David’s sin and Israel’s salvation
by Peter J. LeithartMark Horne examines Paul’s argument in Romans 4 at the Trinity House site. . . . . Continue Reading »
Mark Horne examines Paul’s argument in Romans 4 at the Trinity House site. . . . . Continue Reading »
Jim Adams ( The Performative Nature and Functions of Isaiah 40-55 , 170) summarizes the theme of shame in Isaiah 40-55: “The verb occurs eleven times and primarily in the first section. In brief, those who will be shamed are Jacob-Israel’s opponents . . . , the worshipers and . . . . Continue Reading »
As many have observed, Paul alludes to Psalm 106 in his condemnation of the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men in Romans 1. Paul writes that human beings “exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and of four-footed animals and . . . . Continue Reading »
Mark Horne continues his studies in Romans at the Trinity House site. . . . . Continue Reading »
On the Trinity House site, Mark Horne discusses Romans 1 and asks how Paul says wrath is revealed . . . . . Continue Reading »
Mark Horne’s sermon on Romans 3:1-8 is up at the Trinity House site this morning. . . . . Continue Reading »
Joe Rigney writes to point out that NT Wright’s interpretation of Romans 4:5 (namely, that “justification of the ungodly” is equivalent to “bringing nations into Abraham’s family”) runs up against a problem in Romans 5:6, where Paul tells us that “at the . . . . Continue Reading »
I’m still absorbing parts of NT Wright’s recent JSNT essay, “Paul and the Patriarch: The Role of Abraham in Romans 4.” A couple of his points are very compelling. First, he disputes what he calls a “customary” way of understanding Paul’s reference to . . . . Continue Reading »
Take a look at the addendum to Mark Horne’s introduction to Romans at the Trinity House site. . . . . Continue Reading »
The Greek word hilaterion has been one of the most disputed Pauline terms in the past century. Traditionally translate as “propitiation” or “propitiatory sacrifice,” many recent scholars have disputed the notion that Jesus died to appease an angry Father. In a 2000 article . . . . Continue Reading »
Subscribe
Latest Issue
Support First Things