• In the book of Revelation, this commentator makes an ugly - and erroneous - comment on a passage which reflects a terrible aspect of church history. That aspect is the persecution of the Jews as Christ-killers. In reference to the letter to Philadelphia v. 9 states: "Look, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan and who call themselves Jews and are not but are lying ..." Kistemaker writes: "The two congregations of Smyrna and Philadelphia are the only two of the seven that make specific reference to the Jewish people, their synagogue, and their master Satan." John clearly does NOT say that all Jews are servants of Satan. Rather, he writes the opposite: "the synagogue of Satan and who call themselves Jews and are not but are lying ..." The apostle is saying that FALSE Jews are servants Satan. They call themselves Jews but are not! Will Christians never learn? As a believing Jew, I've had quite a bit of trouble with these sick anti-Semites. This is why I'm so sensitive to this sort of talk. What's worst about this statement is that it comes from a Christian scholar. I do not blame Faithlife for selling this set. They simply cannot read everything prior to publishing it. But if you want to go beyond being a mere Christian intellectual to being a practitioner, you may want to know what kind of author you'll be reading before making the purchase.
    Hendriksen & Kistemaker New Testament Commentary | HK (18 vols.)
    Add to cart

    2. Bushberry, Thank you for your well thought-out response but I'm not persuaded. After reviewing my assertion in light of the distinction you make, I can understand why you believe that "the Jewish people" phrase should be considered a group of Jews and not all of them. Let me share why I still have problems with the passage. 1. On the surface of things, Kistemaker appears to intend the entire race of Jewish people. I doubt a scholar of his caliber would not be familiar with your distinctions. Look at what the man wrote: "... specific reference to the Jewish people, their synagogue, and their master Satan." The closest I can get to agreeing with you is that some Jews did not go to synagogue at all. But those were racial Jews who were NOT religious Jews. The Jewish leaders of that time did not call their racial brethren "Jews" but "workers of the land." 2. Your 3rd point, "3. People who are culturally Jewish and reject Jesus as their messiah. This group are defined as those who call themselves Jews but are not - because they reject their God - Yashua" concerns me. First off, why must Jews who reject Jesus as their messiah be classified as Satan's servants and, by implication, his worshipers (since they are members of Satan's synagogue)? I understand that Satan is the master of all human societies, according to 1 John 5:19, but that doesn't make all humans Satan's servants. "Servants" involves knowing and voluntary obedience in a modern context. Whether Kistemaker meant Jews through all time or just when Revelation was written is impossible to determine. But that he doesn't bother to clarify himself suggests the former, to me at least. 3. On a similar note, why can't Jewish people who won't accept Christ as messiah just be humans without being considered Satan's servants? Why did you jump to that conclusion? 4. Lastly, Paul's teachings on the salvation of the Jews by grace - election - in Romans 11 answers my question above to you. In 15:1 Paul writes, "I ask, then, has God rejected His people? Absolutely not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew." Again, Kistemaker did not distinguish between saved and unsaved Jews. He just wrote, "reference to the Jewish people, their synagogue, and their master Satan." Though Paul does not technically/literally call himself a "Jew," but an Israelite (this distinction would be between people of the nation of Israel vs. those of Judah), that distinction was lost a very long time ago, with "Jew" coming to represent both. Whether Kistemaker knew that or not doesn't matter to me. As a publishing scholar, he is obligated to know better. I'm going to stop here though I could go on. Thanks for sharing. Steve

    3. I had Dr. Kistemaker for NT at RTS seminary decades ago and he was one of the most authentic and humble professors I studied under. I can only conclude you have misunderstood his intent as he was not a antisemitic petson but a very kind scholar who genuinely loved the Lord and all his people and is now with Him. If you would have ever met and spoken with him you would not jump to such hasty, unscholarly, and unkind conclusions. If you want to debate, how about taking on someone who is still here to respond?

    4. We live in an overly sensitive world. We are all of the same seedline (the descendants of Noah's family, and before him Adam and Eve). You already know this. SOME wicked jews were intent on persecuting the messiah, that's a historical fact. Many Jews cannot cope with this truth, even though the ones alive today had no part in it. God hasn't forgotten his people. I believe there will be a time very soon when they come to him, and accept Jesus. I just think it's best not to waste your time on those who hate, even if my comment doesn't exactly fit into the author's context (I haven't read this work...yet). God bless

  • This book is death by a 1000 qualifications. Read this quote from page 16: "So it is quite wrongheaded to view biblical theology, as do many (primarily those with a historical-critical orientation), as a purely historical-descriptive task, and systematic theology as a contemporary-normative statement of Christian truth, with each discipline going its separate way, more or less independently. The result is a dichotomization or even polarization between them that continues to be widespread at present. No less polarizing in its effect and bound to lead to hopelessly confused results is the similar approach that sees biblical theology as concerned more or less exclusively with the “humanity,” or human side, of the Bible, with its historically rooted origin and contents, while leaving requisite concern with the divine side to systematic theology." Yes, that is two sentences! Richard B. Gaffin Jr., By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation, Second Edition., (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 17–18.
    By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation (2nd Edition)
    Add to cart

    1. This doesn't sound like a review, but a complaint (concerning 3 sentences). Could you not understand it or was it theologically unsound? That would help others who may be interested in this subject. Also, research MLJ Jr. and his denials of certain tenets of the faith. Just some brotherly advice. Soli Deo Gloria

    2. Steele, why can't a complaint be a review? I was so disappointed by the writing that I quit the book. I provided an example of why I didn't like the book. It is a warning to others who don't like unnecessarily long, convoluted sentences. As far as whether it was theologically unsound or whether I just couldn't understand it, I'd say I couldn't understand it. I purchased this book to learn more about the order of salvation but didn't learn much of anything because I found the writing to be that bad.

    3. As a student of Dr. Gaffin from 1977 on, this is how he lectures but also writes. His is always a very nuanced, highly qualified, and careful exposition which interacts with a wide variety of points of view.