Search this blog

View Comments


36 thoughts on “Is the Bible More Than My Roadmap to Life?”

  1. john says:

    vern poythress argued (in his hermeneutics class) that its not an either-or but a both-and with “david and goliath” application.

    David is both an example of faith we are to EMULATE
    but also a picture of CHRIST we should HOPE in.

    the problem is when people expect that they have the same ‘victorious’ calling as David, instead of realizing Christ’s victory on the cross over satan, sin and death is the only victory we are assured of, not any earthly victory.

  2. john says:

    but we should still strive towards faith like David’s. we simply need to have humble faith that says “God CAN deliver us, but even IF God doesn’t deliver us, we’re still not going to bow down…”

  3. Justin Borger says:

    I find the false dichotomies in this video very frustrating. The fact that we aren’t to identify ourselves as the hero David doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t see ourselves being directed towards good works in this text. We should, in fact identify ourselves with the armies of Israel who, after the giant Goliath fell dead before David, “surged forward with a shout” (1 Sam. 17:52). We do not defeat the giant for ourselves, nor do we establish God’s kingdom in our power. But having already witnessed the victory, we are called to “surge forward” and join in the fight. As Paul says in Romans 16:20: “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.” I’d like to hear more preaching on that!

    At any rate, let’s not forget that “All Scripture [including the story of David and Goliath] is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Any interpretation of Scripture that downplays this ethical purpose for which all Scripture is inspired strikes me as quite questionable.

    1. Aaron Kahler says:


      As Frame has said, “Imitation is a major means of sanctification in Scripture… we should be encouraging, not discouraging, preachers to point out parallels between the lives of these people and our lives today. Preaching this way does not deserve to be called moralism.”

    2. Wanda says:

      As one who trains others to work with children this video resonated with me.

      All too often those serving children tell the story of David as if the children only need to “believe” and then God will kill any Giant in their life. When this doesn’t happen doubt creeps in.

      I believe that this type of careless teaching is one of the reasons we are losing so many kids.

      The story of David is one kids love – however, the warning must be given that their outcome might not be the same as David’s.

  4. Matti says:

    Why do we have to go allegorising the story of David to be something about Christ when we could just read the story of Jesus’ victory over sin from the Colossians. Bad hermeneutics.

    1. I agree. “Jesus slays the giant of sin” is just as cheesy as me slaying the giant of my debt.

      The point of the story of David and Goliath is to usher David onto the scene as the King of Israel who trusts in Yahweh in ways in which it is clear that Saul didn’t — i.e., that David is the man after God’s own heart who will rule Israel in righteousness. A lesser point, but still a point made by the text, is that God will use the weak who trust Yahweh (the unlikely choice: David was the youngest, the shepherd) to shame the strong who trust in themselves. Just as God chose the younger Abel over Cain, the younger Isaac over Ishmael, the younger Jacob over Esau, the younger Moses over Aaron, so He chooses the runt of the litter, the little shepherd boy David over the head-and-shoulders-taller-than-everybody-else Saul. God chooses the unlikely to be prominent, and in some cases, to triumph over what would have seemed to be the obvious choice. And, ultimately, He chooses the manger over the royal palace, humility over pomp and circumstance, the foal of a donkey over an armed chariot, the cross over the crown.

      Understanding the story in its own context and for its own sake is not only the only way to faithfully handle the Scripture, it actually sheds even more glorious light on the Gospel — the Gospel which we can get to by way of application of texts interpreted in context — than by looking at the text, shrugging, and saying, “Uhhh… Jesus!”

  5. Matt says:

    I’ll bet he loves these lyrics from Casting Crowns…

    Oh what I would do to have
    The kind of strength it takes to stand before a giant
    With just a Sling and a stone
    Surrounded by the sound of a thousand warriors
    Shaking in their armor
    Wishing they’d have had the strength to stand

    But the giant’s calling out my name and he laughs at me
    Reminding me of all the times I’ve tried before and failed
    The giant keeps on telling me
    Time and time again “boy, you’ll never win!
    “You’ll never win”

    But the stone was just the right size
    To put the giant on the ground

  6. rob says:

    Matt… Big fan. I’m wondering, since several of the commenters are not convinced of your handling of the hermeneutics here, if you could elaborate on why it’s best to take your approach. This DOES run counter to what many hear, and have heard, from pastors and authors who take a hortatory/example approach.

    Many thanks.

  7. RJ says:

    If you want to know what David’s example is to us, reread slowly and thoughtfully Psalm 119, then put it into action.

    Matt is in danger of leading people into a let go and let God philosophy, which is not the message in any way shape or form we should be taking away from David’s great actions against Goliath (the enemy of God).

    David showed his faith in action. The book of James is screaming to be heard in our day and age.

    Show your faith in action… pick up some stones and get in the battle!

    If all five stones miss, go pick up five more. David would have, I think. Remember after all, he did pick up five stones and not just one.

  8. Mike Lynch says:

    I’m thankful there is still Christ-centered preaching out there as opposed to the self-help preaching so many are exposed to.

  9. Ps Henry says:

    I find this teaching a little scary. Not that what he says is wrong, it is just that he only has half the picture. Look at all the examples in the Bible where we are commanded to apply what we have learned. God has adopted us into His family, which allows us to use the authority that He has given us through Christ Jesus. Yes Christ is the victory and we do need to rely on Him as the source, but we also have authority because we are CHILDREN of GOD Himself. Not Just Servants.

  10. Trevin Wax says:

    Just to clarify,

    We asked Matt to provide a quick snapshot of a Christ-directed approach to David and Goliath versus a moralistic approach. We didn’t ask him to lay out all the implications and applications that come from a passage like this.

    I can’t speak for Matt, but knowing his overall hermeneutic and his approach to the Scriptures, I am sure that neither he (nor we, for that matter) are saying that there are no moral applications to be found in the story of David and Goliath or that the historical context should be minimized.

    At the same time, one must wonder how Jesus would have approached this story with his disciples on the road to Emmaus. Since He paralleled His own death and resurrection with Jonah, He would probably have demonstrated similar parallels with David as well. (The Gospel writers did this explicitly, for example, with the story of Jesus picking grain on the Sabbath.)

    1. Thanks Trevin. I receive what you said about Matt and his overall hermeneutic, and believe the best about his intentions, especially given the limited time frame.

      one must wonder how Jesus would have approached this story with his disciples on the road to Emmaus.

      Regarding the Road to Emmaus and how Jesus would have discussed this text, I have two thoughts. First, Jesus might not have discussed this text. Explaining the things concerning Himself “in all the Scriptures” (Lk 24:27) doesn’t necessarily mean “in every Scripture.” Second, if He did mention it (which I think is likely as well), He would have honored the authorial intent and original context of the passage. My guess would be that He would have said something like what I suggested in my response above: David is brought onto the scene of prominence as the King of Israel who trusts in Yahweh in ways in which it is clear that Saul didn’t — i.e., that David is the man after God’s own heart (from the tribe of Judah, not Benjamin; cf. Gen 49:10) who will rule Israel in righteousness. That sets the stage for the Davidic Covenant, ultimately looking toward the scion of David (Jesus) whose kingdom will be everlasting.

      The Gospel writers did this explicitly, for example, with the story of Jesus picking grain on the Sabbath.

      I think if someone was illustrating the Gospel using the analogy of David slaying Goliath — kind of in the same way the Gospel writers did when they compared Jesus’ picking grain on the Sabbath to David’s eating the bread of the presence (i.e., as an analogical reference rather than fulfillment) — that would be fine.

      But in a sermon or Bible lesson on 1 Samuel 17 (which is what I understood Matt to be speaking about), I think it would be hermeneutically tenuous to claim, or even imply, that the point of David’s slaying of Goliath was to provide a picture for Messiah’s victory over sin. That is not the proper interpretation of that passage, even if it might be a helpful analogical application of it.

      And I suppose that’s where my hesitance is coming from. The Gospel isn’t the proper interpretation of every individual text (even if the OT as a whole points to Messiah and His work). But we should get to the Gospel in the application of every sermon. To assert that 1Sam 17 is about Jesus slaying the giant of sin is to confuse application with interpretation, and ultimately to read Jesus into texts where He isn’t.

  11. Justin Taylor says:

    Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I think it’s important to understand some context here. It’d be one thing if Matt were giving an academic paper on the relationship between moral examples and redemptive history, but he’s giving a brief answer to highlight priority and neglect. I don’t want to speak for Matt, but I’d at least want to say it’s both-and, but not both at the same exact level. Exhortation and moral examples are both essential, but they become moralism if divorced from the storyline of Scripture and the foundation of what God has accomplished and is accomplishing for us. Rhetorically what Matt is expressing is really the same type of communication as “I desire mercy not sacrifice.” Yes, it’s both-and at the end of the day. But to make them at the same level is to miss the meaning of both.

    1. Justin Borger says:

      I don’t want to be overly critical here. But this is more problematic than either Trevin or Justin suggest.

      The fact is that Matt opens with the sweeping claim that there are “two ways” to read the Bible. And then he goes on to pit one way against the other. This is unhelpful because Scripture itself insists that it is all about both leading us to Christ (John 5:39) and to good works (2 Tim 3:16-17). I’m sure Matt would agree with this if the question was asked the right way. But as it currently stands, the video is misleading.

      1. RJ says:

        “This is unhelpful because Scripture itself insists that it is all about both leading us to Christ (John 5:39) and to good works (2 Tim 3:16-17).”

        Well put Justin.

    2. RJ says:

      This clarification is helpful. Again we need to make sure we don’t swing to far the other way and say God doesn’t require sacrifice. An unbiblical “Christ centeredness” is just as injurious as unbiblical “moralism”.

      Trust in Christ, abide in Christ, draw near to Christ, rest in Christ, rely on Christ, wait on Christ, and seek Christ has become the beginning, and more unsatisfactorily, the ending of a misguided theology crept in for some time now. Just because someone says “I’m Christ centered” doesn’t mean they hold the theological high ground. It is like the Dispensationalist claiming to be right because they “take the Bible literally”. This is a true straw man just as “being Christ centered” is in many cases.

      That’s why I say if you want to emulate David read again with patience Psalm 119. It is a remedy for what’s ailing the Church in America today. God’s Law! Grace and Law are no contradiction.

      We keep the Law after becoming a Christian; we don’t keep it to become one. If we don’t love the God’s Law as David did, we will never be like him as he is like Christ.

      Let’s not let go and let God, lets embrace the gift God has given us in Christ and work out our salvation with fear and trembling by knowing now in Christ we can become like Him; a better Law keeper. Keeping the Law is the road to a righteous sanctification. I don’t see in Scripture any other path. It is the path Christ and the Apostles took and it is the one we are blessed to pursue!

    3. john says:

      thanks justin. your point about EMPHASIS is a great one.
      if i had one minute with a nonbeliever on a bus who’s reading about david and goliath, i would probably try and point him to jesus rather than to the moral exhortation

      since christ IS the more important application.

      i guess i just feel that guys like chandler and driscoll could be a little more careful in their rhetoric sometimes (but granted i still listen to them like crazy to learn how to communicate well!)

      and i’ve also been in churches where all the pastor EVER does is go to the redemptive historical application and there’s almost NEVER any moral exhortations at all. and that can be dangerous to a church’s health. (i know that chandler doesn’t err like this though and that he’s speaking more to the general evangelical crowd)

  12. Mike Lynch says:

    I’m almost surprised at the backlash here. Teaching the Bible this way has been common through the ages. Christ is all over, not only this historical account, but the entire Old Testament.

    1. Frank Wilhelm says:

      I am not a Pastor or theologian….but the Gospel is not to focus on what we can do for Him, rather it is to believe and focus on what He does for us! When we do this, we celebrate what He has done and give Him the glory.Israel celebrated David and not the God who had brought victory!

      1. RJ says:

        “but the Gospel is not to focus on what we can do for Him”

        I don’t see how you can make such a statement reading the same Bible I’m reading. After salvation comes sanctification, at that point it is very much about what he commands you do for Him. That is what the Spirit (Helper) is for; your ability to be a Law keeper instead of a Law breaker. You can now, as David, love God’s commandments, laws, word, rules, statues, testimonies, and precepts.

        Frank, please look at what the Bible teaches and then match that up with what men are saying (teaching).

        1. RD says:

          RJ, I dont think you have a full understanding of the gospel. The gospel is not what we have done for God but what God has done for us. Ephesians 2:4. Sanctification is not the gospel message. The gospel is about your INABILITY to keep the Law and Christ saved you out of that.

          1. RJ says:

            I guess your gospel ends at salvation. That’s where mine begins.

  13. Matt G says:

    Although I agree with the premise that the Bible is not a “roadmap to life” or primarily about us, Matt leapfrogs the historical context of the original readers/hearers of this passage and jumps right into the christological interpretation of the passage. This violates a major point of the grammatical historical approach to hermeneutics and is the same error that leads people to jump right into the application of a passage. We can’t determine what a passage means until we determine what it meant to its original readers–in this passage, it was first and foremost about Yahweh’s intervention on behalf of unbelieving Israel through a believing young man who was defending the name of his God among the pagan Philistines. David’s identity as a type of Christ emerges from this foundation of meaning.

  14. EBG says:

    Back round music is way too distracting.

  15. Timothy Buck says:

    The men behind The Gospel Project are men I deeply respect and men I have learned much from. Nevertheless, I have to raise some questions about the hermeneutics.

    I don’t disagree that some people approach the Bible from a self-centered perspective, and that the Bible is much more than a road map to our success over our problems. But if I were preaching this passage, it would never occur to me to preach this passage that way. I don’t doubt that some preachers have preached it that way, but it seems obvious to me that this is not a story about “fighting our battles”. Therefore I think Matt has set up a straw man that is too easily knocked down.

    However, my greater concern is the application he sees in this story. He believes this is a story about how a Savior (represented by David) is going to come and slay the giant of our sin. Huh? You’ve got to be kidding! Matt, tell me you’re joking!

    Let’s assume we gave a New Testament to someone in China who had never read the Bible or knew anything about Jesus. They read the New Testament and realize they are a lost sinner and that Jesus died on the cross for their sins. They embrace Christ by faith and experience regeneration. Now they come to church and are given a complete Bible. They begin reading with Genesis and get to the books of Samuel, at which point we ask them what the story of David and Goliath is all about. What will they say? Will they say it is obviously a story teaching us that Jesus would eventually come and slay the giant of their sins? I don’t think so.

    Let’s look at it from another angle. The books of Samuel were written about 1000 years before Christ. When the Jewish people read this book in that 1000 year period, what did they think God was trying to say to them through this story? Did they think this was a story teaching that the Messiah would eventually come and slay the giant of their sins? I don’t think so. If your interpretation of this story only makes sense to people after the time of Jesus, there is something wrong with your interpretation. The question that needs to be asked is, what did the original author see in this story? He wasn’t just recording history. He chose which stories to record and which details of each story to record. And he believed that the stories and details he was recording told us something about God and our relationship to him. And what did the Jewish readers see as the message behind the story for 1000 years before Christ?

    The problem with Matt’s approach to this story is that he has embraced a system of interpretation called “allegorical interpretation.” In other words, he sees all of the Old Testament as allegories that point to Christ. There are some huge problems with this system of interpretation.

    Allegorical interpretation does have its place, as long as you are reading a book that is indeed entirely an allegory. For instance, everyone who has ever read The Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan realizes that it is an allegory. It does not just contain allegories, it is an allegory. Everything in the book is an allegory, therefore you have to use allegorical interpretation to understand the book. And even though it is an allegory, everyone who reads the book comes to the same conclusion about what Bunyan is trying to communicate. But the Bible is not an allegory.

    There certainly are allegories in scripture just as in most literature and in most conversation. We commonly use allegory as a brief technique in conversation to illustrate a point. When I say, “I could eat a horse”, I am not saying that I could physically consume a whole horse, or that I even want to eat a whole horse or even a part of a horse! I’m just saying I’m really hungry. And you already knew that. But you didn’t allegorize the whole conversation. You realized that I was using allegory to illustrate a point. And that is the point! You realized it even before I said it. No one had to tell you that I was using an allegory, just as no one had to tell readers of Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress that his whole book was an allegory.

    Likewise, when Jesus said, “I am the door” (John 10:9), you didn’t suddenly come to a realization that he had hinges and a door knob. When you read that, you automatically realized that he was using an allegory to illustrate the point that he is the only way to the Father. But you didn’t go on to allegorize everything he said. My point is simply that allegories are a technique harnessed to reveal truth, and therefore every author who uses allegory does so in a way that makes it obvious that he is using allegory, and also makes it obvious what the allegory is communicating.

    That is not true of the story of David and Goliath. People who read it do not automatically conclude that they are reading an allegory. And if you could convince them that the story is an allegory of some type, and then asked them what truth the allegory is teaching, they would likely come up with as many possible scenarios as there are people. Why? Because it is not an allegory, so there is no one single allegorized truth that is obvious to everyone. Believe it or not, I’ve heard sermons on PRAYER preached on this very text using allegorical interpretation method. Where is prayer in this text? If you’re using allegorical interpretation method, it doesn’t have to be there. You can make it say anything you want it to say. You see, the problem with using allegorical interpretation on a historical narrative is that you are imposing a meaning on the text that is not drawn from the text itself. And that is why I find it shocking that someone like Matt Chandler and D.A. Carson and James MacDonald would embrace this.

    1. Trevin Wax says:


      As a point of clarification, the Gospel Project is not putting forth an allegorical interpretation to Old Testament texts. The Emmaus-road approach shows how the Bible points forward to Christ. It does not ignore the history of the text itself or the way it would have been interpreted by its first audience. (The recent cover story of Christianity Today – “How to Read the Bible” – by J. Todd Billings is a helpful explanation of the hermeneutic we employ.)

      I’m largely in agreement with what you have written, but I have to take issue with this:

      “If your interpretation of this story only makes sense to people after the time of Jesus, there is something wrong with your interpretation. The question that needs to be asked is, what did the original author see in this story?”

      I agree that we need to look for authorial intent, but we cannot be bound to a hermeneutic that does not allow for any sense of progressive revelation and canonical unity. To take your view to the extreme, we would not be able to interpret Isaiah’s prophecy of the virgin birth as applying to Christ since it doesn’t fit your question “What did the Jewish readers see as the message behind the story for 1000 years before Christ?” Also, how do you make sense of Paul’s interpretation of Moses striking the rock (1 Cor. 10)?

      The idea that we are unable to approach the Old Testament as CHRISTIANS is, in my opinion, more damaging than allowing for a Christological interpretation that sees the stories having a broader canonical application.

      1. I don’t think the choice is between (a) a Christological interpretation and (b) a failure to read the OT as Christians. We should allow the text to speak for itself, considering both what the original author was intending and what the original audience understood. And we should also make application to Christ and the Gospel. So, I guess I’m calling for a contextual, historical-grammatical interpretation with a Christological application.

        For example, we can acknowledge that the floating axe head in 2 Kings 6 wasn’t a foreshadowing of Jesus walking on water ( :-) ), but we can get from the proper interpretation of that passage (God cares about our smallest of needs and liabilities, and is compassionate to meet them) to a Christological application; e.g., “Nowhere do we see God’s compassion for even the little things manifested more profoundly than in Christ (cf. Matt 17:27).” From there, you can go the “trust Him in little, trust Him in much” route, or straight to the greatest act of compassion being Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

        We can get to Jesus from any point in the redemptive-historical story. We don’t need to insert Him, every step of the way, where the biblical authors didn’t.

        And wouldn’t that truly be the way to “preach the Old Testament as Christian Scripture”? That is, by allowing it to speak for itself in all its parts, making the connections to Christ where the text does, and not making connections where the text doesn’t. Wouldn’t the alternative (i.e., reading Christ into the text) actually be attempting to force the Old Testament to be Christian Scripture, as if it wasn’t already Christian Scripture as it was revealed?

  16. Timothy Buck says:

    I have just finished reading the CT article you cited.

    I understand what you are saying about progressive revelation and the insight into the Old Testament texts that we gain from more recent revelation. However, what you seem to be describing here is what we have historically referred to as “Typology”. Hebrews 8:5 and 10:1 speaks of the tabernacle, the priesthood and the sacrifices as “shadows” of things to come. It is obvious that there are such shadows or types in Scripture, and there may be aspects of David’s life that foreshadow Christ. But I don’t think the NT tells us that David’s life foreshadows Christ, and Matt is obviously seeing something in this story that I am not seeing. So I think we are in complete agreement that these shadows of future truth do exist in the Old Testament and therefore it is appropriate to reveal them in our teaching at some point. The question is not whether they exist, but how prevalent they are and whether they were the primary purpose behind the text. In the video Matt seems to be saying that these shadows are not only the primary purpose behind the text, but also that the only valid way to preach the text is to preach it as if these shadows are the primary message of the text. But I see the following problems with that approach:

    1. If these shadows were the primary purpose behind the text, then you seem to be saying that that Jews for which it was written could not comprehend its primary message for 1000 years. That doesn’t seem to make sense. I can’t escape the fact that this was GOD’S WORD for the Jewish people for 1000 years before Christ. We can’t properly understand the text unless we understand what it was saying to them.

    2. We all agree that the Bible is more than a road map to life, but certainly it is not less than a road map to life. Yes, we agree that the ultimate purpose is to reveal the Glory of God through his Son and the gospel. But even as that is true, the Bible must also be communicating to us how to live this life we are given so as to give him that glory that is due his name. To make it a road map to our success in a worldly sense is obviously wrong, but to ignore the rich teaching about REAL success by making every text tell us about Jesus seems a bit out of balance. In his video Matt seems to give us an either/or scenario. Either the Bible is a road map to life (in a self-centered sense) or it is a revelation of Jesus and the gospel. Who says it has to be one or the other?

    3. If we approach every Old Testament narrative the way Matt approached the story of David and Goliath, we end up making every Old Testament text say essentially the same thing. We lose the richness of the text.

    4. I am concerned that Matt is making the same mistake of the self-centered approach he criticizes. The “road map to life” interpreter that he denounces goes to the text to find something he is looking for instead of just observing what is there. Matt’s approach does the same thing, only he is looking for something different.

    Early in the CT article by J. Todd Billings he makes it clear that the motivation behind this approach is that so much preaching and writing these days is self-focused. I share that concern. But it seems to me that the answer is not to impose meaning on the text using an allegorical method of interpretation. The answer is still to apply sound principles of basic Inductive Bible study methods, allowing the text to say what it says. What if Matt’s “road map to life” interpreter had just observed what is in the text? Would he have come up with this?

    In the first approach, the character of Goliath becomes a metaphor for the challenges faced in daily life. Hearers are encouraged to identify the “Goliaths” in their own life—low self-esteem, financial challenges, or a family problem. David becomes a model of the underdog who dares to step up to his own inner “giants” and “challenges.”

    I don’t think so. Why? Because it is obvious from the text that when David fought Goliath, he wasn’t fighting his own battle. Goliath wasn’t threatening David. David wasn’t a warrior in the army. David was a shepherd boy who had been pressed into temporary service as a messenger boy. He only happened upon this predicament with Goliath while running an errand, and it wasn’t his problem. His older brother curtly reminded him of that when he inquired about the details (17:28). This was the army’s problem, and David wasn’t in the army. Better yet, this was Saul’s problem, because Saul was king, and if anyone should be a match for Goliath it would be the man who was “taller than all the people” (10:23). In a sense, this was God’s problem, because the Philistines were the enemy of God’s people, and Saul had been commissioned by God to “save my people out of the hand of the Philistines” (9:16). This wasn’t David’s problem, and he didn’t have to fight this battle. In fact, not only did he not have to, but it is clear from the text that for him to volunteer to do so was crazy. “You are not able to go up against this Philistine to fight with him, for you are but a youth, and he has been a man of war from his youth.” (17:33). No one would have even thought to suggest that David would or should fight Goliath, so it can’t represent how we will get victory over the battles of our lives. If someone goes to this text and just observes what is there, it is impossible to see David needing to fight the “Goliaths” in his life. David is here volunteering to fight a battle that is not his battle. He doesn’t have to do this. He could pack up and head back to his Shepherd job and no one would have suggested he should do otherwise. He volunteered to do something others would not do. And his motivation was God’s glory. “who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?” (17:26). So if you just look at the text you are not going to see Goliath as a metaphor for the challenges faced in daily life. And you are also not going to see Jesus dying on the cross for your sins.

    So I keep circling back to the same thing. The correct hermeneutic is to just let the text speak for itself. Let it say what it says. The self-focused “how does this help me succeed?” folks are making precisely the same mistake that you folks in The Gospel Project are making. You’re both imposing something on the text and ignoring what is really there.

  17. Concerned Mom of 5 says:

    Someone here needs their own blog… just sayin’

  18. Chris Julien says:

    I don’t think these nuances can be adequately discussed over the internet, and I fear we all may be talking past each other in many issues.

    But I would like to see an exposition of this passage as regards authorial intent and “violating” the original meaning of the passage:

    “Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.” -1 Peter 1:10-12

    Any thoughts or resources concerning this passage of Scripture as it pertains to this discussion, in particular to what we do with authorial intent?

    God Bless.

Comments are closed.

Search this blog


Justin Taylor photo

Justin Taylor, PhD

Justin Taylor is executive vice president of book publishing and book publisher for Crossway and blogs at Between Two Worlds. You can follow him on Twitter.

Justin Taylor's Books