My short non-exhaustive reply to a 2:15 video from a Rabbi
@path_towards_jannah
HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
academia.edu posting on 20250301
Video Point 1
---
Very few people are actually regenerate (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1, as New Testament, regeneration, examples), biblical, New Testament, Christians. Western nations are primarily secular, not Christian. Western nations, overwhelmingly, do not follow biblical, New Testament, Christianity.
Video Point 3
Bibliography
'the very idea that god would take on human form as repulsive to the Jews'
Genesis 3: 8
Did God take human form to walk in Genesis 3: 8?
New American Standard Bible: NASB
Genesis 3: 8
They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
Air Time By Skip Moen, PhD, October 20, 2022
Cited
'And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking about in the garden . . . Genesis 3:8a Robert Alter
Walking – Sometimes our English translations cripple Hebrew intention. Verses become pedestrian instead of surprising. We read them as if they had nothing more to say than our simple-minded interpretation. We reduce the biblical chess board to a game of tik-tac-toe. It’s time to complicate things.
We’ve looked at the underlying Hebrew density in this verse before (HERE and HERE), but we haven’t plumbed the depths yet. Let’s add another layer.
“The ideal of halakhic man is that the Divine Presence should rest here in this world. . . [Exodus 25:22] This verse represents the ultimate telos of the Halakhah. ‘R. Aba bar Kahana said: It is not written in the text, “And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking [mehalekh: pi’el form] in the garden” but “And they heard the voice of the Lord God skipping [mithalekh: hitpa’el form] in the garden” (Gen. 3:8). This [use of the reflexive] implies that He sprang ever upward [i.e., they heard God departing from the garden]. The principle abode of the Divine Presence was in the lower realms.’”[1]
Some clarification, perhaps? First, something about the verbal form, hitpa’el. Then a comment about reflexive action:
Generally speaking, the Hithpael stem expresses the reflexive voice of the meaning of a verb in the Piel stem. However, the Hithpael stem is quite flexible in its use and can express other kinds of verbal action, depending on the context and the specific verb.
Reflexive voice means that the subject of the verb is both performing and receiving the verbal action. In English, reflexive voice is expressed using a reflexive pronoun as the object of the verb, “I tell myself”.[2]
Kushner informs us that the voice was moving back and forth in all directions. Rabbi Kahana informs us that the voice was habituated to this world. We conclude: God is everywhere customarily here. Put aside the “God on the white throne in heaven” imagery. Shelve it. The place where God wants to be is here, with us, in His creation, part of the process. The Bible is just about as opposite of the dualism of Plato as it could possibly be, and as a result, any theology that fixes its perspective on a transcendent God is, as Soloveitchik might say, close to heresy. Heaven can wait. In fact, it shouldn’t even be part of the equation. What matters is what happens here, and here is the real place of the divine-human habitation. God skips around all over the earth, enjoying what we’re doing with Him.
Topical Index: mithalekh, walking, skipping, Avivah Kushner, Rabbi Kahana, Genesis 3:8
[1] Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man (JPS, 1983), pp. 53-54.
[2] https://uhg.readthedocs.io/en/latest/stem_hithpael.html'
End citations
---
From this Hebrew commentary, I take it that God might have been metaphorically walking through the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3: 8. From this cited scholarship, it is not crystal clear that God walking in the Garden of Eden was strictly metaphorical, but it seems that this cited writer views Genesis as describing the 'God skips around all over the earth'.
End citations
---
From this Hebrew commentary, I take it that God might have been metaphorically walking through the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3: 8. From this cited scholarship, it is not crystal clear that God walking in the Garden of Eden was strictly metaphorical, but it seems that this cited writer views Genesis as describing the 'God skips around all over the earth'.
Cited
'3. Walking - she-ha-ya’
'The above evolution of the text of Rashi from a singular concept of p’shat to a two-level concept of p’shat explains a third variant in the manuscripts. This relates to Rashi’s insertion of the word: ‘she-ha-yah’ (that was), to assist with the understanding of the precise meaning of verse. The verse states: ‘They heard the sound of G-d walking (mit-ha-lech) about in the garden at the breezy time of day.’ Rashi, in the printed edition, adds: ‘she-ha-ya’ (that was) between ‘the sound of G-d’ and ‘walking’ (mit-ha-lech). The difficulty in the meaning fo the text is: does ‘walking’ (mit-ha-lech) relate to ‘G-d’ – the word juxtaposed to the word: ‘walking’ (mit-ha-lech), or the ‘sound’ (kol) – the earlier word? The most literal meaning is the former, relating to ‘G-d,’ since, firstly, ‘sound’ does not ‘walk’ in a garden, in the literal sense; it may be heard in the garden. On the other hand, G-d is omnipresent. For this reason, the midrash interprets in its first explanation that ‘walking’ refers to the ‘sound’ (kol). This, however, by definition is an opinion that appears in the midrash. As Rashi is making a distinction between midrash and p’shat, it would seem to be rejecting this interpretation, as well as other more far-fetched midrashic interpretations, in favour of the p’shat: it refers literally to G-d, who was walking in the garden. To clarify this point in the printed edition, Rashi inserts the word: ‘she-haya’ (that was) between the words: ‘the sound of G-d’ (kol Ha-shem Elo-kim) and ‘walking’ (mit-ha-lech), identifying G-d as the subject that was (she-haya) ‘walking’ in the garden (as opposed to the sound).'
Based on these comments, it might have been God metaphorically walking in the Garden and making a 'sound', or it might be God, literally having walked in the Garden of Eden, 'as opposed to the sound'.
Cited
'This understanding of Rashi is the view of R. Judah Loew (d. 1609). The reason he gives for this interpretation is that the verb: ‘mit-halech,’ in the reflexive form, denotes one who is doing something of one’s own volition. If it would refer to the ‘kol’ (sound), it would have stated: ‘yelech,’ as in Exodus (19:19): ‘The blare of the horn went (‘yelech’) louder and louder.’ To clarify this, Rashi adds: ‘she-haya’ (who was), identifying G-d as the subject that was ‘walking’ in the garden.'
Cited
'A second interpretation of Rashi is by R. David HaLevi Segal (1586–1667), in his commentary Divre Dovid, who argues the complete opposite: Rashi intends, with the additional word: ‘she-hayah’ (that was) that it was the ‘sound’ that was ‘walking’ in the garden, as the midrash argues in the first interpretation: ‘We have heard that walking about [hilukh] is [an expression] used regarding sound.’'
Cited
'While the word ‘she-hayah’ (that was) can, in theory, apply to either: the words immediately juxtaposed (Ha-shem Elo-kim – G-d), or the earlier word: ‘kol’ (sound), the latter is less p’shat and more midrashic, as indicated from the fact that this view is in fact cited in the midrash. The former is more the plain meaning of the text, as the words are juxtaposed.'
Cited
'The two interpretations of how to understand Rashi’s intention in his comment explaining what it was that was ‘walking in the garden’ – ‘G-d’ or the ‘voice’ - are reflected in the variants in the manuscripts pertaining to the exact place the word: ‘she-haya’ (that was) is inserted in Rashi’s comment: In MS. Opp. 14 (1340), ‘she-haya’ (that was) is found, as in the printed version, between ‘G-d’ and ‘walking,’ suggesting the possibility it was the ‘sound’ that was ‘walking’ (travelling) in the garden, as per the view of R. David HaLevi Segal. They heard the sound of G-d walking (mit-ha-lech) about in the garden at the breezy time of day'
Cited
'In other manuscripts, however, it makes it abundantly clear that the intension of Rashi is to interpret the verse that it was G-d who was walking in the garden. In CCCMS165, it states: ‘they heard the sound of the Holy one, blessed be He, that (she-hayah) the Holy one, blessed be He was walking in the garden.’ The double expression: ‘the Holy one, blessed be He’ before and after ‘she-hayah’ (who was) makes abundantly clear that the intension of Rashi is that it was G-d who was walking in the garden. Rashi MS Munich 5, Leiden 1, BL 26917 also follows this wording. Similarly, in MS. Oppenheim 34 (1201-1225), it states: ‘they heard the sound’ and then writes: ‘she-hayah’ (that) the Holy one, blessed be He was walking in the garden. Even though it states ‘the Holy one, blessed be He’ just once, unlike CCCMS165, the placing of the word: ‘she-hayah’ (that) before the words: ‘the Holy one, blessed be He,’ makes clear that the intension of Rashi is that it was G-d who was walking in the garden.'
Cited
'Reflecting the ambiguity in the intention of Rashi, MS. Canon. Or. 81 and MS Canon. Or. 35 (1401-1425), omits the word: ‘she-hayah’ (that was) all-together; MS. Michael 384 (1399) goes further and omits, not only the word: ‘she-hayah’ (that was), but the whole (second) comment on the verse: ‘and they heard the sound of G-d walking in the garden at the breezy time of day. Similarly, MS. Opp. 35 (1408) omits ‘in the garden’ (be-gan), writing only: ‘they heard the voice, the Holy one, blessed be He, was (ha-yah) walking (mit-ha-lech) at the breezy time of day.’ This suggests ‘walking’ refers to the sound that was heard at a specific time of day – ‘the breezy time of day’ (l’ru-ach ha-yom), but not saying anything about ‘G-d’ or the ’sound’ in reference to going in the garden. In this regard, the manuscript may be suggesting, as per the interpretation of R. Jonah ibn Janah and R. Jonah ibn Ganach, mentioned above, that it is referring to the ‘man’ who is ‘in the garden’ whom ‘hears the sound of G-d at the breezy time of day,’ avoiding the above dispute.'
Cited
'It would seem that the two ways to understand Rashi’s interpretation of ‘the voice of G-d going in the garden’ – midrashic, referring to the ‘voice,’ or literal, referring to ‘G-d,’ as proposed by R. Judah Loew and R. David Segal are reflected in our opening question: is Rashi on Genesis 3:8 exclusively p’shat, as it appears from the many of the manuscripts, as explaind earlier, or embraces midrash, albeit only when they explain the words of Scripture.'
This website referenced
[1] Oxford MS. Opp. 218.
[2] See: https://www.thetorah.com/article/rashi-on-the-torah-what-kind-of-commentary-is-it.
[3] See Mishnah Kiddushin 3:4: ‘Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: it was necessary to state the matter, as otherwise, it might have meant (b’mash’ma) that they will not inherit even in the land of Canaan.’ Also, Bechorot 9:1: ‘the verse states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32), indicating that with regard to animal tithe, all animals that are included in the term flock are (mash-ma) one species.’ According to this, there may be differences in the use of this word amongst the manuscripts: When employed without the prefix ‘kaf,’ it means: ‘its meaning,’ not necessarily ‘plain meaning.’ This is found in Rashi on Leviticus 11:10: ‘The prolific creatures (she-retz): Everywhere this word denotes (mash-ma’o) a low (small) being that creeps and moves along upon the ground.’ With the prefix ‘kaf’ (‘k’mash’ma’o’), as found in MS. Canon. 81, combined with the mention of the intention to follow p’shat, as in MS. Canon. Or. 35, it seems clear that the intention of the use of the word is plain meaning.'
---
End citations
Reading through this second set of Hebrew interpretations, again, God may have metaphorically walked through the Garden of Eden, as a sound. However, it might actually be a more literal interpretation of God actually having walked through the Garden of Eden.
So, based on the Rabbis first main point: Did God take human form to walk in Genesis 3: 8?
From a Hebrew, Judaism, perspective?
Possibly.
---
Cited
Englishman's Concordance
Genesis 3:8
HEB: יְהוָ֧ה אֱלֹהִ֛ים מִתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ בַּגָּ֖ן לְר֣וּחַ
NAS: God walking in the garden
KJV: God walking in the garden
INT: of the LORD God walking the garden the cool
Strong's Lexicon
halak: To go, walk, come, proceed, move
Original Word: הָלַךְ
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: halak
Pronunciation: hah-lahk
Phonetic Spelling: (haw-lak')
Definition: To go, walk, come, proceed, move
Meaning: to walk
---
From my Reformed theological perspective, God is infinite, eternal and spirit. Prior to any creation of time, space, or matter, prior to Genesis 1; or any angelic creation, prior to Genesis 1, God was spirit (John 4: 24) and God can only be spirit, in a pure ontological sense. God was and is infinite, eternal spirit. God is not logically prohibited from possibly taking human form in Genesis 3. If this is a literal example of God walking in the Garden of Eden, it is a theophany, which is the appearance of God in human form. God's infinite, eternal, ontological nature would also not prohibit God, as God the Son, a distinction within the Godhead, within the incarnation, as taking a finite, everlasting human body. A body that was crucified and resurrected. The two natures of Jesus Christ, do not mix. In basic agreement with the Rabbi, I think, ontologically, I reason that it is impossible for God, as infinite, to have finite attributes, and it is impossible for a human being, as finite, to have infinite attributes.
If Christianity claimed that the two natures, one divine, one human, mixed it would be philosophical, theological, error, but that is not the claim.
Why then did Jesus Christ as Godman, allow worship?
His deity was incarnate, not mixed or missing.
Colossians 2:9-10 (Him is Jesus Christ)
'New American Standard Bible (NASB)
9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made [a]complete, and He is the head [b]over all rule and authority;
Footnotes: Colossians 2:10 Lit full Colossians 2:10 Lit of '
N.T. Wright explains in regard to Colossians 2: 9-10, it is an continuation of 1:19 (109), 'for all the fulness to dwell in him.' (NASB). 'He is uniquely God's presence and his very self'. (109). Wright reasons that Paul is teaching monotheistic doctrine here and not that Jesus Christ is a second deity. (109). Christ is the embodiment of full deity. (109).
God the Son, is not a second deity, God the Holy Spirit is not a third deity.
Based on this section of scripture, a proper interpretation is that although the Father can be reasonably defined as the planner, all of God in nature is involved in the planning process in a sense; in infinite knowledge and agreement. The infinite nature of God in the three distinctions is fully aware of plans. The Godhead is involved in the atoning and resurrection work of Christ, even though it was Jesus Christ that died on the cross and was resurrected.
Jesus Christ, the Word (John 1) remains infinite, eternal God in spirit, and became God incarnate, finite man.
Acts 2: 24 states that God raised Him (Jesus Christ) from the dead and in the process defeated death.
From Hebrews 1: Greek scholar Walter Bauer defines 'Hupostasis' the original ὑπόστασις, (εως, ἡit) from the Greek as substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. In the context of Hebrews 1: 3 the Son of God is the exact representation of God’s real being. (page 847).
Erickson further explains that each member of the Trinity is quantitatively equal. Erickson (1994: 337).
Matthew 28: 19-20 and Acts 5 are two examples from the New Testament demonstrating the Holy Spirit as God.
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Matthew 28:19-20
19 [a]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [b]always, even to the end of the age.”
a Matthew 28:19 Or Having gone; Gr aorist part.
b Matthew 28:20 Lit all the days
Acts 5: 2-6
It is stated that one can lie to the Holy Spirit (verse 3) and therefore lie to God. 'You have not lied to men, but to God.' (verse 4).
All three distinctions within the trinity are infinite, of one ontological (existence and being) essence and nature, and yet with distinctions.
As God is eternally relational, humanity in specifically relational in the context of being made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1-26-27). God could create finite creatures capable of relationship and communication, because that is also an aspect of God's nature.
Video Point 2
'do you know of any Christian nations that live by this impractical epic'
I do not know of one, what I would consider a biblical, New Testament, Christian, nation.
I do not know of one, what I would consider a biblical, New Testament, Christian, nation.
Very few people are actually regenerate (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1, as New Testament, regeneration, examples), biblical, New Testament, Christians. Western nations are primarily secular, not Christian. Western nations, overwhelmingly, do not follow biblical, New Testament, Christianity.
Video Point 3
'he (God, my add) cannot die he cannot suffer'
True.
This does not logically or reasonably prohibit God from incarnating himself. Again, the infinite and finite natures of God the Son, Jesus Christ, do not mix. Christian orthodox, doctrine and theology, does not teach that God can die, rather that God is immutable.
From my PhD footnotes
2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter (Link below)
'The concept that God cannot change is one of immutability. God cannot change in ‘attributes, consciousness, and will.’ Thiessen (1956: 127). The idea being that God does not change or develop, but some scholars reason this understanding is to be more attributed to influences from Greek philosophy than the Bible. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 64). Some reason, as do I, that God is eternally immutable, but can change in how he deals within temporal situations with finite beings. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 64).'
---
End citation
The trinity is not a pagan notion. Tritheism is not New Testament doctrine. All three distinctions within the trinity are infinite, of one ontological (existence and being) essence and nature, and yet with distinctions. Finite, sinful and imperfect humanity needs God's enlightenment from revelation to reasonably know God and to have significant intellectual understanding. God is scripturally, in the New Testament, specifically, revealed in three distinctions and three persons, properly biblically defined. This is not completely understandable for the finite mind, but it is reasonable to the finite mind.
The incarnation of Jesus Christ has the infinite, eternal Word of God (John 1) take upon a finite human nature without the infinite divine nature and finite human nature, mixing. Therefore, Jesus Christ remains infinite, eternal God, but with two natures as both deity and incarnated man. God as trinity is relational in nature and therefore humanity is made in God's image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27).
Humanity is therefore specifically relational and rational in the context of being made in the image and likeness of God. The infinite God could create finite creatures capable of relationship and communication in rationality, because being relational and rational is also an aspect of God's nature.
Video Point 4
'can bring forgiveness to a person's sin'
The Rabbi states that each man must repent of his sins alone. But, the Hebrew, Mosaic law and sacrificial system was continual and was ended by the destruction of the temple, not by a final atoning act of God, sanctioned within Judaism. The sins of humanity were never fully paid for within the law. With no temple post AD 70, without the sacrificial system, repentance, or any kind of works righteousness, does not cause salvation. New Testament repentance is within salvation, not for salvation. Abraham in Romans 4 was not justified by works (1-6), but was righteous, justified by faith through grace (16) in God.
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Hebrews 10 1-4
For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the [a]form of those things itself, [b]can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually every year, make those who approach perfect. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3 But in [c]those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
a Hebrews 10:1 Lit image
b Hebrews 10:1 One early ms they can
c Hebrews 10:3 Lit them there is
Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things [a]having come, He entered through the greater and more perfect [b]tabernacle, not made by hands, that is, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all time, [c]having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the [d]ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the [e]cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through [f]the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the violations that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
a Hebrews 9:11 One early ms to come
b Hebrews 9:11 Or sacred tent
c Hebrews 9:12 Or obtaining
d Hebrews 9:13 I.e., ashes mixed in water
e Hebrews 9:13 Lit purity
f Hebrews 9:14 Or His eternal spirit
In regards to the law...
Galatians 3:23-28
Galatians 3:23-28
23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a [a]tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is [b]neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
a Galatians 3:25 Lit child-conductor
b Galatians 3:28 Lit not male and female
As Jesus Christ was the eternal, infinite God the Word (John 1) and God the Son, he could outlast any finite sin, as a finite, perfect, human atoning, sacrifice on the cross. His documented resurrection in the New Testament, as religious history, testifies to the success of his atoning work.
As well, my philosophy of religion studies, as my MPhil/PhD work was both philosophical theology and philosophy of religion, informs me that God is necessary and perfect and human finite creation is contingent and imperfect (whether one calls it sin or not). Why should any unnecessary, finite, sinful person have everlasting life? What will perfect his/her corrupted human nature without applied atonement and resurrection? Theistic philosophy of religion just adds to my biblical and theological findings. I highly doubt, that without a specific way of salvation, revealed from God, and brought about by God alone, that any form of human works righteousness, or religious ritual will save anyone for post-mortem life with God, within a Kingdom of God. It is the applied atoning, resurrection work of God himself, through divine regeneration, that saves anyone. Not by human works, Ephesians 2, but for good human works within salvation.
As Jesus Christ was the eternal, infinite God the Word (John 1) and God the Son, he could outlast any finite sin, as a finite, perfect, human atoning, sacrifice on the cross. His documented resurrection in the New Testament, as religious history, testifies to the success of his atoning work.
As well, my philosophy of religion studies, as my MPhil/PhD work was both philosophical theology and philosophy of religion, informs me that God is necessary and perfect and human finite creation is contingent and imperfect (whether one calls it sin or not). Why should any unnecessary, finite, sinful person have everlasting life? What will perfect his/her corrupted human nature without applied atonement and resurrection? Theistic philosophy of religion just adds to my biblical and theological findings. I highly doubt, that without a specific way of salvation, revealed from God, and brought about by God alone, that any form of human works righteousness, or religious ritual will save anyone for post-mortem life with God, within a Kingdom of God. It is the applied atoning, resurrection work of God himself, through divine regeneration, that saves anyone. Not by human works, Ephesians 2, but for good human works within salvation.
Vancouver, February 22, 2025
BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
BOWMAN, ROBERT M. (1990) Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
BROMILEY, G.W. (1996) ‘Trinity’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.
CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville. FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.
ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
HARPUR, GEORGE (1986) Ephesians in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
Saturday, September 19, 2020 PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD
HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
KAVANAGH, AIDAN (1999) ‘Initiation, Christian’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1847-1848)(1955)(1966) On Authority and Revelation, Translated by Walter Lowrie, New York, Harper and Row, Publishers, Incorporated.
KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1848-1849)(1961) Christian Discourses & The Lilies of the Field and The Birds of the Air & Three Discourses at The Communion on Fridays, Translated by Walter Lowrie, New York, Oxford University Press.
KLEIN, WILLIAM W., CRAIG, C. BLOMBERG, AND ROBERT L. HUBBARD, JR. (1993) Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, London, Word Publishing.
LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MURRAY, JOHN (1937-1966)(1977) Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.
PACKER, J.I. (1996) ‘Regeneration’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
SCHLEIERMACHER, FRIEDRICH (1799)(1961) On Religion, in Elie Kedourie, Nationalism, New York, Praeger University Series.
SCHLEIERMACHER, FRIEDRICH (1821)(1928)(1976) The Christian Faith, Edited by H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart, Philadelphia, Fortress Press.
SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.
WRIGHT, N.T., Colossians and Philemon, (1986)(1989), IVP, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Referenced articles from this website
