Comments on: How Not to Look at the Snake, Part 0

By: Pink Times Seven « The Confessional Outhouse

Pink Times Seven « The Confessional Outhouse — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:21:24 +0000

[...] that tells us maybe sometimes we should take Pink with a grain of salt. I mentioned way back in Part 0 that Pink went a little crazy with the number 7 in his Exposition of the Gospel of John. In the [...]

By: How Not to Look at the Snake, Part 7 « The Confessional Outhouse

How Not to Look at the Snake, Part 7 « The Confessional Outhouse — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:12:28 +0000

[...] Not to Look at the Snake, Part 7 Part 0, Part [...]

By: How Not to Look at the Snake, Part 6 « The Confessional Outhouse

How Not to Look at the Snake, Part 6 « The Confessional Outhouse — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 11:04:06 +0000

[...] Not to Look at the Snake, Part 6 Part 0, Part [...]

By: How Not to Look at the Snake, Part 5 « The Confessional Outhouse

How Not to Look at the Snake, Part 5 « The Confessional Outhouse — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 11:20:34 +0000

[...] Not to Look at the Snake, Part 5 Part 0, Part [...]

By: How Not to Look at the Snake, Part 2 « The Confessional Outhouse

How Not to Look at the Snake, Part 2 « The Confessional Outhouse — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:16:05 +0000

[...] Not to Look at the Snake, Part 2 Part 0, Part [...]

By: Chunck

Chunck — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:48:53 +0000

Murray cared lots for Pink, which was why he wrote the bio. The only criticism I remember was for the John commentary because of its non-Reformed exegesis. But Murray rubbed me the wrong way every time he bent over backwards to cut Pink slack at points where Pink deserved criticism. Whenever I read Pink’s later stuff, he reminds me why every church he ever ministered in tossed him out.

By: RubeRad

RubeRad — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:45:31 +0000

If he didn’t like him so much, why did Murray write a biography? Anyways, I have only read about 10 pages of Pink, and those ten pages I loved to death. I assume I would appreciate most of the rest of it as well (although wasn’t Pink also a baptist?)

By: Chunck

Chunck — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:00:27 +0000

Ian Murray wrote a brief biography of Arthur Pink and criticized his commentary on John because the exegesis leaned too much on his Plymouth Brethren background. Personally, I thought the PB’s heavy typology was the most redeeming part of the book. Anyhow, Murray did his level best to cast Pink in a good light, which was tantamount to shoving a square peg into a round hole because Pink was about as friendly as sandpaper on an open flesh wound. In fact, despite his efforts otherwise, Murray convinced me that the best thing ever said about Pink was “Out of print.”

By: RubeRad

RubeRad — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:53:23 +0000

Yes, he explains that by "irresponsible", he means sovereign, i.e. not responsible to another authority. But that is an example I think of how his penchant for seven-ness (and sometimes for alliteration or other mnemonics) shows itself to be forced. As for how I found it, I just went into the church library, there were 3 or 4 commentaries on John, and Pink was the name I recognized. A friend at church tells me he also has a great commentary on Hebrews (also online), and a quick scan shows that he did not seem to be so bound to 7-ness or listmaking in that one.

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:05:41 +0000

Irresponsible? Perhaps he should have died trying on that one.

Pink is good. Never considered him for help on John. For such a glorious Gospel there really aren’t too many commentaries on it that stand out.

By: RubeRad

RubeRad — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:02:55 +0000

That may be, but I think Pink went above and beyond. For instance, after dividing John into seventy passages, he divides each and every passage into seven parts. And not just structurally, here are his seven ways the Spirit is like the wind: irresponsible, irresistable, irregular, invisible, inscrutable, indispensible, invigorating. Seems like Pink’s the kind of guy that will have 7 points in every sermon, or die trying. Funny thing is, he has study questions at the end of each chapter, and those don’t always have 7, but sometimes 6 or 5. Seems like that would be the easiest to arbitrarily beef up to 7, because you can always ask another question or two.

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:40:54 +0000

John selected 7 miracle signs to hightlight and explain in his Gospel. His use of 7 is more clear to the (English) reader in the book of Revelation: Churches, Seals, Bowls, Thunders, etc. The book itself is divided into 7 sections, Multiples of 7, and half of 7 (3 and 1/2).

By: RubeRad

RubeRad — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:06:33 +0000

“In connection with the spiritual arithmetic of the Bible we have been deeply impressed with the constantly recurring seven in the Gospel of John.”

Is this something people know about? I’d never heard.

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:54:44 +0000

Looking forward to the follow-up posts. Pink follows John’s device of groupings things in 7 I take it.