the faulty doctrine, it was the wrong one, it didn't make sense. The thing to do was to stop talking about it, stop thinking about it, and let it go.
What a great solution! Having trouble with any Biblical doctrine? Give it up! Lay down your arms children and embrace the rulings of the council at Trent. Then put your fingers in your ears and pretend that everyone of your parish believes what you told them to believe.

Disliking Kingdom Through Covenants more

Well it turns out that the book "Kingdom through covenants" is falling apart in my hands like wet tissue paper.
This by way of example is going to the real point of today's blog post: what I hate about Christian academia.

The writers of this book are digressing considerably into something I actually hate: academic language. This has a few distinct characteristics:

1. Bloviation.
   An extensive examination of the original base language that takes 10 pages, 500 different competitive perspectives or explanations, and then manages to say exactly what the English says.
   
2. Squabbling.
   "Voorhees states that the concept of the suzerain treaties form the basis of our understanding of covenants. Higgins adds that this is fundamentally unsound, relegating the Hittite treaties as a suitable comparison, however falling in one or two key areas. Not surprisingly, Yorgens corollary takes umbrage with Borsophiens theory in this respect, regarding the vassal, lordship hypothesis."
   It's like sitting down to eat a thanksgiving meal, and not being able to eat because everyone is disputing the best way to cook the turkey, even though it's right there in front of you.
   Now this may make me angry because I'm an Engineer, but I don't think so, I think that people don't appreciate the insulated, insular, inbred Academic world of peer review and fascinating novel hypothesis. They just want the plain and simple truth. From what I can tell Academia seems to be about what's novel, what's interesting, what Johnny come lately can I go to the dance with, because that's the way we press the boundary for knowledge, going out where nobody has before.
   Unfortunately that's not Christianity. I want truth, not dispute. I want the answer, not a pointless argument. I want food, not feud.
   
3. Faithlessness.
   This is what I love about John MacAurthur, for as much as I disagree with him about dispensationalism- his simply and honest faith. These academics have no faith. In this book they are talking about the meaning of "Come, let us make man in our image, in our likeness" and the writer lists 8 different guesses about what this could mean, including God talking to the Earth, then rules out the correct one (it's us getting an insight to the Trinity) because Moses wouldn't have understood God was trinity. That's nothing but faithlessness.

Maybe this thing is going to turn around soon, I'm on page 200, and there are 400 more to go, so there is some time, but this has been a great disappointment. I was enticed to read because I saw the reviews point to this book as the next big thing, the understanding of the whole of the Bible in terms of Christological, where Christ stands at it's center. So far, not good. Not only have I not seen Christ in it, I have not seen any signs that point anywhere near Him, and the road has been in the wrong direction.