Here is my latest Substack article about how Christ secures the promises to Israel and about how that is the basis for Gentile hope.
open.substack.com/pub/biblicalapologetics/p/jesus-…
21 - 5
“A return back to animal sacrifices is heresy!”
If what is meant by this statement, by “back”, is referring to the reconstitution of the Mosaic Law, namely the Levitical sacrificial system, then that is indeed abject heresy since it denies the finished work of Christ Jesus as great high priest.
But is this a charitable and even accurate understanding of those who believe in a future millennial kingdom? Absolutely not. I believe much ink and time has been spent endeavoring to disabuse a view that no one holds. Moreover, what dissenters typically argue is that any institution of animal sacrifices impugns the glory, majesty, honor, and sufficiency of Christ Jesus and his finished work. However, a careful understanding of what is actually being presented leaves those charges unfounded.
Read the full article here:
open.substack.com/pub/biblicalapologetics/p/a-retu…
19 - 4
🚨Come let us reason together 🚨
There have been some recent vain attempts to justify the ever-expanding meaning of “violence.” We simply must not impose a meaning on a text that was never the intention of the biblical writers.
The Hebrew word ḥāmās in Genesis 6:5-13 is not about hurt feelings or subjective offense. It refers to objective injustice, oppression, corruption, and destructive harm. Moreover, and this is critically important; the context is God’s own moral evaluation of human society, not one group’s perception of another’s words.
Genesis 6:5–13 does not support equating any offensive or “disparaging-seeming” remark with biblical violence. For speech to qualify as “violent” in this sense, it must 👉🏾ACTUALLY embody injustice, slander, or oppressive intent, not just be disliked by its hearers.👈🏾
“It is an audacity akin to sacrilege to use the Scripture at our pleasure and to play with them as with a tennis ball, which many before have done…It is the first business of an interpreter to let his author say what he does say, instead of attributing to him what we think he ought to say.” - John Calvin
Stay in God’s word and be blessed.
44 - 3
There Is Not Substitute For Churchmen
Modern evangelicalism has a credibility problem. Let’s not downplay the issue. The modern church, by and large, has a bad reputation. We have replaced the authority of Scripture with the feigned authority of charisma, popularity, and brand. We have replaced the faithful shepherding of souls with growing influence, platform size, and numerical “success.”
I unpack these details in my latest Substack article below. Read. Subscribe. Enjoy.
open.substack.com/pub/biblicalapologetics/p/there-…
40 - 0
🚨Hot off the Substack presses 🚨
*Should Christians pray for false teachers?*
How could this seemingly innocuous question create so much concern and even controversy among those who profess faith in Christ Jesus, among those who claim to follow every jot and tittle of Scripture? What is the appropriate biblical response to this question? And what is the root of the objection by some?
Read the full article below 👇🏾
open.substack.com/pub/biblicalapologetics/p/should…
@bereanbabes @whatdothescripturessay @smartchristians
If you want to see more articles like this one, please subscribe to my NEW Substack page. 📄
38 - 7
Good evening. Here is a quote that I uncovered during my seminary study reading this week. It is a very insightful because it challenges us all to have a comprehensive understanding and appreciation for the Christ of Scripture.
“If we do not understand the Old Testament deeply, then when the New Testament draws on the Old Testament to speak of Christ, we will not know the full import of what is taking place. Because New Testament Christology draws from the Old Testament, a shallow understanding of the Old Testament leads to a shallow Christology…Christ is in the Old Testament because He is at work in history. The Old Testament does not merely predict or prepare for Him but depicts the Son as a participant in that part of Scripture.”
- Abner Chou
65 - 9
I want to weigh in on some of the interesting conversations about mandatory Sabbath observance (Exodus 20:8) for Christians. I truly believe some of the commentary has devolved into wrangling over proof texts and rationalistic arguments instead of defining terms and exegeting the salient passages in order to bring clarity to this issue. It is not enough to quote a text; we need to understand what the text means with accuracy and precision.
Let's not waste any time!
Here is my position: There is absolutely NO teaching in the New Testament that Christians in the New Covenant are required to observe the Sabbath as stipulated in the Mosaic Law. Sabbath observance was the sign of the covenant arrangement that Yahweh made with Israel (Exodus 33:13-17), not a universal moral law. While creation shows a rhythm of work and rest (Genesis 2), the actual Sabbath command arises only with Israel. Sunday gatherings as a Christian development was grounded in resurrection theology, not as a direct continuation of the Sabbath command.
I listened to a young man try to make Hebrews 4:9 mean what it does not mean. His task was to find
one verse that makes the Sabbath observance binding on the Christian. After a lengthy conversation with @smartchristians , Hebrews 4 became his final resort.
Hebrews 4:9 (NA28):
ἄρα ἀπολείπεται σαββατισμὸς τῷ λαῷ τοῦ θεοῦ.
“Therefore, a Sabbath rest (sabbatismos) remains for the people of God.”
Then we hear his exuberant retort, "See sabbatismos means to observe the Sabbath. Corey, you should know that is what the Greek means."
Yet how does one unequivocally make such
a pronouncement without any consideration for the surrounding context? One cannot. And this has been my main concern. Words are being cherry-picked from a text without any consideration for the authorial intent of the passage. Even though outside of the NT, Philo and Plutarch had a “Sabbath observance” meaning in their writings for sabbatismos, we must not uncritically import their meaning into the text; that is bad exegesis.
The Hebrews author's argument actually begins in chapter 3 with citations from Psalm 95 about how Israel failed to enter God's rest because of unbelief. Then the author argues that Joshua did not give final rest (Heb 4:8), so a greater rest still remains. The “Sabbath rest” that “remains” is not the seventh-day Sabbath command of the Mosaic Law. Rather, it is the eschatological fulfillment of what the Sabbath typified: entering God’s presence and ceasing from our works as God did from His (4:10). Believers “enter that rest” now by faith (4:3), yet it also has a future consummation in the eschaton (perhaps worth discussing at a later time). The passage is about persevering in faith to enter final rest, not about Sabbath observance.
For 👉🏾we who have believed enter that rest👈🏾, as he has said, “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest,’”
although his works were finished from the foundation of the world.
(Hebrews 4:3 ESVi)
Let us therefore 👉🏾strive to enter that rest👈🏾, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.
(Hebrews 4:11 ESVi)
Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us 👉🏾hold fast our confession👈🏾.
(Hebrews 4:14 ESVi)
Hebrews 4:9–10 is often used by Sabbatarians (including Seventh-day Adventists and Hebrew Roots advocates) to argue for Sabbath observance; however, the context of Hebrews is about entering God’s salvation-rest, not Mosaic law observance. If the author intended Sabbath-keeping, he would have used sabbaton (the normal word for the weekly Sabbath). The admonition is not about neglecting Sabbath observance, but failing to believe and persevere. This fits the broader purpose of Hebrews, which is to warn against apostasy. Hebrews is pastoral; the call is “hold fast to Christ,” not “return to the Law.”
68 - 25
How do you address this allegation?
*It is impossible to understand the original meaning of a biblical text since we all bring biases to the text.*
These allegations are often tied to postmodern hermeneutics and reader-response theory. Here is a my position: while readers do bring biases to the text, those biases do not make the original meaning inaccessible.
Here are a few things to consider:
1. We should acknowledge bias but deny its absoluteness
Everyone approaches Scripture with presuppositions, shaped by culture, upbringing, theological background, etc. However, the postmodern leap from “we have presuppositions” to “there is no objective meaning” does not follow. Why? Because presuppositions can be tested, corrected, and aligned with the truth through careful exegesis.
2. Meaning is authorial, not reader-created (a text cannot mean what it never meant)
God inspired the specific words of human authors to communicate a definite message (cf. 2 Pet. 1:20–21; 2 Tim. 3:16). Since meaning is rooted in the author’s intention, not in the reader’s experience, our task is to discover that intention, not invent it. This stands against claims that meaning is “fluid” or “constructed” by the reader.
3. Hermeneutical discipline overcomes subjectivity
Historical-grammatical exegesis, paying attention to words, grammar, context, historical background, and canonical connections, is designed precisely to check our biases. Through grammatical rules, textual context, and cross-referencing Scripture, we can correct subjective interpretations. This is illustrated by how the biblical authors themselves interpreted earlier Scripture with precision and consistency.
4. The Bible anticipates and confronts misinterpretation
The Bible itself warns about twisting Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16) and gives examples of people correcting wrong readings (e.g., Jesus in Matt. 22:29–32). This implies that right understanding is possible, and that the Holy Spirit, working through the text, can overcome cultural blinders.
5. Illumination by the Holy Spirit
While not denying the need for linguistic and historical study, illumination, the Spirit’s work in enabling us to grasp the text rightly, is essential (1 Cor. 2:12–14). This divine help doesn’t bypass human study; it enables readers to submit their minds to the text rather than bending the text to fit their preconceptions.
37 - 18
We can all learn by example (read the discourse in the photo below). When our biblical theology does not appeal to sound exegesis, the application of proper hermeneutical principles to determine the meaning of Scripture, we have no objectively authoritative basis for our conclusions, even if our conclusions are correct. This is an extreme and egregious example from a @Truthunedited follower. What is the application for us all? If our biblical theology rests on church tradition, creeds, “church fathers”, confessions, etc. and not on the sound exegesis of the progressive revelation of Scripture then we too will have no grounds for a defense of the faith. Sound exegesis has strong apologetic value against aberrant views because it grounds the defense of the faith in the actual meaning of Scripture, rather than in personal opinion or tradition.
27 - 9
Caldwell Apologetics is a Christian apologetics platform created by Rick Caldwell with the goal of providing the world with theological answers to questions about the Christian faith. Christians are told to always be ready to give a defense (give an apologia) to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that we have with gentleness and reverence.
14 September 2013