These lectures are a great blessing! Keep them coming! I'm a musician but an aspiring theologian and love the soundness of biblical exposition as presented by Dr. Shreiner. God bless the masters seminary! Shalom from the UK!

I find this all fascinating, as I used to be into systematic theology until I got into academics and studied under a couple phenomenal professors with a focus on the Second Temple Jewish period and very early Christianity/New Testament. That led me more into Biblical theology, or Biblical narrative as a whole... but without forgetting the context in which the books were originally written. There's a lot I like here, a lot I agree with. But so far into the first few lecture videos, it seems like there is an attempt to build an entire Biblical theology off of a tenuous reading of Genesis 3:15. A lot of points being made fall apart if you simply read it as the ancient author wrote it and how it was meant to be understood... serpents are crafty and clever, so it was a serpent that deceived Eve, and now serpents don't stand upright but crawl around on their bellies instead. So they'll still try and get you (striking your heel) but you'll be able to crush their heads... the point is, both are doomed to a life of enmity against each other. This is the first breakdown of God's good creation, where Adam was told to rule over the animals, name them, control them, subdue them. But instead, Adam listened to his wife, who listened to an animal. It's very clear in the text that that is the reference being made. It seems that ripping this quote out of context and using it as the basis of an entire theology is kind of the same thing charismatics and others do with something like 1 Thessalonians 4, which they absolutely butcher the context of as well. Use the 99.9% of unequivocally clear texts to inform your opinion on the 0.1% that perhaps aren't clear. Not the other way around.

These lectures and digital transcripts are great!

Mind blown, thank you.

Genesis 12-36

Thank you for backing up all your thoughts with Bible verses. You are rightly dividing Gods holy word. thank you .

Grace and peace! ✌😎✌

It seems to me that the dynamics of Genesis 15:5-6 should be interpreted as the identical dynamics in Hebrews 11:11, in reference to Sarah. God made a promise to Sarah, she believed God and imputed righteousness unto God. Similarly, God makes a promise to Abraham in Genesis 15, and Abraham believes God and imputes righteousness unto God. "And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness." By making it transactional, Paul turned the whole thing on it's head (Romans 4). It puzzles me why we accept that. Nowhere else in the Bible (outside of Paul) is there the idea that righteousness is simply given to someone based on faith.

🔥🔥🔥

Dr. Schreiner, You attribute Jer. 34:18-20 to be speaking of the Abrahamic covenant, yet the passage in Jeremiah sounds like a reference to the Mosaic covenant. The people have broken the covenant and God delivers them over to their enemies. What has that got to do with the covenant that God made with Abraham? Please explain why you make that connection with the one covenant and not with the other.

The Abrahamic Covenant is only unconditional. You pointed out that God was the only one to walk between the calf that was cut in half. The only time that both parties of a covenant would pass between the pieces of animals was when the fulfillment of the covenant was dependent upon both parties keeping commitments. This is very clear in the text that the covenant God made with Abraham was unconditional. It can't be both.