The fact that Ignatius refers to bishops, a council of elders, and deacons does not necessarily mean that the bishop presides over several churches in a region [see Smyr. 8.1 and many other places in Ignatius]. It may just mean that he is the lead elder. He is an elder, and the elders are bishops, but he is called bishop because he is singled out from the rest. This would parallel a contemporary situation in which some churches speak of their pastor and their elders, even though the elders are pastors and the pastor is an elder.
November Reading Report
Books
Black, David Alan. Why Four Gospels? The Historical Origins of the Gospels. 2nd ed. Gonzalez, FL: Energion, 2010.
Black proposes an expansion of the Griesbach or Two-Gospel hypothesis. In framing his position, Black takes patristic testimony about the Gospels seriously. He uses the patristic evidence to develop a plausible back-story that explains how the external and internal evidence favors a Matthew, Luke, Mark order to Gospel composition.
According to Black, the following can be concluded from the Fathers:
1. Matthew wrote his Gospel first in a Hebrew style.
2. John wrote his Gospel last.
3. Differences exist about the placement of Luke and Mark. Both are given the second and third places by different authors.
4. Peter stands behind the creation of Mark. He orally delivered in Rome testimonies of what he saw Jesus do and say and Mark faithfully recorded Peter’s words.
From this evidence Black proposes the following backstory. Matthew wrote his Gospel first for the Jews. Luke then wrote his Gospel as part of Paul’s Gentile mission. Because Luke was not an eyewitness, his Gospel needed validation. Peter validated Luke’s gospel by speaking in Rome about his eyewitness remembrances regarding the material in Matthew and Luke. Mark records Peter’s memoirs. Once Peter validates Luke’s Gospel, it may be released. John later writes his gospel. This account is, of course, speculative—but no more so than Q is speculative.
Black also proposes the following internal evidence:
1. "The pericope order and the zigzag phenomenon"
This can be accounted for by Peter speaking with both Gospels open before him and moving back and forth between the two as he recounts his memoirs. Black accounts for omissions in Mark by saying that Peter is only recounting what he personally witnessed (thus the birth narratives are dropped).
2. "The extra detail of Mark"
The extra detail fits with the scenario of an eyewitness who knows the other Gospels but who adds in vivid details that he recalls.
3. "The minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark"
These agreements "are prima facie evidence for literary contact between Matthew and Luke" (42).
4. Markan conflation of Matthew and Luke
Black says literary signs of conflation have been documented, though he does not detail them.
The strength of Why Four Gospels? is its attempt to account for both patristic and internal evidence is its approach to the Synoptic problem. Its weakness is the dependence Black seems to place on his hypothetical reconstruction.
McKnight, Scot. The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.
McKnight’s basic thesis is that evangelicals are not really evangelicals but soterians. They have lost the fullness of the gospel story by reducing the gospel to a transaction that provides individual salvation from sin. McKnight does make a number of valid critiques. For instance, McKnight criticizes some evangelicals for emphasizing the transaction of getting saved that discipleship in minimized. Other critiques are harder to evaluate. McKnight roundly criticizes what he calls a soterian emphasis in evangelicalism, but at other times he asserts that such an emphasis is important. Similarly, he says that church began to get the gospel wrong with the Reformation’s emphasis on soteriology, but he also says that Reformation brought about much needed reforms to problems in the medieval church. McKnight seems to have an antipathy toward systematic theology and a marked preference toward story (Biblical Theology?). He clearly rejects the idea that having the correct atonement theory is necessary for a right understanding of the gospel.
I would agree with McKnight that the gospel is more than the "getting saved transaction." I further agree that understanding the Bible’s storyline and grasping the significance of Jesus as Messiah are all important for fully understanding the gospel. Thus I am willing to see the gospel as the good news that Jesus is the Davidic King who will fulfill the kingly task that Adam and Eve failed to rightly exercise. But the central problem in Scripture from Genesis 3 onward is sin. All other problems flow from this basic one. And the kingdom Christ is building only has kingdom citizens as they are transferred one by one from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of the Son. And this is possible only through the atonement. I thus see no reason to pit story and systematics, individual soteriology and worldwide shalom against each other.
Hoffecker, W. Andrew. Charles Hodge: The Pride of Princeton. American Reformed Biography. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2011.
Charles Hodge seems to be the favorite whipping boy for how not to do theology, even among evangelical theologians such as John Frame and Kevin Vanhoozer. Common complaints are that Hodge relied overmuch on common sense realism and the scientific method of his day and that Princeton Theology became over intellectualized by reducing theology to propositions based on facts collected from Scripture. While the Princeton method is not above criticism, much of the criticism lodged against it is unfair. Hoffecker, who had already written a book on Princeton’s piety, demonstrates in this biography that genuine Christian piety played a large role in Hodge’s life and ministry.
Hoffecker also ably walks the reader through the various theological controversies in which Hodges engaged, from debates between Old and New School Presbyterians, to his exchanges with Nevin, to the debates surrounding the Civil War to Darwinian Evolution—and more. Hoffecker is an excellent guide to these topics.
In all, this is an excellent biography exposing the thought of a significant, but much maligned, American theologian.
Backus, Isaac. An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty against the Oppressions of the Present Day. Boston: John Boyle, 1773.
Liberty could be called one of the core values of the American people. But do Americans understand what liberty is. Backus begins his Appeal with a discussion of the nature of liberty. He comments that many people believe that liberty is the freedom to act as one pleases, but this is only true when one’s highest pleasure is to love God with all one’s heart and one’s neighbor as one’s self (9). Because of this false conception of liberty Backus comments that many people wrongly believe that submission to government means sacrificing liberty. Backus responds that this false notion first appeared in Eden when Satan tempted Eve to disobey God. The reality is much to the contrary: "It is so far from being necessary for any man to give up any part of his real liberty in order to submit to government, that all nations have found it necessary to submit to some government in order to enjoy any liberty and security at all" (8).
Backus’s appeal for religious liberty therefore is not that Christians should be free from governmental interference in whatever they do, including religion. He argues instead that God has established two kinds of government in the world: civil and ecclesiastical. The one kind of government should not usurp the rights of the other. In support of this view he notes that Solomon follows God’s plans for the temple and does not interfere with worship, that Daniel followed Persian civil laws but not laws about worship, that Romans 13, which speaks of the civil magistrate as a servant of God, only addresses the duties of men toward their neighbors. Though Christians are to render to civil government what is owed to it (Isa 29:13; Matt 15:9), Scripture does not give the civil government the power to tax for the support of ministers of the gospel.
Backus argues that the civil government usurps the headship of Christ when it sets up standards for ministers that go beyond those established by Christ in the New Testament, when they impose on communities worship not found in Scripture (pedobaptism) and when they support by taxes men who should live by preaching the gospel (1 Cor. 9:13; Gal. 6:6-7). This usurpation must have negative consequences. Backus notes two: ministers become the king’s ministers rather than Christ’s because they find themselves under the king’s ecclesiastical laws and supported from his treasury. Second, orthodoxy ends up being determined by the majority population in particular areas rather than by true conformity to Scripture.
The remainder of the work details the sufferings of the Baptists in New England under the standing order. Writing just before the outbreak of the American Revolution, Backus makes good use of drawing a parallel between complaints about taxation without representation and the taxation of the Baptists to support the Congregational standing order.
Blaising, Craig, Alan Hultberg, and Douglas Moo, Three Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation. 2nd ed. Counterpoints. Edited by Stanley N. Gundry. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.
This second edition of Three Views on the Rapture is a fine work in the multiple views genre. The quality of argumentation in this book is also high. Moo, who contributed to both the first and second editions, comments several times that he found his opponents’ argumentation superior in this volume in comparison to the arguments found in the first edition.
Summary
Blaising’s case for the pretribulation rapture can be summarized as follows: 1 Thessalonians 4-5 teaches that Christians will be spared from the wrath of God poured out on the earth during the day of the Lord. The rapture is the stated means by which believers are spared. Furthermore, by harmonizing the teaching of Daniel about the end and the Olivet Discourse, it becomes clear that the ultimate day of the Lord equals Daniel’s seventieth week, which equals the period described in the Olivet Discourse. The book of Revelation supports this view by correlating the tribulations it describes with the OT day of the Lord. Revelation 3:10 supports the pretribulation rapture by promising the Philadelphian Christians (as representative of the church) that they will be spared from the hour of trial which shall come on the whole earth. By adopting this view, one is able to explain why some texts present the parousia as unexpected and preceded by no signs while other passages say the parousia is preceded by signs. The pretribulationalist understands the parousia to be a complex event. The rapture will occur first and will not be preceded by sings, but the return of Christ to earth to begin his reign will be preceded by signs. The pretribulationalist is also better able to account for the conversion of a remnant after the rapture and resurrection who will be able to populate the Millennium as mortals.
Hultberg says that "the prewrath position rests on two major theses: that the church will enter the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week and that between the rapture of the church and the return of Christ to earth will be a significant period of extraordinary divine wrath" (109). The following points support the first thesis: (1) the Olivet discourse is addressed to the disciples as representative Christians, who will see the abomination of desolation, (2) Parallel language connects 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16 and Matthew 24:31 together as rapture passages; (3) 2 Thessalonians 2:3 indicates the rapture is preceded by the abomination of desolation; (4) Revelation presents the church entering the tribulation since the letters to the seven churches are both letters to first century churches and eschatological predictions—and letters to Smyrna and Thyatira indicate the church will enter the tribulation; (5) the rapture occurs at Rev. 7:9 and Revelation 14. In support of the second thesis: (1) Paul is clear that Christians will not experience God’s wrath (Rom. 5:9; 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:9), and in some texts this wrath is clearly connected to the parousia; (2) The parousia must be a complex event rather than an instantaneous event to make sense of all Scripture says about it; (3) Revelation displays rapture, wrath, return sequences.
Moo begins his essay by emphasizing that the church will face tribulation throughout history. Though he does not deny there is a final tribulation, he consistently minimizes it. His main point is that the end time is not something distinctively future. It is a time the church has been living in since its inception. Similarly, Moo understands Daniel’s seventieth week to run through the entire church age. Moo also disassociates the final tribulation from the day of the Lord (a point to which he returns repeatedly throughout his essay). This allows him to minimize the wrath of God during the tribulation and emphasize the persecution of God’s people. Moo does not, however, deny that God pours out his wrath at the very end in a way that affects the whole earth. But he argues that this sword cuts two ways since there are some of God’s people on earth during the tribulation under anyone’s scheme. He resolves this problem by noting that believers in the OT were often affected by judgments directed toward others. Much of the rest of Moo’s article argues that there is no clear evidence for a rapture distinct from Christ’s return to earth. He notes the words used to describe the second coming do not distinguish comings. Nor do the main rapture passages (John 4:3; 1 Cor. 15:51-52; 1 Thess. 4:13-18) indicate the second coming happens in two stages. In fact, a number of passages disassociate the day of the Lord from the tribulation and tie it to the descent of Christ. Thus when 2 Thessalonians 2 places events of the tribulation before the day of the Lord, it is placing the tribulation before the rapture. Moo finds confirmation for his view in the Olivet Discourse (which he thinks refers largely to the church age) and it’s one return of Christ in Matt 24:31, 40-41. Likewise, Revelation (which also largely refers to the entire church age) never refers to a rapture, though it does place the first resurrection in close connection to the return of Christ to set up the millennium. Since there is a resurrection in connection with the rapture, and since this is the first resurrection, the rapture cannot precede this point in time.
Evaluation
Evaluation of this topic is exceedingly complex. Rapture positions are determined by correlating facts from a wide variety of passages. This in itself makes the topic complex, but the complexity is compounded by interpretational difficulties encountered in the key texts. This means that the debate is not merely over how key facts are systematized; the debate extends to the level of what facts can be deduced from a series of debated texts.
Strengths of Moo’s position
1. Moo has the simplest position. All parousia and rapture texts refer to the same event.
2. The absence of any clear mention of the Rapture in Revelation favors Moo’s position.
3. Moo’s rejoinder that all positions have believers on earth when God pours out his wrath, coupled with his observation that the Bible often indicates that believers can be indirectly affected by judgments directed toward others undercuts the primary objection to his view.
Weaknesses of Moo’s position
1. Moo repeatedly appeals to inaugurated eschatology in support of his position. But inaugurated eschatology would indicate that there are initial fulfillments to be followed by fuller final fulfillments. Moo doesn’t seem to fully reckon with these fuller, final fulfillments. He grants there will be a final tribulation, but he routinely minimizes it to emphasize that the church has always gone through tribulation. This seems to evade the issue under discussion.
2. In connection with the appeals to inaugurated eschatology, Moo applies Daniel’s seventieth seven, much of the Olivet discourse, and much of Revelation to the church age. Regarding Daniel, since the previous 69 sevens referred to periods of seven years, it would seem that the final seven should be understood as a period of seven years rather than as an undefined period of time. With the Olivet Discourse, even if the abomination of desolation did refer to the destruction of the temple (itself a debated interpretation), it would seem, given the context of the prophecy in Daniel, that that event was typological of a final fulfillment in connection with Antichrist. Overall approaches to Revelation are debated, but I find a generally futurist approach (see Grant Osborne’s BECNT commentary) more compelling than generally idealist approaches (see Greg Beale’s NIGTC commentary); Moo opts for the latter.
3. Moo’s consistent downplaying of the tribulation as a time of God’s wrath and his relegation of the day of the Lord to Christ’s actual return to earth disregards compelling data to the contrary presented by both Blaising and Hultberg. Moo even grants in his rejoinder that the Old Testament evidence may stand against his position. Replying that the New Testament alone should determine the matter is hardly a sufficient reply.
4. Moo also has trouble with some particular texts. His attempt to understand Revelation 3:10 in light of John 17:11-12, 15 fails on the grounds that Revelation speaks of being kept from a time period rather than from the evil one. Moo’s understanding of Revelation 20:4 also runs into problems. Moo understands first resurrection in an absolute sense as the first resurrection since the resurrection of Christ. This not only fails to reckon with the resurrection recounted in Matthew 27:52-53 but also requires displacing 20:4 chronologically (since the resurrection mentioned there is post-parousia). This is unlikely since 19:11-20:10 is best understood as a single vision with the subject of ἐκάθισαν being the armies that returned with Christ to earth (see Svigel, TrnJ, 22.1, pp. 51-52).
I find evidence for an extended day of the Lord / parousia persuasive. I also remain convinced that promises that the church (in general) will be spared the wrath of God during this time period, and since I find Moo downplaying events that he concedes will happen (e.g., a final tribulation), I find his view less than persuasive.
Strengths of Hultberg’s position
1. The discussions of and warnings about tribulation events in the Olivet discourse, Thessalonians, and Revelation could indicate that Christians will experience some tribulation events (though it does not necessitate this).
2. His arguments for the parousia as a complex event connected with the outpouring of God’s wrath.
Weaknesses of Hultberg’s position
1. It is difficult to find the Rapture in Revelation 7:9, and Revelation 14:16 seems too ambiguous to bear the weight of the position.
2. I find it unlikely that the first five seals opened in are not the outpouring of God’s wrath. Hultberg argues that simply because God is the opener of the seals does not mean that the seals are outpourings of God’s wrath because God is in control of all things. But this minimizes the symbolism of the sealed scroll. This was a scroll that only the Lamb who had been slain was worthy to take and open. There is much more going on here than mere sovereign control over the affairs of earth.
3. Though the exegesis of 1 Thessalonians 2:3 is tricky, I’m convinced that the text is saying that the day of the Lord is not present unless two other things are also present. The first of these is the apostasy and the second is the revelation of the man of lawlessness. I’m not convinced that the verse is saying these two things must precede the day of the Lord.
Hultberg’s arguments for the rapture of the church before the outpouring of God’s wrath mirror Blaising’s own argumentation. His arguments that this wrath occurs during only part of the seventieth week are more inferential and rest on more debatable texts.
Strengths of Blaising’s position
1. Blaising makes an impressive case for correlating Daniel’s seventieth seven, the tribulation, and the day of the Lord.
2. Blaising makes a solid case that the church will be spared from God’s wrath in the final day of the Lord. Though some texts are debatable, his argumentation on texts such as Revelation 3:10 and 2 Thessalonians 2 was sound.
Weaknesses of Blaising’s position
1. Blaising’s interpretation of the Olivet Discourse struck me as unique. It is a complex passage, and Blaising may well be right, but the uniqueness of his approach struck me as a potential weakness.
2. Blaising does have to deal with the problem of tribulation saints (whom he regards as part of the church, rightly in my estimation) being on earth during the outpouring of God’s wrath during the day of the Lord.
Blaising has constructed the most convincing pretribulation argument that I have encountered. He has abandoned many of the less convincing arguments that are often proposed in support of pretribulationalism. I also found Blaising’s argumentation more convincing than Hultberg’s or Moo’s. He seemed to best understand the significance of the Day of the Lord prophecies and their connection to the parousia as a complex event. He also rightly recognized that God promised the church deliverance from this time period of special judgment. The most damaging objection is the presence of saints in the tribulation period. I think that Moo provides the best theological explanation for the presence of these saints in a period of God’s wrath. But this theological explanation does not counteract God’s promises that he will, in general, remove his people from the day of his wrath. The tribulation saints are an anomaly because they were saved after the rapture of the church (on the pretribulation view), and the presence of an anomaly does not entirely overthrow Blaising’s position.
Overall this second edition has greatly improved upon the first. This may now be the best introductory resource to the topic of the rapture.
Articles
Barrett, Michael. "The King James Version: Its Tradition, Text, and Translation." In The Beauty and Glory of the Holy Spirit. Edited by Joel R. Beeke and Joseph A. Pipa. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2012.
Barrett offers a defense for the continued use of the KJV. He is respectful of those who take positions other than his on the issue of textual basis. In the end, however, I was left wondering why someone who takes his position on textual basis does not opt to use the NKJV. He argues that it is reasonable to expect people to learn the older vocabulary and syntax of the KJV. But why make this artificial obstacle a requirement to reading the Word of God?
Wright, N.T. The New Testament and the People of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God. London: SPCK, 1992. [Read Part III: First-Century Judaism within the Greco-Roman World]
Wright provides a helpful outline of Israel’s history from the Babylonian captivity through the beginning of the rabbinic era. He provides sketches of the major Jewish groups of this time period: Pharisees, Essenes, Sadducees, and others. He investigates worldview topics such as temple, land, torah, racial identity, festivals, monothiesm, election, covenant, redemption, and eschatology, the kingdom of God, and justification. Wright’s treatment of the first-century Jewish perspective of these topics is often helpful. His footnotes provide an entry into the broader literature. Nonetheless, readers should be aware that the evidence on this time period is fragmentary. Thus Wright is providing a reconstruction beliefs based on materials that are sometimes earlier and sometimes later than the period under consideration. Furthermore, these materials often need interpretation. Thus when Wright says the Jews were not concerned with postmortem salvation but with political deliverance, I wonder if he is drawing too sharp a dichotomy with too little evidence. A couple times Wright says that those who think the Jews were concerned about personal salvation or personal merit know more about the Pelagian controversy than they do about the first century. But I saw nothing in the evidence Wright displayed has so far said ruled out concern with individual salvation or the possibility that, well-intentioned as they might be, the Pharisees did not move toward what might later be called semi-pelagianism. Nor does Wright consider that later Christians may have correlated the semi-pelagianism they knew with the Pharisees based on the Bible’s portrayal of the Pharisees. The Scriptural portrayal of the Pharisees, even if not a full-or bed portrayal, is, one must say, accurate in all that is presents. All in all, this is a helpful section when read with discernment.
Carson, D. A. "The Biblical Gospel," in For Such a Time as This: Perspectives on Evangelicalism, Past, Present and Future. Edited by Steve Brady and Harold Rowdon. London: Evangelical Alliance, 1996.
In this article Carson reflects on the connection between the kingdom and the gospel. He argues that the kingdom and the cross cannot be separated since both are closely tied to the gospel. He further argues that the gospel must be located in the storyline of Scripture because it makes sense only from within that storyline. When detached from the storyline, statements of the gospel may sound orthodox and yet be another gospel. Carson concludes by warning against simply assuming the gospel while focusing on other issues and against making the gospel the starting point of the Christian life and looking to any number of other things to continue the Christian life.
Carson, D. A. "What Is the Gospel?—Revisited." In For the Fame of God’s Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.
Carson begins his essay with an extensive survey of Gospel words in the LXX and New Testament. He then draws out some conclusions. First, and most mundane, gospel as a genre category post-dates the writing of the New Testament books. Second, Carson suspects that the Old Testament influences the meaning of the gospel word-group more than the imperial cult of the Roman Empire. Third, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish whether the content or the proclamation is being emphasized in gospel contexts. The gospel is tied closely to its proclamation, and words are necessary to do this. Fourth, "Gospel" has "wide and narrow senses." Sometimes the gospel refers broadly to "the whole good news of what God has done in Christ Jesus and in consequence will do" (161). Other times it refers more narrowly to personal salvation. These are not competing gospels, they are different aspects of the same gospel. Carson is especially concerned about the tendency of some to discard the personal aspect of the gospel for a focus on the demands of the kingdom or to what Christ will achieve ultimately. This, in Carson’s view, becomes "only a tiring and tired moralism." Further, Carson argues that announcing what Christ has done carries an intrinsic demand to those who hear the good news. The personal aspect of the gospel cannot be left behind. Fifth, even though the gospel contains words of judgment to those who reject it, it is still the good news. Sixth, the gospel is not just the starting point of the Christian life but undergirds all of the Christian life. Failing to realize this results in trying to accomplish nearness to God through mysticism or other means. Seventh, we must beware of reading connotations that have developed around the English word "evangelist" back into the Greek word. Carson argues that an evangelist is one who preaches the gospel whether it is to Christians or those in need of salvation. Eighth, the historicity of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection are essential to the gospel being truly good news. Ninth, we understand the gospel better when we understand the problems the gospel addresses: the guilt of sin, alienation from God, the wrath of God, estrangement from other people, the cursed creation, spiritual death, idolatrous hearts. Likewise, the gospel points forward to God’s purposes: through the gospel God provides forgiveness, resurrection, justification, transformation, faith, obedience and more.
In this essay Carson addresses the same problems that McKnight addresses in The King Jesus Gospel, but he does so in a way that accounts for all of the biblical and theological data without creating false dichotomies.
Gathercole, Simon. "The Gospel of Paul and the Gospel of the Kingdom." In God’s Power to Save: One Gospel for a Complex World?. Edited by Chris Green. Apollos, 2006.
Gathercole challenges the old position that the gospel of the kingdom (presented in the Gospels as taught by Jesus) and the gospel of Paul are two different gospels. In the past this has led to the charge that Paul, not Jesus, is the founder of Christianity. More recently some have argued that evangelicals need to rid themselves of their fixation on Paul and justification and develop a better appreciation for the Gospels and the kingdom. Gathercole argues that this position presupposes the Gospels and epistles were written "in isolation" from each other. Gathercole finds this an implausible historical reconstruction. He instead proposes a theologically unified New Testament with a unified perspective on the gospel.
Gathercole defines the gospel as "God’s account of his saving activity in Jesus the Messiah, in which, by Jesus’ death and resurrection, he atones for sin and brings new creation" (149). Gathercole demonstrates that all three of these elements are presented both in Paul and in the Gospels.
Merkle, Benjamin L. "Who Will Be Left Behind? Rethinking the Meaning of Matthew 24:40-41 and Luke 17:34-35," Westminster Theological Journal 72, no. 1 (Spring 2010): 169-79.
1. Summary
These two texts, in the context of Christ’s return, refer to two men in a field, two women grinding at a mill, two in one bed, and one of each pair is taken and the other left. Merkle notes an impressive list of commentators who take the view that those who are taken are raptured and those left behind are judged: Hagner, Marshall, Geldenhuys, Nolland, Green, Bock, Morris, France (TNTC, not NICNT), Hendriksen, Bruner, Wilkins, Fitzmyer, and Ellis. Merkle, however, wishes to argue the contrary position. Those taken are judged and those left the righteous.
1.1 Merkle first looks to the Old Testament to demonstrate that throughout the prophets the righteous are left behind as a remnant while those taken into exile are judged. Merkle believes that this language about taking and leaving behind in connection with the OT destruction of Jerusalem would have shaped the people’s understanding as they heard Jesus talk of a future destruction of Jerusalem.
1.2 Merkle then turns to the New Testament. He argues that Matthew 24:40-41 and Luke 17:34-35 should not be read in light of 1 Thessalonians 4:17. First, the nearer contexts within Matthew and Luke should be canvassed before turning to Paul. Second, since the texts from Matthew and Luke are apocalyptic and prophetic, one should look to other prophetic/apocalyptic literature for the key, not to epistolary literature. Third, Paul is giving comfort in 1 Thessalonians while Jesus is speaking of judgment. The contexts are thus different.
1.3 Merkle thus turns to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke to see how leaving and taking language is used. He notes that in the parable of the weeds, the weeds are taken and gathered up out of the kingdom. In Matthew 24 itself, the righteous are told to flee to the mountains in those days. Merkle says this is to avoid being taken by the enemy as when Jerusalem fell in Old Testament times. In both Matthew 24 and Luke 17 a comparison is made to the flood in which the wicked are taken away by the flood but Noah and his family remains. Likewise Luke 17 uses Lot as an example. The people of Sodom were taken away, but Lot remained.
1.4 Merkle then evaluates the arguments for the position that those left are the wicked and those taken are the righteous.
1.4.1 Some note that "taken" often refers to taking someone with you. Merkle notes, however, the word can also be used for taking someone as a prisoner.
1.4.2 Others argue that the term for left "is consistently used to refer to something that is abandoned or forsaken" (175). Merkle grants this, and his response is somewhat fuzzy. He seems to think that there is a play on words with Jesus’s saying that "there will to be left here one stone upon another" so that one use of the word reflects judgment and the other mercy.
1.4.3 Some connect Matthew 24:40-41 || Luke 17:34-35 with Matthew 24:31. In that passage Jesus gathers his elect from the four winds. Merkle objects that gathering and taking are not necessarily the same. Furthermore, in the parable of the weeds the word for gathering the elect in Matthew 24:41 occurs in Matthew 13:30 of gathering the wheat into the barn. This gathering takes place after the weeds are gathered to be burned (using a different Greek word for gather). Merkle speculates that when 1 Thessalonians 4:17 refers to those "who are alive, who are left," being raptured, those who are left might be those left after the ungodly have already been taken away.
1.4.4 Some claim that the Noah and Lot parallels favor understanding the righteous as those taken and the wicked as those left behind. Noah and his family enter the ark and leave the others behind to destruction. Lot is taken by the angels from Sodom, which he leaves behind for judgment. Merkle objects that with Noah the text is clear that the Flood took away the unrighteous (Matt. 24:38-39). He finds confirmation of this view in Genesis 7:23.
2. Evaluation
2.1. Regarding the Old Testament background, I was not convinced that the texts Merkle leaned on consistently supported his point. To be sure, being taken into exile was a judgment. But I was not convinced that all the texts about "remaining" were spatial. Some simply seemed to be referring to God leaving a remnant of true worshippers. Some of that remnant was doubtless taken into exile. This seems demonstrated by the passages Merkle appeals to from Ezra, in which the reference is to those who have returned. Furthermore, the book of Daniel would indicate that the remnant may include those taken to exile, and the end of Jeremiah demonstrates that those left behind were not especially righteous. Merkle concedes this in note 6 but does not acknowledge that it weakens his argument.
2.2 Regarding the relevance of 1 Thessalonians 4:17, only Merkle’s first argument is strong. The near context should play a more determinative role than a more distant text. But It is difficult to understand how 1 Thessalonians 4 can be dismissed as epistolary rather than prophetic literature. These are not two mutually exclusive genres, and if texts about the return of Christ are not prophetic, it is hard to know what is. Likewise, only if the broader context of 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is ignored can it be said that the passage is about comfort to the exclusion of being about judgment.
2.3 Of his arguments from the nearer contexts in Matthew and Luke, the parallels with Noah and Lot are the strongest. The appeal to fleeing from Jerusalem is the weakest. The parable of the weeds, as Merkle notes, can hardly be determinative.
2.4 Regarding counter-arguments, Merkle is weakest at points 1.4.2 and 1.4.3 above, and strongest at points 1.4.1. and especially 1.4.4.
2.5 Overall, I would say that Merkle’s view is a possibility. The parallel with Noah is the strongest evidence in his favor. Too often, however, he makes his case on the basis of word usage with words that I’m not convinced are technical terms or by drawing parallels with passages that do not seem clearly relevant (the parable of the weeds) while dismissing passages that are relevant (1 Thess. 4:17).
2.6 As a footnote, I found it odd that Merkle opened the article by tarring his opponent with references to Thief in the Night and the Left Behind series. Most of those cited as taking the opposing view were not dispensationalists whereas, as mentioned in note 24, traditional dispensationalists Walvoord, Ryrire, and Geisler all hold to the view Merkle is advocating.
The Gospels More Reliable than Historical Reconstructions
All the Gospels are talking about events that actually happened; they are not “making it up. ” But they are telling about the events in ways that help us to grasp their significance and their theological implications. We do not need to feel as if we have to “roll back” the significance and the implications in order to get to “bare” events. The Gospels, since they are written with God’s authority, deserve our ultimate allegiance and trust. They are therefore more ultimate and more reliable accounts of the events of the life of Christ than is any humanly constructed harmonization, which would try to figure out “what really happened. ” It is legitimate for us to try to see how the various Gospel accounts fit together into a larger picture. But this larger picture should include everything that the Gospels give us, rather than only a minimum core in the form of our modern human reconstruction of what happened. Human reconstructions can help, but when reconstructions of the events go into all the details, they often contain a certain amount of guesswork. The guesswork means that our own fallibility and the incompleteness of our information come into play. If we are honest, we have to admit that we cannot be sure about everything in our reconstruction. By contrast, we can be sure about the Gospels themselves.
Vern Poythress, Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God-Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization, 32.
Book Report for October 2012
Books
Bock, Darrell L. Recovering the Real Lost Gospel: Reclaiming the Gospel as Good News. Nashville, B&H, 2010. [Skimmed]
Bock’s goal in this book is to rescue the gospel from reductionism. He notes the tendency of some churches to reduce the gospel to a therapeutic that meets various personal needs and of others that makes it a transaction for getting to heaven with little more about the Christian life that follows. Bock defines the gospel as "the good news that God’s promised rule of deliverance has arrived. To experience the kingdom Jesus preached is to experience God’s presence. Jesus died so His work could clear the way for a fresh work of God’s grace (Titus 2:11-14)" (1). Bock affirms that the cross is central to the gospel, but he says it is central like the hub of a wheel with spokes that emanate from it.
Wilkins, Michael J. Following the Master: A Biblical Theology of Discipleship. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Wilkins has provided a comprehensive theology of discipleship. He surveys Old Testament and inter-testamental background to the concept of discipleship, Jesus’s model of discipleship, the unique contribution of each of the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles to the concept, and the way the concept developed in the post-apostolic period. Wilkins closes with practical application to Christians and churches today.
Wolters, Albert M. Creation Regained. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Summary
Basic to Wolters’s argument is that all people function with a comprehensive worldview that covers every aspect of life. If a person’s worldview ought to be shaped by Scripture, then Scripture must speak to every area of life. In other words, since worldviews are comprehensive, Scripture’s authority and scope must be comprehensive as well. In the remainder of the book Wolters sketches what a comprehensive Christian worldview looks like.
He summarizes the Christian worldview under the categories of creation, fall, and redemption. In the chapter on creation, Wolters emphasizes that God created the world with laws. One may speak of laws of nature. These were put in place and are upheld by the creator God. The same is true for norms. There are certain moral norms, relational norms, or norms that practitioners of various disciplines must adhere to. Wolters brings laws and norms together under the umbrella of creational law. These norms, relevant to all aspects of life, are discerned through wisdom. In some of these areas, Scripture speaks directly. In others it provides the corrective lens by which the Christian can properly understand general revelation. At the root all creation (and the norms that govern it) is good.
Yet there is a major problem: the fall. The effects of the fall are comprehensive: no area of life is untouched. It is for this reason that Scripture uses the term world to refer to “the totality of unredeemed life dominated by sin outside of Christ” (64, citing Ridderbos). Wolters concludes from this that worldliness cannot be restricted to a secular realm of life. It is a danger in every aspect of life.
Wolters’s emphasis on the comprehensiveness of the fall may seem to stand in tension with his claim of the comprehensive goodness of creation. He introduces the categories of structure and direction to deal with this tension. Structure refers to the essence of a thing, and it is rooted in creational laws. Direction refers to the degree to which a creational entity (and given Wolters’s broad view of creation this can refer both to the natural order and to human institutions) is perverted by the fall or is being brought back to conformity to creational law.
The solution to the problem of fall is redemption. Wolters argues that "redemption means restoration" (69). Furthermore, the scope of the restoration is as wide as the scope of the fall. The man, Jesus, plays the key role in restoring creation. The establishment of his kingdom is the evidence that redemption or restoration has begun. And yet the kingdom is not yet consummated. In this already-not yet time, Christians are to attempt to live redemptively in every area of life, that is, they are to live consistent with the restoration that Christ is accomplishing in them and that he will one day fully accomplish in the world.
In his final chapter Wolters attempts a practical outworking of “discerning structure and direction” in both societal and personal arenas. Before he works through his examples, however, he makes an important distinction between “revolution” and “reformation.” According to Wolters, the Christian ought not use violence to effect a revolution in the hope of ushering in a utopia. No utopia is possible before the return of Christ. Instead the Christian seizes on what is good in a particular order and strengthens it; he seeks to bend fallen aspects of life back toward the correct creational norms.
The second edition of Creation Regained includes a postscript coauthored by Wolters and Michael Goheen. They are concerned to locate this talk of worldview in the Bible’s storyline. Because the Christian lives in the era in which the kingdom has been inaugurated but not yet consummated, this is a time of witness. It is not a time in which Christians will finally triumph. In fact, the already-not yet means that Christians presently undergo suffering and conflict because the antithesis between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world is sharpened in this period. This means that the Christian must struggle with the tension of applying the gospel to his specific culture while not allowing his culture to compromise the gospel. The difficulties in living out a Christian worldview are beyond the abilities of Christians, but the Spirit of God is given to empower obedience and faithfulness.
In sum, Wolters argues that creation extends to all that God creates and maintains (it includes the natural order and structures humans develop in obedience to the creation mandate), fall affects every aspect of creation, and redemption extends as far as the fall to restore creation. This is not a triumphalist gospel in the present, for in the time between the ages there is sharp conflict between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world as God’s people seek to live redemptively in this fallen world.
Evaluation
Wolters’s work includes a number of concepts that prove helpful not only in Christianity and culture discussions but also in advancing broader biblical and theological understanding.
Wolters gathers under the rubric creational law natural laws, the law revealed in Scripture, and God’s specific purposes for creation or individuals. He supports this view by highlighting Scripture passages in which these seemingly diverse concepts are brought together (2 Peter 3:5, 7; Ps. 148:8; 147:15-20; 1 Tim. 4:3-4; Rom. 13:1-2; 1 Pet. 2:13; Ps. 19:1-4; Acts 14:17; Rom. 1:18-20; Rom. 2:14-15). On the theological side, the payoff is that this approach to creational law strengthens the canonical links between the Pentateuch and wisdom books by showing that the law and the wisdom books (especially Proverbs) demonstrate the concrete application of creational norms to specific cultural situations. The other benefit of this approach is that it forces Christians to realize that various aspects of fallen culture struggle against creational law. This is obvious on matters such as homosexual “marriage” about which Scripture clearly speaks, but it may also be occurring on matters such as modern art or certain musical styles. Thus awareness of creational law can put Christians on-guard against uncritically accepting fallen aspects of culture; it alerts Christians to the need of applying Scripture with Spirit-guided wisdom to every aspect of life.
Structure and direction may be the most broadly useful of Wolters’s concepts. If all of creation is good, and if the fall has affected all of creation, how does the Christian discern what is good and what is bad. Or, if a missionary must contextualize his ministry in a new culture, how does he discern what is legitimate and what is compromise? Wolters’s discussion of structure and direction does not answer these questions, but it provides categories that make answering these questions possible. The basic structures of God’s creation are good, but these structures may be twisted in a bad direction or bent back to the good purposes that God has for them. The Christian must therefore wisely discern what is structural, what is directional, and how to live in the right direction.
Salvation as restoration is a key point of disagreement between Wolters and two-kingdoms theorists such as David VanDrunen. Wolters is in the right on this issue. Whereas, VanDrunen sees the resurrection body as the only point of contact between this world and the new earth (Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 66), Romans 8:18-25 ties the renewal of the world and the resurrection of the body together. Genesis 8:21 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 are misunderstood if they are deployed to deny restoration. It is part of God’s glory that he reverses the effects of sin rather than throwing away creation and starting over afresh.
Those who agree with Wolters that all of creation needs to be redeemed may be tempted to overthrow the present order and seek to establish the ideal. Wolters’s distinction between reformation and revolution guards against this however. Wolters notes that Christians do not have authorization to effect a revolution. Furthermore, “no given societal order is absolutely corrupt” (92), and no ideal is attainable in this age. Thus, the Christian should do his best to strengthen what is good and undermine evil when he has opportunity. Thus Wolters combines modesty in effecting cultural change with the encouragement for Christians to attempt to improve culture as they are able in their situation.
Though Wolters advocates a role for Christians in the restoration of the world, he does not do so in a triumphalist manner or in one in which humans are at the center of bringing about the promised redemption. Instead, in this age, the Christian who presses for redemption can expect persecution and suffering. With this emphasis Wolters taps into a major biblical theme: Christians as sojourners in this present evil age. It is a strength that Wolters is able to maintain this emphasis alongside his emphasis of Christian attempts to live redemptively in the culture.
Despite its many strengths, a number of weaknesses in Wolters’s work need to be addressed.
Wolters’ extension of creation into areas of human endeavor such as marriage, farming, education, and business is intriguing. He has presented convincing biblical evidence in terms of marriage and farming (and the latter example lends itself to extension in other areas). There also seems to be historical evidence to support his hypothesis. For instance, communism seems to fail because it violates certain creational norms. The same could be said of certain educational theories or business practices. And yet what does it mean to call agriculture, economics, or science "creation"? Is it the norms that are creational? Are the actions, the structures, and/or the products creational? Some additional clarity on this point is needful.
Wolters rightly views redemption as restoration, but because of his broad definition of creation, he argues that the “products of human culture” will be purified and brought into the new creation. This goes beyond the biblical evidence and seems unnecessary even in a redemption-as-restoration paradigm. Clarification on the extent of creation will help in this matter.
Wolters is willing to speak of Christians advancing the kingdom in such areas as "advertising, labor-management relations, education, and international affairs" (76). A Christian who is in a labor union or on a management team must not dichotomize his work from his submission to Christ as Lord, but is working in such a way that the direction of these activities is bent towards their creational norms really advancing the kingdom? In some cases, perhaps. Part of his sanctification (that is, part of his redemption) is to conduct himself as befits a citizen of Christ’s kingdom in all of these areas. But while he may have a sanctifying effect on his lost co-workers in these matters (along the lines of 1 Cor. 7:14), it seems too expansive to say he is establishing God’s kingdom or that he is redeeming certain areas of culture. It would be better to say that he is acting in ways that anticipate the consummation of the kingdom or in ways that are consistent with redemption.
Wolters work would be strengthened by discussion about the role of the church. His book is most helpful for enabling Christians to live Christianly in their vocations six days a week. Yet that is not where the stress of the New Testament lies; its stress lies on the church. It is not wrong to focus elsewhere; indeed theologians have often found it necessary to emphasize things the Bible does not either to defend parts of Christianity that are under attack or to apply Scripture to situations not directly addressed by Scripture. Nonetheless, greater discussion of these areas would strengthen Wolters’s work.
In sum, Creation Regained is full of concepts that will enrich many aspects of Bible study: creational norms, structure and direction, the kingdom, worldliness, and the overlap of the ages. Wolters’ primary weakness is the speculative nature of some of his ideas. The insights he has, however, far outweigh the weaknesses. This is the kind of book that repays repeated, careful, and thoughtful reading.
Murray, Iain H. Wesley and Men Who Followed. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2003.
In this four part work Iain Murray traces the life and ministry of John Wesley, the lives and ministries of three of his Methodist successors, two Methodist doctrines, and the general trajectory of Methodism in history to the present. The classic themes of Murray’s writing ministry are found in this book. Wesley’s life enables Murray to retell the working of God in the Methodist revivals. In telling the stories of three of Wesley’s followers Murray is able to critique the revivalist new measures that emerged in the nineteenth century. Significantly, he is able to demonstrate that Wesleyan Arminians (and not Calvinists only) criticized revivalism, while at the same time seeking true revival. While Murray does think some Calvinists have been too hard on Wesley (he names Dallimore), Murray does critique Wesley’s vacillation on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and his teaching on Christian perfection. In the closing chapter Murray finds in Methodism’s history a warning concerning the deadening effects liberalism has within a denomination. The book is not a didactic discussion of these themes. The thematic elements arise naturally as the narrative unfolds. As with all of Murray’s work, this history is warm, devotional, and aware of the Spirit’s working in the world
Wood, Gordon S. Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815. The Oxford History of the United States. Edited by David M. Kennedy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Gordon Wood introduces this period of American history with the story of Rip Van Winkle to make the point that the cultural changes that occurred in the period from the end of the Revolutionary War to the end of the War of 1812 are nothing less than astounding. Wood chronicles these changes with illuminating discussions of the intellectual currents of this period, how they influenced the events of this period, and how, in turn, the events made plausible or implausible various ideas about government and society. For instance, the successful War for Independence ushered in an era of greater democracy which alarmed many of the Revolutionary leaders by its excess. Wood argues that the Constitution was designed, in part, to place a check on democratic excesses in the states. Interestingly, this insight provides the backdrop for an explanation for the enigma of James Madison’s alliance with Alexander Hamilton in promoting the Constitution and their rivalry once the new government was formed. Wood argues that Madison wanted the national government to be an umpire that checked the democratic excesses of the state whereas Hamilton wanted to see the United States become a powerful nation equal to Europe.
Wood also does an excellent job covering the religious and moral aspects of this period of American history. Indeed he begins the book with a discussion about why morality is more important for republics than for monarchies. In a monarchy, morality may be imposed from the top down, but in a republic, morality must be embraced by the people at large, lest their vices infect and destroy the nation. In his chapter on religion during this time period Wood does a good job of acknowledging genuinely orthodox figures in this period, of distinguishing the rational religion of many of the leading founders from both deism and orthodox Christianity, and of rightly representing the church and state position of these fathers as welcoming the moralizing influence of religion upon government and society while rejecting sectarian preferences. In other words, on an issue that is currently highly politicized Wood presents a careful, accurate account.
This carefulness and attention to detail is consistent throughout Empire of Liberty and, combined with an engaging writing style, makes this history a very enjoyable read.
Lewis, C. S. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.
Bartholomew, Craig G. and Ryan P. O’Dowd. Old Testament Wisdom Literature: A Theological Introduction. Downers Grover: InterVarsity, 2011.
This book may be divided into three sections. The first three chapters locate wisdom literature in its ancient context, the last three chapters connect the wisdom literature to Christ, to biblical theology, and to the present. The central section of the book examines the books of Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes. Each book receives an overview followed by a study of a specific chapter (Prov. 31, Job 28, and Ecc. 3).
The most helpful features of this book are:
- The effort to distinguish OT wisdom from ANE wisdom (while still recognizing the cultural similarities between the two). This is important because of the claims of OT wisdom itself that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
- Discussions about how the wisdom books relate to each other (e.g., how Proverbs functions alongside Job and Ecclesiastes) and in the broader canon.
- Illuminating chapters on the book of Proverbs and Job 28.
In terms of understanding the particular books, I found the chapter on Proverbs to be excellent. The chapter on Ecclesiastes is headed in the right direction, but I don’t think the tensions between the hebel and carpe diem passages are as great or as unresolved as Bartholomew believes them to be. The chapter on Job seemed off the mark in a number of areas (including the role of Elihu).
Overall, when Bartholomew and O’Dowd were on the mark, they were very helpful.
Articles
Goldingay, John. "What Is a Covenant?" In Key Questions about Christian Faith: Old Testament Answers. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010.
In this article Goldingay discusses what a covenant is and surveys the various biblical covenants. Aside from his discussion of a creation covenant in connection with the Noah covenant, I did not find the article overly insightful. Regarding a creation covenant, Goldingay says, "The fact that Genesis does not use the word ‘covenant’ until after the flood is unlikely to mean nothing. It suggests there is no need for the formalizing of the relationship between God and the world as a covenant when the relationship is in an unspoiled state. Creation established a natural relationship between God and humanity. . . . Covenants establish relationships where there was no relationship before. In the case of God and humanity, the natural relationship that came about by creation came to be devastated by humanity’s being wrong-minded from youth and by God’s destroying the world. A fresh relationship therefore needs to be established" (115). This is quite a different position from that of Herman Bavinck: "Among rational and moral creatures all higher life takes the form of a covenant. Generally a covenant is an agreement between persons who voluntarily obligate and bind themselves to each other for the purpose of fending off and evil or obtaining a good." But Bavinck goes on to argue that God is so exalted above man as Creator to creature that if there is to be more than a master-slave relation, there must be a covenantal relation established. He says that the rational nature of man presupposes a covenant because it enables God to relate to mankind "not coercively, but with counsel, admonition, warning, invitation, petition." Bavinck, ?:569-70. At this point I lean toward Goldingay’s position, but I don’t wish to dismiss Bavinck hastily.
Pinson, J. Matthew. "Thomas Grantham’s Theology of Atonement and Justification," Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry 8, no. 1 (Spring 2011): 7-21.
Putman, Rhyne. "Response to J. Matthew Pinson’s ‘Thomas Grantham’s Theology of Atonement and Justification,’" Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry 8, no. 1 (Spring 2011): 22-24.
Bass, Clint. "Response to J. Matthew Pinson’s ‘Thomas Grantham’s Theology of Atonement and Justification,’" Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry 8, no. 1 (Spring 2011): 25-28.
Leondard, James. "Response to J. Matthew Pinson’s ‘Thomas Grantham’s Theology of Atonement and Justification,’" Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry 8, no. 1 (Spring 2011): 29-33.
Pinson, J. Matthew. "Response to Panel," Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry 8, no. 1 (Spring 2011): 34-39.
Matthew Pinson’s article makes the argument that seventeenth century General Baptist Thomas Grantham’s soteriology was Reformed as it pertained to the nature of the atonement (penal substitution) and the doctrine of imputation. Pinson contrast’s Grantham’s views on these matters with John Goodwin, an Arminian scholar who would influence John Wesley. Pinson has two goals in this article. The first is bring greater recognition to Grantham as a Baptist theologian deserving of more scholarly attention. The second is to demonstrate the theological breadth within Arminianism. Not all Arminians are Wesleyan. The responses are largely affirmative of Pinson’s article.
Goldingay, John. "Why Circumcision?" In Key Questions about Christian Faith: Old Testament Answers. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010.
Goldingay seems overly concerned to interact with feminist concerns about why the sign of the covenant is only given to males. This modern question intrudes the historical and theological study and skews the discussion.
Murray, John. "The Fear of God." In Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.
Murray argues that the fear of the Lord is the "soul of godliness" in the New Testament as well as the Old. It is not a concept that may simply be relegated to an earlier, less gracious era. It is thus a concept that is deserving of careful attention. Murray identifies two senses for this phrase: terror/dread and veneration/honor. He argues that terror and dread are appropriate when sin gives people good reason to dread the judgment of God. Christians may fear God for the chastening that must come for disobedience, but their fear is not absolute dread. Christians have a real adoration and awe as those who are continually aware of God’s presence. Isaiah in the sixth chapter of his book is an example of the depth of this awe. This continual sense of God’s presence leads to obedience, Enoch and Abraham being two prime examples.
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Volume 4. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008. [Read Part 1 on calling, regeneration, faith, conversion, justification, sanctification, and perseverance]
Bavinck’s Dogmatics may be the best systematic theology written to date. Even in areas in which the reader may disagree with his conclusions, Bavinck does such a good job of gathering all the relevant biblical data and surveying the various theological options that he provides an excellent starting point for examining a subject.
Bavinck often begins his discussion of a theological topic with a survey of all of the relevant biblical material. He weaves brief summaries of the key verses and passages into coherent paragraphs that provide and outline of the biblical teaching on that topic. This is often done with awareness to redemptive historical development. Bavinck is not engaged in actual exegesis here, but exegesis evidently stands behind his presentation. This biblical survey is followed by a history of the doctrine stretching from the early church up through late nineteenth and early twentieth century philosophy. Bavinck then evaluates the various doctrinal proposals surveyed.
This format is not followed rigidly, but it does describe in general his tendency to move through the exegetical, biblical theological, historical theological, and systematic theological disciplines.
Book Report for September 2012
Books
Hall, David D. A Reforming People: Puritanism and the Transformation of Public Life in New England. New York: Knopf, 2011.
Hall carefully debunks the idea that the Puritans were religious authoritarians who opposed liberty in the new world and oppressed those who differed from their theology. In doing so, Hall demonstrates that the liberal idea of freedom that dominates contemporary culture is not the only possible conception of freedom. The Puritans did not understand authority and liberty as opposites. Rather, they are interrelated and mutually checked by recognized "obligation and limits."
Kruger, Michael J. Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
The canon is an inherently difficult topic because it reaches down to the foundations of Christian authority. To ask the Christian to justify his belief that the 27 books and only the 27 books of his New Testament are God’s new covenant revelation is akin to asking the rationalist to justify his rationalism or the empiricist to justify his empiricism. Canonicity has become even more complicated today with claims that a New Testament canon was not conceived until centuries after Christ and with assertions that various Gnostic or otherwise unorthodox texts have just as much a claim to represent authentic Christianity as the books of the New Testament.
Michael Kruger enters this discussion with a specific aim. This book is not an apologetic designed to win over the skeptic. He is instead seeking to provide the Christian with a model that can show his embrace of the New Testament canon is epistemically justified.
Kruger begins by surveying and evaluating three broad approaches to determining the canon: (1) "community determined," (2) "historically determined," and (3) "self-authenticating."
Within these broad categories are found several diverse models. For instance, the Roman Catholic model, the historical-critical model, and Childs’s canon-criticism are all "community determined" despite the great differences between them. Historically, orthodox Protestants from the Reformation onward have eschewed the "community determined" approach, though Craig Allert has recently attempted to popularize it among evangelicals. Many of the current challenges to the traditional cannon come from models in this category. In this chapter Kruger evaluates each model individually, but his basic overall critique is that "these models are left with a canon that is derived from and established by the church, and thus is unable to rule over the church" (66).
The second broad approach, "historically determined," is more familiar to evangelicals. Contained under this category is the "criteria-of-canonicity" model advocated by the Princetonians and many modern evangelicals. In this model religiously neutral historical investigation seeks to establish that the books of the canon match such criteria as apostolicity, antiquity, and orthodoxy. Kruger doubts, however, that Christians should approach theological questions with studied historical neutrality. He notes, "to authenticate the canon on the basis of a supposedly independent, neutral standard ultimately subjects the canon to an authority outside itself. It allows autonomous human assessment of historical evidence to become an external authority over God’s Word" (79-80). Kruger also notes three problems with the criteria themselves. First, there is no evidence that the early Christians did any choosing of which books were and were not canonical based on the proposed criteria. They received, rather than chose, the canonical books. Second, even if the early church did use the various proposed criteria, one must establish that they used the correct criteria. Third, it is not clear that criteria such as apostolicity can be established by neutral historical work.
Kruger argues that the canon is self-authenticating. He is not arguing for a subjective, fideistic approach to the canon. He will, in fact, incorporate the strengths of both the community and historically-determined models into his own. Rather Kruger is advocating an approach that is already found in Calvin, Turretin, and the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Reformers and their heirs argued for canonicity on the basis of divine qualities found in the canonical books themselves. Kruger makes this one plank of his model. However, he also says that that the canon itself gives other criteria. Because the testimony of the Spirit to the voice of the Lord is corporate and not merely individual, the reception of books by the church is another plank in Kruger’s model. Also, since the New Testament gives a foundational role to the apostles and their teaching, apostolicity forms the third plank. In Kruger’s model the Holy Spirit testifies to the authenticity of the canon by enabling the church to see its divine qualities, its apostolic origins, and the confirming reception by the church throughout history.
In the remainder of the book, Kruger explains and defends these three planks. For instance, he includes a chapter in which he defines and defends the internal divine qualities of the Scriptural books. He has a chapter on apostolicity in which, among other things, he demonstrates from Scripture that the apostolic writers knew they were writing Scripture. He spends most of his time (three chapters) on the third plank, community reception, since this is where most of the current debate takes place. Kruger effectively challenges the late canon views of men such as Lee Martin McDonald. He also helpfully discusses what may be termed "problem books"—books whose canonicity was not immediately and universally recognized.
Kruger has done an excellent job updating and extending the classic Protestant approach to canonicity in light of present day challenges. This is now the best book on the canon available.
Wright, N. T. How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels. New York: HarperOne, 2012.
In this book N. T. Wright explores the purpose of Jesus’s earthly ministry as presented in the Gospels. He is concerned that historically, the church has focused on the incarnation and passion of Christ and ignored his ministry (apart from appeals to its proving his deity or making possible his active obedience). Wright realizes that major problems ensue when the middle of the Gospel story is divorced from the ends (incarnation and cross), and he highlights the Social Gospel as the primary example of that problematic approach. His goal in this volume is to integrate the whole.
Before preceding with his positive argument Wright first surveys six inadequate (though not entirely wrong) answers:
- "To teach people how to go to heaven" (42)—Wright focuses on the fact that heaven is not the biblical goal but a renewed earth. Eternal life is not about disembodied souls in a timeless state but about life on earth in the age to come. He is correct about this. But if going to heaven is translated "to enjoying eternal life in the age to come," this is a question that Jesus addresses at key points in his ministry, Nicodemus and the Rich Young Ruler being key examples.
- To provide people with an ethic for life—Wright is rightly concerned that Jesus not be reduced to another Buddha or Muhammad who taught religious truths to people. However, when contextualized in the larger picture of Jesus’s ministry, Wright correctly embraces the idea that Jesus was teaching people how they ought to live.
- To provide a moral example—Wright grants that Jesus is an example to be followed in some particular ways (e.g.,, 1 Cor. 11:1 or Mark 8:34). But he rejects this answer for two reasons. First, Jesus is not an example that we are able to copy. We just can’t live up to his standard. Second, Jesus is doing unique things in his life that no one is supposed to try to imitate.
- "His perfect life means that he can be the perfect sacrifice" (50)—Wright is willing to grant the Bible does present Jesus as the sinless sacrifice and that his sinless life is part of this. He notes John 8:46 (cf. Mark 10:18); 2 Cor. 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5; Luke 23:14-15, 22, 31, 41, 47 (p. 50). Wright rejects, however, the Reformed teaching that Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law and its teaching about Jesus’s active obedience (Romans 5:19) (p. 51). Overall, Wright concludes, "But, beyond these passages [noted above], the gospels show no interest whatever in making the link that much traditional teaching has employed. If that was what they were trying to say, you’d think they would have made it a bit clearer" (51). But Wright himself has assembled an impressive array of passages that make this point. He could add to this the Old Testament background that stands behind Mark 10:45, and he could factor in the significance of the temptation accounts which stand at the beginning of the Synoptic Gospels’ presentation of Jesus. This seems to be an important element that should play a role in whatever answer is given the question of the significance of Jesus’s ministry.
- To provide us with stories "so we can identify with the characters in the story and find our own way by seeing what happened to them" (52)—Wright again acknowledges that this is a possible and legitimate use, but he doesn’t believe it is reason the Gospels were written.
- "To demonstrate the divinity of Jesus" (and his humanity) (53)—Wright believes the Gospel writers would have affirmed Jesus these points, but he says even John who opens with this theme does not make it the major theme of his gospel. Rather, John, and all the gospels are "to tell us what this embodied God is now up to" (54). Wright’s affirmation is correct, but his denial is too sharp. My study of Mark has led me to conclude that demonstrating the deity of Jesus is a major theme of the Gospel from its opening verses.
Wright responds that the gospels are actually "trying to say that this is how God became king" (57). This is a good summary of the message of the four Gospels (and despite Wright’s rather annoying rhetoric of having discovered a lost theme that has been missing from the church until he wrote this book, this theme can be found in Herman Ridderbos’s The Coming of the Kingdom and in the writing of dispensationalists such as Craig Blaising).
In turning toward making a positive argument, Wright highlights four themes found in all the gospels. He thinks some of these themes are over-emphasized and some are under-emphasized. Getting these four themes correctly balanced is, in Wright’s view, essential to understanding the Gospel message about Jesus’s life. The themes are:
(1) "the story of Israel"—Wright laments that the Gospels have been read as the solution to the sin problem of Genesis 3, skipping over the story of Israel entirely, or looking at it as a "plan A" that went wrong with the gospel as a "plan B" that allows people to be saved by faith without having "to keep that silly old law" (84-85). In Wright’s view Jesus is "the climax of the story of Israel"; he is "Israel’s supreme representative" who finally does bring about God’s purposes for Israel (183). Wright’s emphasis on the importance of the story of Israel is commendable. Israel is the national focal point of the Old Testament for significant reasons, and the New Testament must not be cut loose from the Old. But Israel’s story is set within the larger human story that begins to go wrong in Genesis 3. Wright is wrong to minimize the Gospels as presenting the solution to the problem that begins there. Wright’s comments about not having to keep the "silly old law" are over the top. No serious scholar argues for that. Furthermore, he should not so lightly dismiss the plot of God giving Israel a law that the could not keep and then replacing that law covenant with a new covenant. That is the story that Deut. 28-30 plots explicitly from the beginning (and he ends up summarizing Israel’s story similarly less than a hundred pages later, compare 84-85 with 178-79).
(2) "the story of Jesus as the story of Israel’s God"—Wright thinks that the emphasis of Jesus as God has been overemphasized. In his view, it obscures the more subtle ways that that the Synoptics identify Jesus as Israel’s God. It is this that causes people to think John has a high Christology and the Synoptics have a low one. Wright has a point. Jesus is not a generic god incarnate. A tight connection to the Old Testament history and prophecies is important. Nonetheless, Wright seems to write as though conservatives, who have staunchly defended the deity and humanity of Christ in the gospels, and the liberals, who in his view misread the Gospels in different ways, are equivalently in error and in need of his setting things right. This is not fair or accurate.
(3) the "launching of God’s renewed people"—Wright laments the tendency in critical circles to read the gospels simply "as the projection of early Christian faith, reflecting the controversies and crises of the early church" (105). Wright doesn’t think it proper to say the Gospels are about "founding the church," since "there already was a ‘people of God.’" Nonetheless, Wright does think "the gospels are telling the story of the launching of God’s renewed people" (112). In other words, Jesus accomplished Israel’s vocation and enabled God’s plan to move forward in new ways. Wright’s critique of the old community-produced Gospels approach is on target. But the story he sees about "God’s renewed people" seems all too similar to what is often called replacement theology. To be sure, Wright takes pains to emphasize that he does not believe Israel has been "replaced" or "abandoned." He argues Israel has been "fulfilled" and "transformed." But in terms of position, rather than labels, Wright view is that of "replacement theology," which I believe to be a problematic position for a number of reasons (see Michael Vlach’s Has the Church Replaced Israel). (I’m inclined to treat opposing viewpoints according to the golden rule; for instance I can sympathize with the discomfort of some with the label "limited atonement" and am happy to use "particular redemption" as a more felicitous label; likewise, I’d be willing to use terms other than replacement theology or supersessionism if those who hold those positions had a term that they thought reflected their viewpoint more accurately. At present, however, I know of no alternate terminology.)
(4) the "clash of the kingdoms" of God and Caesar—Wright insists there is not mere a generic kingdom of God versus kingdom of the devil conflict in the gospels (and in the rest of the NT, for that matter), but a specific kingdom of God versus kingdom of Caesar conflict. I believe this is Wright’s weakest point. It seems to me that Scripture emphasizes the clash between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. Often Caesar is aligned with Satan against God’s kingdom, but Caesar can also be called God’s servant. I think Wright has done too much reading between the lines on this score. Furthermore, Wright’s commendable tendency to ground Scripture in its historical context sometimes causes him to emphasize historical particularities when those are actually instances of broader, universal points. This appears in his handling of justification, and I think this is another instance of it.
When these four themes are rightly understood, it becomes evident, Wright says, that the Gospels are about "how God became king." But this raises the question of how Jesus’s message of kingdom proclamation and the cross integrate. Wright devotes part 3 of this book to answering that question. But before he delves into this topic, Wright takes a brief detour to argue against the Enlightenment idea that religion is a private matter about how individuals can be "spiritual." In order to understand how kingdom and cross fit together, Wright argues that the privatization of Enlightenment religion must be rejected. Christianity is a public religion that speaks to all of life rather than a private spirituality. Wright’s critique of the Enlightenment is right on target.
But the question remains: how do kingdom and cross come together? Wright says that Jesus climaxes the story of Israel by suffering as Israel’s representative. His suffering now means the story of Israel can move forward. But it is not just Israel, through its representative that suffers, but God himself who suffers. "God himself will come to the place of pain and horror, of suffering and even of death, so that somehow he can take it upon himself and thereby set up his new style theocracy at last" (196). Jesus’s suffering renewed God’s people, and they follow him by sharing in his suffering which "somehow has the more positive effect of carrying forward the redemptive effect of Jesus’s own death" (201). It is through their suffering that the church advances Jesus’s kingdom. Then end result is that through the cross the kingdom of Christ triumphs over the kingdom of Caesar. Wright’s primary weakness in this section is his dismissal of historic views of the atonement (a secondary weakness is his preterism). He speaks of "distortions that result when people construct an ‘atonement theology’ that bypasses the gospels" (196). But when he describes the atonement, he says, "God himself will come to the place of pain and horror, of suffering and even of death, so that somehow he can take it upon himself" (196, emphasis added). Throughout this section, the atonement is described with the vagueness of "somehow." This vagueness makes Wright’s attempt to connect kingdom and cross less than satisfying.
Wright closes by engaging with those who are part of the theological interpretation of Scripture project. He affirms their critique of historical critical scholarship, but he critiques their abandonment of history and their dependence on the creeds. He is not convinced that the creeds alone will guide believers to faithful interpretations of Scripture. Wright argues that the creeds need to continue to be refined by (historically grounded) approaches to Scripture. He does not want to abandon the creeds, but he does want to enrich them by expanding and recontextualizing (with Scripture) their phrases. This critique of theological interpretation does strike at a particular weakness among many theological interpreters. They should reckon with the arguments he makes here. However, Wright too often has precisely the opposite weaknesses: lack of familiarity with historical theology, a tendency to over-historicize Scripture, and a quickness to abandon traditional theology in favor of new perspectives.
Blaising, Craig A. and Darrell L. Bock. Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.
The most helpful chapter in this book was Blaising’s chapter on the history of Dispensationalism. As a freshman I recall being confused by Ryrie’s insistence on literal interpretation when Scofield obviously did not always follow that method. Blaising cleared up that confusion by documenting, among other things, changes in dispensational hermeneutics. Bock’s chapters on hermeneutics and Blaising’s closing practical chapter were mildly helpful. The core of the book on the covenants and the kingdom contained helpful material.
Kauflin, Bob. Worship Matters: Leading Others to Encounter the Greatness of God. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.
The heart of the book unpacks Kauflin’s thesis concerning the task of a worship leader: "A faithful worship leader magnifies the greatness of God in Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit skillfully combining God’s Word with music thereby motivating the gathered church to proclaim the gospel, to cherish God’s presence, and to live for God’s glory." This is an excellent statement that would serve well in any good church music ministry. Overall, Kauflin does a good job in expounding each aspect of this thesis.
Other positives abound in the book. Kauflin has a high view of the Scriptures and of the importance of sound doctrine in Christian worship. He rightly includes preaching as part of worship; he does not limit worship to the musical part of the service alone. He wants musicians to be proficient but not to show off. Music ministry should not be emotionally manipulative. Their proficiency should undergird the worship; it should not contribute to a concert mentality. He calls on worship leaders and band members to avoid sensuality in both their dress and "vocal inflections" (48).
Even in the section on musical styles Kauflin rightly argues that the "music should serve the lyrics" (100). But he is weakest in his arguments in favor of using all styles of music in worship. His primarily argument is that the unity of the church should be centered on the gospel and not on musical styles. He grounds this unity in diversity in the nature of God: "Musical diversity reflects the varying aspects of God’s nature. He is transcendent and immanent. He splits mountains and clothes the lilies. We worship him as our Creator and Redeemer, King and Father. How can anyone think that a single kind of music could adequately express the fullness of God’s glory?" (104). Kauflin has stated a number of truths. But it does not follow that every musical style glorifies God. Al Wolters argues that fundamental to a Christian worldview is that all of God’s creation is essentially good, that the Fall affects every aspect of God’s good creation, and that redemption will extend as far as the Fall. It is the middle point that Kauflin is not reckoning with. It is true that various cultures have differing styles of music that may and even should be used. But it does not follow that all styles in every culture are acceptable. To assert this would be to assert that the Fall has affected every aspect of creation except musical styles. Finally, it is strange to assert that musical diversity should be employed to demonstrate the unity of the church when, in practice, introducing pop music into the church has been divisive for many congregations. Our unity is in the gospel and not in musical styles, but insofar as musical styles connect to our sanctification, they impinge on the gospel. Thus those who resist bringing Fall-distorted styles into the church are right in their resistance and those who introduce them bring division to the church that is, by their own standard, unnecessary.
The penultimate section of Worship Matters deals with tensions (e.g., between emphasizing God’s immanence and his transcendence). Overall Kauflin does a good job of handling these tensions. A few times, however, his balancing seemed less thoughtful than it ought to have been. For instance, on inward and outward worship, Kauflin says that clapping, and other outward expressions of worship, must not be ignored in modern American worship because they appear in Scripture. But he fails to ask important questions that are necessary for careful application. For instance, what was the clapping? Was it applause? Was it to keep rhythm, as is still the practice in some cultures? Was it something else or some of both? Without asking these questions, one may assume that applauding a musical performance is more in keeping with Scripture than not applauding special music–but the assumption would be ill-considered. But for the most part Kauflin’s handling of tensions is well done. He recognizes that in some of these pairings, one element is more important than the other. For instance, in dealing with whether worship service should be targeted to believers or unbelievers, Kauflin rightly says, "Let’s not ignore non-Christians when we gather to worship God. But let’s not allow them to dictate our direction, methods, and values either. Those have all been determined and modeled by the risen Savior" (204).
How should those who disagree with Kauflin’s approach to musical style view this book? First, most of the book is not about musical style. Furthermore, Kauflin does seek to ground what he writes in Scripture. So much of this book is quite helpful. Second, we should be willing to be self-critical regarding our music. Traditional is not a sufficient standard for a church’s music ministry. Kauflin is careful enough with the content of the music in the worship services he leads that it is possible that the content of his worship music may be more substantial than the gospel songs that many musical conservatives employ. This could lead to an uncomfortable situation in which some people feel as though they must choose between a worship service of theologically rich but stylistically objectionable music or a service of theologically shallow but stylistically traditional music. Those of us who object to contemporary worship music should must ensure that this is not a choice that people feel themselves faced with. Third, the section on musical styles should be recognized as one of the weakest parts of the book. The attempted Scriptural argumentation is thin and theologically flawed. In sum, this book is overall quite helpful while being flawed in a few significant areas.
Hugo, Victor. Les Miserables. Translated by Charles Wilbour. 1862; Repr., Modern Library, 1992.
Articles
Philips, Robin. "Scripture in the Age of Google: The Digital Bible and How We Can Read It," Touchstone (July/August 2012): 40-44.
Argues that the medium by which we read affects the way in which we read. He notes that writing without word separations led to oral rather than silent reading (though I understand this is now debated). Until producing and disseminating text became affordable (the printing press being one but not the only factor), people would read a few texts, but they would read them deeply and repeatedly. Later, when newspapers and periodicals came into being, people read widely and less deeply. The internet continues this trend. With hyperlinks and other distractions, digital reading is not conducive to concentration in reading. I think Philips is right to consider the influence of the medium on the way we read. However, I’m not convinced by all the applications he drew. I was able to read a scan of his article on my iPad without loosing my concentration. I will, however, probably not read his periodical article more than once.
Wood, Gordon S. "Is There a ‘James Madison’ Problem." In Liberty and American Experience in the Eighteenth Century. Edited by David Womersley. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2006.
Wood argues against attempts to say there were two Madisons: the Federalist Madison of the 1780s and the Republican Madison of the Federalist 1790s. He also argues against Banning’s proposal unifies Madison at the expense of his nationalism in the 1780s. Instead Wood argues that Madison in the 1780s saw the dangers of democracy leading up to the constitutional convention. He wanted a strong national government to serve as a disinterested umpire between the conflicting interests in the states. This goal lies behind his advocacy of a strong national government. However, he never wanted a strong European-style military state. When he saw that was the government that Hamilton was seeking to create, Madison staunchly opposed him. Wood proposes that Madison’s vision of government remained consistent, though the opponents he faced in these differing decades resulted in differing responses.
Goldingay, John. "How Should We Think about Same-Sex Relationships?" In Key Questions about Christian Faith: Old Testament Answers. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010.
Goldingay, an Episcopalian OT scholar, though this issue by looking at First Testament (his term for Old Testament) and New Testament teaching on the matter and then at the present cultural context. He notes that if the stories of Noah and Ham and the stories of Sodom are rejected as not being analogous to same-sex marriage (because of the rape elements), so also Ruth and Naomi or David and Jonathan cannot be appealed to as analogous same-sex relationships since there is no physical relationship in these cases. Goldingay also discusses Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. He grants that these prohibitions are tied in with prohibitions that no longer directly apply to Christians. In their First Testament context however, Israel is prohibited from things that don’t "fit into creation" (with some animals serving as examples of this). Goldingay notes that "Humanity should fit into creation. Homosexual acts do not do that" (321). He does not wish to place the weight of his argument on these passages, however. He places much more weight on the First Testament’s vision of what marriage should be. He notes that our culture assumes that marriage is all about romance and choice. But while the First Testament gives romance its place, it is a subordinate place. Goldingay says, "In Genesis, God instituted the sexual relationship as a means of implementing the divine purpose to subdue the earth and serve the garden. To that end this relationship involves a mutual commitment to forming a new context in which children may be born, nurtured, and taught the faith and may share in the work" (321).
In turning to the New Testament, Goldingay notes that we find confirmation that same-sex relationships are not in the same category as food laws or clothing laws. This is evident in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:10. Romans 1:24-27 continues to indicate that same-sex relationships go against nature, which means it is contrary to the way God made human bodies and the creational purposes for which he made sexuality. Goldingay recognizes that there is another way in which our culture speaks of same-sex attraction as natural for those who have them. Goldingay counters, "But then, for a heterosexual person, heterosexual relations are natural, but we do not reckon that this means we can simply do what comes naturally irrespective of moral considerations" (323). It is important to note that Goldingay also warns that much heterosexual sexual activity also falls outside of God’s creational purposes. He suggests as possibilities: adultery, polygamy, incest, prostitution, divorce, remarriage, masturbation, living together before or without marriage, and the deliberate lifelong avoidance of conception" (323).
Goldingay was much more fuzzy on the place that those in same-sex relationships or with same-sex attractions should have within the church. He clearly things that overseers and deacons should be held to a higher standard in this matter (1 Tim. 3:2, 12). He does not think he ought to leave the Episcopal Church over the issue. His primary counsel is to show love to those with same-sex attractions while maintaining that they have not made "an equally-valid lifestyle choice."
This raises the justice issue. Goldingay notes, "The freedom of people of differnet races to marry is a justice issue on the basis of a certain understanding of humanity. Same-sex marriage is a justice issue only if one first presupposes that marriage does not integrally involve two people of the opposite sex" (325). Goldingay also notes that our cultural understanding of justice differs from the biblical understanding. We tend to equate equality and justice whereas the Bible indicates that justice is acting "in a way that does right by the people to whom one has commitments, and in in particular that implements a concern for the needy."
Goldingay, John. "What Is the People of God? (A Narrative Answer)." In Key Questions about Christian Faith: Old Testament Answers. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010.
Goldingay outlines his narrative answer in the opening pages of this essay: "These epochs [in Israel’s history] brings a change in the mode of being of god’s people. It begins as a family (mishpakhah), one of the families of the sons of Shem (Gen 10:31-32), The fulfillment of God’s promise makes it more than a family, a people (‘am; e.g., Exod 1:9; 3:7), and indeed a nation (goy) alongside other nations, a political entity (e.g., gen 12:2; Judg 2:20). The monarchy turns it into a state, a kingdom (mamlakah and // related words; e.g., 1 Sam 24:20; 1 Chr 28:5). The exile reduces it to a remnant (she’erit and other expressions; e.g., Jer 42:2; Ezek 5:10). It is restored, to its land and to its relationship with Yahweh, as something more like a religious community (qahal; e.g., Ezra 2:64; Neh 13:1)" (76-77). The rest of the essay unpacks these categories and discusses their present day relevance. Goldingay does not find them universally relevant to the church, since they are historically conditioned.
Goldingay, John. "What Is Israel’s Place in God’s Purpose?" In Key Questions about Christian Faith: Old Testament Answers. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010.
Goldingay answers this question with "four polemical theses": (1) "The Jewish people is still God’s people but is destined to come to recognize Jesus (190); (2) "The Jewish people still has a claim to a homeland in Palestine" (196); (3) "Commitment to the Jewish people does not imply commitment to the state of Israel (202); (4) "Israel’s destiny is secure, but its present is dependent on its decisions (206).
Under the first thesis Goldingay argues that God still has a place for Israel as a distinct people. He finds Romans 9-11 clear on this point. He nowhere finds the New Testament affirming that the church has become the New Israel (he understands Gal. 6:16 as Paul "seeking god’s mercy on Israel as well as on believers in Christ; p. 192, n. 7). He also reject two covenant theology, in which Israel relates to God apart from Christ.
Goldingay argues in the second thesis that the New Testament does not say the land promise was fulfilled in Jesus or that it was a symbol that has now been supplanted. He takes the New Testament’s silence on this issue to mean that the promise still stands.
Goldingay argues in the explication of his third thesis that the first two theses do not imply that the State of Israel is the fulfillment of God’s promises. He does not believe that the land promise necessarily includes a state, for Abraham did not live in the land in a state, nor did the returned exiles. He notes further, that God recognized the rights of previous inhabitants to the land in Abraham’s day. Israel had to wait four centuries before God gave the land to them because it would not have been right to drive out the other inhabitants until their iniquity was full. Finally, Goldingay says that Israel was supposed to be a blessing to the nations, and Israel is not now a blessing to the Palestinian people. Goldingay recognizes that Israel has a legal right to the land, and he also grants that Israel’s expansion came though defensive wars. But it seems that he would prefer a combined state of Jewish and Palestinian peoples living together peacefully than even a two-state solution.
In his fourth thesis Goldingay argues that the State of Israel is not guaranteed the land by God. Though God’s promises stand, neither God nor the church can accept uncritically the actions of Israel. Sometimes words of judgment need to be spoken and not words of comfort alone. He concludes with an appeal for peace for Jerusalem for both Jew and Arab.
Goldingay, John. "Is Election Fair?" In Key Questions about Christian Faith: Old Testament Answers. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010.
Goldingay asks this question in light of the conquest of Canaan. His ability to answer this question is marred by a willingness to evaluate God’s actions by a standard other than Scripture. He does not help himself by leaving the historicity of Joshua an open question.
Hamilton, James M. "Was Joseph a Type of the Messiah? Tracing the Typological Identification between Joseph, David, and Jesus," Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 12.4 (2008): 52-77.
Hamilton, Jr. James M. "The Typology of David’s Rise to Power: Messianic Patterns in the Book of Samuel," Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 16.2 (2012): 4-25.
In the final footnote for the article on Joseph, Hamilton thanks Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum "for insisting on textual warrant for typological interpretations." My sense was that this was too often missing in these articles. I recall a reviewer of Peter Leithart’s commentary on Kings saying it was worth working through all the implausible typological connections for the 1/3 which were right. I have the same sense with these two articles by Hamilton.
Poythress, Vern S. "Gender Neutral Issues in the New International Version of 2011," Westminster Theological Journal 73 (2011): 79-96.
After noting improvements in the NIV 2011 over the TNIV, Poythress documents verses in which he thinks gender neutral translations have obscured the text. Poythress also offers an evaluation of the Collins report on gender neutral language and potential problems in the statistical analysis which was done.
Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. "Jesus’ Mission According to His Own Testimony." In The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield. 2:255-324. 1932; Reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.
Warfield begins this three-part article by critiquing a similar project by Harnack that proceeded on critical grounds. In the second part of the article Warfiled expounds a series of passages in which Jesus says why he came to earth (these passages and their synoptic parallels):
Mark 1:38—He said to them, “Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for.” (NASB); cf. Lk. 4:43.
Matthew 5:17-18—"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."
Matthew 9:12-13—But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Luke 12:49-53—“I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! 50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! 51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. 52 For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
Matthew 10:34-36—“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.
Luke 19:10—For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
Matthew 20:28—even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
When put together, it is clear that Jesus came to preach of the kingdom that arrived in his person, to fulfill the law, and to rescue sinners from their sin so they can be a new called out people opposed by the world, and that he achieves this through his sacrificial death.
In the third part of this article, Warfield draws some broader theological conclusions. He notes first that Jesus had a clear messianic consciousness. Second, he notes that the "I have come" passages imply pre-existence.
Zaspel, Fred G. The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010. [Read sections on historical context, apologetics, prolegomena, and bibliology, pp. 15-175]
Zaspel does an excellent job of comprehensively systematizing and summarizing Warfield’s thought. This volume is valuable as a reference work for those who are interested in tracking down what Warfield wrote on various topics and where he wrote it. But Zaspel’s summaries are valuable in their own right. I remain unconvinced of Warfield’s apologetic approach, in which he finds it necessary to establish Scripture as authoritative prior to any theologizing. But his doctrine of Scripture itself is masterful. It fully takes into account the complexity of Scripture’s teaching regarding itself as a divine and human book. Peter Enns, Kenton Sparks, and others who challenge the doctrine of inerrancy need to more fully reckon with Warfield’s arguments for their dismissal of the historic doctrine of Scripture to have credibility.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The First and Second Letters to Timothy. Anchor Bible. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 2001. [Read introductions and commentary on 1 Timothy 1-3]
Johnson is a critical scholar who is unconvinced of the arguments against Pauline authorship of the letters to Timothy and Titus. His critique of the reigning critical view and his arguments for Pauline authorship are careful and insightful. His critical proclivities emerge however in his comments about the role of women in the church.
Reading Report for August 2012
Books
Diprose, Ronald E. Israel and the Church: The Origin and Effects of Replacement Theology. Waynesboro, GA: Authentic, 2004.
Diprose’s book seems to be a light reworking of his dissertation. As such it retains all the weaknesses of published dissertations. An additional weakness was a seeming conflation of replacement theology and anti-Judaism. These are two different things and ought to be kept distinct. Nevertheless, he does present a good deal of helpful material. Chapter 2 helpfully identifies and evaluates passages which seem to support replacement theology and passages which seem to prohibit it. Chapter 3 surveys Christian theologians’ views of Israel (especially in the early church). The fourth and fifth chapters examine how replacement theology affects ecclesiology and eschatology. These latter two chapters are worth a quick skim. I found Diprose’s work helpful, but pride of place on this topic still goes to Michael Vlach’s Has the Church Replaced Israel?
Carroll R, M. Daniel. Christians at the Border: Immigration, the Church, and the Bible. Baker Academic, 2008.
After a foreword that explains his own personal background in both the United States and Latin America, Carroll provides a thumbnail sketch of Latin American immigration. He then surveys the concerns that undocumented immigrants (terminology Carroll prefers to illegal aliens) raise among many Americans. He concludes the first chapter with the opportunities the church gains through the shifts of immigration. Chapter 2 looks at the image of God in man and the experiences of Old Testament people as sojourners and exiles. In chapter 3 Carroll examines how the OT law informs the immigration debate. He argues (following Christopher Wright) that Israel’s law serves as a paradigm for the nations. This does not mean that every aspect of legislation should be imitated by them, but that Israel provides a concrete example of God’s moral expectations for the nations. On this basis Carroll believes the OT law mandates Christians to care for and show hospitality to the immigrants among them. The law also expected the immigrants to conform to the law and to assimilate to Israel’s religion. Carroll then turns to the New Testament. Though Jesus never addresses the issue of immigration, his compassion toward outsiders such as the Samaritans provides an example for Christians today. Peter addresses his first epistle to Christians who are spiritually "aliens and strangers." Carroll concludes from this that Christians especially should be sympathetic to the plight of immigrants. He also concludes that Christians should be willing to be out of step with the prevailing culture on this issue. Concluding the chapter on the NT is a brief discussion of Romans 13. Carroll argues that American laws regarding immigration may be unjust and that believers should obey God in these matters rather than man. The correct response of Christians is therefore not simply to submit to the laws but to seek to reform them. Christian undocumented immigrants feel both the problem of violating the law and of feeling its injustices. Carroll holds that they should seek to obey the laws of the land in all other areas and that Christians should be sympathetic to their plight.
Hoffmeier, James K. The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible. Wheaton: Crossway, 2009.
Hoffmeier begins with a preface that details his experience as an immigrant as well as his experiences helping immigrants. In his first chapter he sketches the current American situation and discusses how the Bible applies to current concerns. He adopts a combination of Walter Kaiser’s principlization model and Christopher Wright’s worldview model. Beginning with the second chapter Hoffmeier begins his survey of the biblical data. He notes that ancient nations were concerned about the integrity of their borders and distinguished between legal and illegal immigrants. He is able to establish this from archaeological evidence in Egypt, but he also demonstrates it linguistically by the different words used in the Hebrew Bible to distinguish the various kinds of people moving through or living in the land. Hoffmeier demonstrates that the ger (stranger, sojourner) had the status of a legal immigrant. He also notes details from the narratives of the patriarchs that showed the sojourned within the legal frameworks of the peoples among whom they lived. This involved making treaties and agreements with them. In chapter 3 Hoffmeier investigates the enslavement of Israel by the Egyptians. He presents this as a case of legal immigrants who are at first received and then abused. He suggests that the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II provides an analogous situation in American history. Chapter 4 investigates the law’s teaching about the ger under five categories: "1) general ethical considerations, 2) legal protection, 3) treatment of employees, 4) social benefits, 5) religious participation" (72). In this section Hoffmeier treats such things as the equal standing under Israel’s law that the ger was to receive or the fair treatment (including fair pay) of employees. In this section Hoffmeier also looks at the biblical teaching concerning sanctuary cities. He concludes that sanctuary was a mechanism to guarantee a fair trial, not a means for evading the law. In chapter 5 Hoffmeier surveys Israel’s history and demonstrates that the sojourner played an important role throughout Israel’s history. In chapter 6 Hoffmeier looks at the prophets’ call for justice. He notes that justice is to be applied to the ger and to the native-born alike. He especially emphasizes their call for fair pay. Hoffmeier turns toward Israel’s exile in chapter 7, and he emphasizes God’s call for Israel to seek the shalom of the foreign city in which they dwelt. He takes this as paradigmatic for immigrants today. Chapter 8 examines the issue of the immigrant from the New Testament. Hoffmeier opens the chapter by noting the flight of Jesus and his family to Egypt to escape Herod. The emphasis of the chapter, however, rests on the dual citizenship of Christians in the kingdom of heaven as well as in the kingdoms of this world. This means that Christians are bound both to obey God and to obey the governments under which they live. He argues that Romans 13 applies even to laws that are unfair. For Christians to disobey American immigration laws, they must demonstrate that obedience to them violates God’s laws. Hoffmeier argues that Carroll does not do this and is overly dismissive of Romans 13. Hoffmeier also objects to Matthew 25:31-46 as a proof text for receiving illegal immigrants since in context it refers to "the apostles or the disciples whom Christ sent out" and secondarily to Christians generally. He does not believe it refers to all humans (148-49). In conclusion, Hoffmeier believes the Bible gives nations the right to regulate immigration. It does demand however that immigrants be treated equally under the law and be "eligible for social benefits" (though required to work for them) (155). He emphasizes the biblical distinction between foreigners with legal status as immigrants and those without. Given, this he emphasizes that Romans 13 mandates obedience to immigration laws. Hoffmeier then applies Romans 13 to employers, arguing that their exploitation of illegal immigrants violates justice not only toward them but also toward legal immigrants who could fill the job with a fair wage. Churches should not encourage immigrants to break the law, but they can provide financial and legal help to immigrants to enable them to gain or maintain legal standing. Hoffmeier concludes by recognizing that American immigration law may need to be reformed, but he does not go into details about how this should be done.
Hoffmeier does not engage the current political situation as much as Carroll does, but his treatment of the biblical material is more detailed and more careful.
Waters, Guy Prentiss. How Jesus Runs the Church. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2011.
How Jesus Runs the Church is a book about Presbyterian church government. The title may sound a bit cheeky to those, such as myself, who are not Presbyterian. Waters is making a serious point with the title, however. Since Jesus is the Lord of the church, the form of church government is not left to the discretion of the members. Waters therefore seeks to demonstrate how the Presbyterian from of church government is grounded in Scripture. He also acquaints readers with older Presbyterian literature on ecclesiology. Though those with differing denominational convictions will find plenty to disagree with, Waters’s clear writing style and effort to ground his view of church government makes him an ideal conversation partner.
Webb, Barry G. The Message of Isaiah. The Bible Speaks Today. Edited by J. A. Motyer. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996.
For larger books, such as Isaiah, a brief commentary that orients the reader to the big ideas of the book as well as to its basic structure and flow of thought is very helpful. Webb’s commentary is of this sort. He is readable and insightful throughout. My only criticism is his tendency to spiritualize the eternal state. Why must the nations streaming to Zion simply be a picture of people from all nations being added to the church? If redemption truly extends as far as the Fall, the eternal state will be physical and earthly. And if the eternal state is physical and earthly, why may the nations not stream to Jerusalem? This compliant, however, is minor when compared with the great value of Webb’s comments overall.
Bock, Darrell L. and Mitch Glaser. To the Jew First: The Case for Jewish Evangelism in Scripture and History. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008.
This book is a collection of essays gathered from two conferences on Jewish evangelism. Though published under Kregel’s academic imprint, the essays are accessible rather than technical. I picked up the volume in connection with studies on the relation between the church and Israel. Coming with that aspect of study in mind I found the following essays the most helpful: Walter Kaiser’s essay on Romans 9-11, Craig Blaising’s essay on "The Future of Israel as a Theological Question" (also available in JETS 44.2, pp. 435-50), and Richard Pratt’s article on a Reformed perspective of the relation between Israel and the church. Michael Rydelnik’s essay on messianic prophecy was also informative.
Kaiser provided a helpful overview of Romans 9-11. I especially found his discussion of the olive tree imagery stimulating.
Pratt argued that adherents to Reformed theology are wrongly characterized as supersessionist or replacement theologians. While Reformed theologians object to the older dispensational division of the people of God into an earthly people and a heavenly people, Pratt says they do not claim the church has replaced Israel. Rather, the church and Israel are a unity. Israel is the Old Testament church. Pratt went on to affirm that the land promises would be fulfilled for ethnic Israel on the new earth. He also affirmed the end-time conversion of ethnic Israel. Pratt’s position is an intriguing one, but a few issues should be raised. First, there seems to be greater diversity among Reformed theologians than Pratt concedes. For instance, it seems fair to characterize O. Palmer Robertson as a replacement theologian. Robertson also rejects any fulfillment of the land promises for ethnic Israel and even the future conversion of ethnic Israel. At present, it seems that Robertson is in the minority position on the last point, but it seems that Pratt is probably in the minority position among Reformed theologians on seeing the land promises fulfilled for Israel in the future. Pratt would have been better off arguing that his position is consistent with Reformed theology than that it the Reformed position. More substantively, for Pratt’s position to work he must affirm that the church like Israel is a mixed group in terms of regeneration. This seems to ignore the changes brought about by the New Covenant. The church as a New Covenant institution should be comprised of a regenerated membership insofar as fallible humans are able to determine this.
Rydelink’s essay contained a fascinating survey of the reception history of messianic prophecy from the apostles through to the present.
Beilby, James K. and Paul Rhodes Eddy. Justification: Five Views. Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 2011.
This multi-view book on justification begins with two historical essays followed by two Reformed views, a New Perspective view, a deification view, and a Roman Catholic view. The opening historical essays by Beilby and Eddy do a competent job of providing the historical background and outlining the terms of the debate. In a multiple views book, this introductory material is helpful, especially for those who are using the book as an introduction to this issue.
The essays by Michael Horton, James Dunn, and Oliver Rafferty make this book a worthy read. Rafferty provides a very helpful historical sketch of the doctrine of justification from Augustine through Trent. Though his scope is more limited than the opening historical essay, I found it to be more insightful. A reader would do well to read Rafferty first, though he appears in the final essay in the book. I found his co-author for the Roman Catholic view less satisfying. He gave his own personal journey of understanding justification. His essay would have been stronger if he had dealt biblically with the work of recent Catholic scholars such as Joseph Fitzmeyer and theologically with various ecumenical initiatives that the Roman church has undertaken with the Lutherans and evangelicals regarding justification.
James Dunn is one of the founding and leading proponents of the New Perspective and was therefore a good choice for presenting that view. Furthermore, N. T. Wright seems to get more interaction in the evangelical world, so including Dunn brings in another voice for that perspective.
It is hard to imagine a better representative for the "traditional reformed view" than Michael Horton. He is exegetically, historically, and theologically competent on this issue. His Covenant and Salvation had already provided perhaps the best theological response to the New Perspective yet published, and many of those insights reappeared here (e.g., the similarity of Sanders’s covenantal nomism to the views that Luther and Calvin were combating, the importance of distinguishing between the types of OT covenants, etc.). Horton was also well prepared to respond to Kärkkäinen’s deification view, having also addressed that issue at length in Covenant and Salvation.
Kärkkäinen seemed too motivated by ecumenical issues for me to be truly convinced that his (Finnish school) revisionist reading of Luther even approximated Luther’s actual beliefs. His ecumenical quest also seemed to be something of a fool’s errand. He may have gained something in reaching out the Russian Orthodox, but Rafferty was clear in his response that the deification proposal was not acceptable to Roman Catholics. Nor is Kärkkäinen going to convince the Lutheran orthodox. He may have redrawn the lines regarding who finds his beliefs acceptable, but I’m not convinced any real ecumenical progress was made.
Michael Bird’s essay and responses were similarly unsatisfying. I did not find a clear statement of his position such as could be found in both Horton’s and Dunn’s essays. Furthermore, he seemed to be proclaiming the possibility of rapprochement while the principals of the debate clearly disagreed with one another. Horton, for instance, remained unconvinced that Dunn’s position was in fact compatible with Reformation theology despite Dunn’s recent insistence that the New Perspective stands not in opposition to the Reformation doctrine but as an addition and reorientation. For his part, Dunn seemed positively angry (I believe he used the term "miffed") in his response to Horton. In any event, in reading the positions and responses, I came away convinced of the real differences between the positions.
One last thought. Many of the contributors argued that Paul’s soteriology cannot be reduced to the one metaphor of justification. I’m not convinced that justification is merely one metaphor among many—a metaphor that may be emphasized or de-emphasized as the theological situation demands it. Rather, I think justification is a reality that must be reckoned with as theologians seek to understand God’s work of salvation.
Thiselton, Anthony C. Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Thiselton’s Hermeneutics is not a book of Bible study methodologies. It is largely a survey of hermeneutical approaches from early Judaism through to the present. Throughout Thiselton provides incisive evaluations. Though billed as an introduction, some of the discussions can become fairly deep philosophically. Nonetheless, this may be the most useful book for a quick survey of the history of hermeneutics.
Ward, Timothy. Words of Life: Scripture as the Living and Active Word of God. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009.
This is an excellent recent survey of the doctrine of Scripture. Ward is concise, readable, careful, and judicious. He does not simply restate that traditional evangelical doctrine but instead seeks to make explicit its biblical foundations. He also interacts with recent challenges to the doctrine. But this is not to say that Ward is innovative. While he does make use of recent theories about how language works, Ward also appreciatively draws on the work of previous theological giants who have formulated this doctrine: Calvin, Turretin, Warfield, and Bavinck.
I have only one major complaint about the book. In his section on sola scriptura, I find Ward overly dependent on Keith Mathison and Heiko Oberman’s inaccurate handling of the various views of tradition held throughout church history. He would have been better served by the categories found in Anthony Lane’s article, “Scripture, Tradition, and Church: An Historical Survey.” Vox Evangelica 9 (1975): 37-55.
This one complaint, however, should not deter readers from reading this excellent study on the doctrine of Scripture. Ward’s work is probably the best recent survey of the doctrine of Scripture.
Edwards, Jonathan. A History of the Work of Redemption. The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Edited by John F. Wilson. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. [Read all of Edwards’s text, the back matter and some of the front matter.]
This series of thirty sermons traces God’s work of redemption from eternity past through eternity future. The series is constructed historically, and will therefore remind readers of the kind of biblical theology that traces progressive revelation and the progress of God’s working in the world. But Edwards differs from biblical theology of this sort by being willing to systematically develop doctrines early on in this study. This work also differs from biblical theology by extending beyond the canon. Edwards interprets history from the close of the canon through to his present day by interpreting God’s providential working in the world through the lens of a historicist understanding of the book of Revelation (aided by relevant portions of Daniel). The earlier parts of the series were full of exegetical insights. The later parts, by Edwards’s own admission, were more open to debate, but I found his approach, especially his work with Revelation and Daniel interesting from a historical point of view. Because these were sermons, Edwards also maintains a devotional spirit throughout.
Neusner, Jacob. Judaism: The Basics. New York: Routledge, 2006.
This book provides what the title promises. Neusner defines Judaism through its culture and stories. He explains the basic beliefs of Judaism. Finally, he outlines its history and various subgroups from the Second Temple period through to the present.
Articles
Blaising, Craig A. "The Future Of Israel As A Theological Question," JETS 44, no. 3 (Sep 2001): 435-50.
Blaising begins his discussion with a survey of various types of supersessionism. He then surveys Romans 9-11 briefly as the key problem passage for the supersessionist. He also examines recent scholarship that argues Jesus’s mission involved the restoration of Israel. This point can support Blaising’s non-supersessionist approach, but he should have noted that some of the scholars who make this point are supersessionists. Blaising then turns to "Two-Covenant Theology." Though anti-supersessionist, Blaising rejects two-covenant theology as incompatible with the New Testament’s teaching that salvation involves faith in Jesus, whom God has made both Lord and Christ. Blaising calls on evangelical scholars to develop an approach to Israel that says "yes" to the theological significance of its future while rejecting the errors of two-covenant theology. He concludes by examining the significance of his approach to Israel’s future for theology proper, anthropology, Christology, ecclesiology, and eschatology.
Theology proper: Blaising argues that discussions of God and his attributes should not be abstract but should be rooted in God’s historical dealings with Israel. He argues that Yahweh’s revelation of himself to Moses on Sinai should be the starting point for theology proper.
Anthropology: Blaising believes that his view gives impetus for seeing the significance of ethnic diversity in God’s plan. Furthermore, the bringing in of the Gentiles in the NT should be viewed not as universalizing OT particulars but as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant’s promise the Israel will be a blessing to the nations.
Christology: Blaising believes that Jesus’s Jewishness, his Davidic descent—the fact that he is the Davidic Messiah—should play a larger role in our Christology. Specifically, the Davidic covenant background to the "Son of God" title needs further acknowledgement.
Ecclesiology: Blaising emphases here that the church is not a Gentile entity. It is a Jewish and Gentile entity. Therefore, the church should not insist that Jewish Christians give up their Jewishness. Blaising also argues that rabbinic Torah observance is not the only kind, and that there is a legitimate way for Christian Jews to observe the Torah. Blaising, however, needs to reckon with the movement from the Mosaic to the New Covenant and its implications. This movement happened for Jews and not for Gentiles only.
Eschatology: Blaising argues that a driving force behind supersessionism is a "spiritual-vision" eschatology that emphasizes the beatific vision. In this eschatology there is little place for physicality and as a nation Israel must be reduced to a symbol. Blaising argues to the contrary for a physical new earth, which provides a place for peoples and nations in the eschaton.
Aune, David E. "The Text-Tradition of Luke-Acts," JETS 7, no. 3 (Summer 1964): 69-80.
Contains some useful information about the carious text types in Luke-Acts. Note especially the discussion of the Western text and his account of the various viewpoints regarding it.
Tolkein, J. R. R. "A Secret Vice." In Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays. New York: HarperCollins, 1983.
An interesting lecture on inventing languages.
McClymond, Michael J. and Gerald R. McDermott. The Theology of Jonathan Edwards. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. [chapters 1-12]
In part one McClymond and McDermott place Edwards in his context, trace out his life and the development of his thought, and enumerate the themes that will run throughout this study. In part two they begin to look at the major concepts which shape how Edwards approached theology. The authors exhibit good knowledge of Edwards’s corpus and of the vast amount of literature that has been written about Edwards.
Reading Report for July 2012
Books
Harrison, Frank Mott. John Bunyan. Banner of Truth, 1964.
A biography written somewhat like a novel. It also manages to weave in copious quotations from source material (though at points it would be nice to have clarified what is quoted and what is imagined).
Holwerda, David E. Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Holwerda begins his book by noting the recent change regarding the status of Israel in broadly Christian theology. Supersessionism is on the wane; the new approach suggests that Christians and Israel function under two equal but distinct covenants (thus invalidating the need to seek Jewish converts to Christianity). Within this context, Holwerda seeks to defend supersessionism from Scripture. Holwerda is exegetically and theologically careful. He is also willing to grant what he views as the strong points of an opposing position. At times his argument seems to trend away from supersessionism before returning to it. For instance, he affirms that the land promises are "irrevocable." He denies that the exile or Israel’s unfaithfulness has canceled the promises. But he retains the supersessionist position by arguing that the NT universalizes the land promises (Eph. 6:2-3; Gal 3:16, 29) and moves beyond the particularities. This approach applies to each issue he covers: "The particular promises concerning land and city, temple and people, will find their fulfillment only within the structures of the universal fulfillment inaugurated in history by the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ" (181). In response, I fail to see why the particularities must be banished when promises are universalized. To be sure, symbols like the sacrificial system or the temple are replaced by the realty they symbolized. But Holwerda failed to demonstrate that the land, or Jerusalem, or the people of Israel are mere symbols. In fact, some of his discussion pointed the opposite direction (e.g., his argument that Romans 9-11 looks forward to the future salvation of the fullness of ethnic Israel). If the land, city, and people have inherent and not mere symbolic significance, why can the promises given to and about them not be fulfilled both in their particularities as well as in a universalized fashion? Holwerda’s failure to address this question is the primary weakness of his argument.
Articles
McCall, Thomas H. “Religious Epistemology, Theological Interpretation of Scripture, and Critical Biblical Scholarship: A Theologian’s Reflections.” In Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
McCall surveys recent approaches to epistemic justification and then applies the findings to critical biblical scholarship (CBS). He finds that critical biblical scholarship presumes an epistemology that is no longer widely accepted. He therefore doubts the right of CBS to command assent. It is possible to dismiss the findings of CBS and remain epistemically justified in doing so. Indeed, one may reject CBS and stand on much firmer epistemic ground than CBS itself. This is one of the most incisive essays in the book.
Kofoed, Jens Bruun. "The Old Testament as Cultural Memory." In Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
This was not the most lucid essay in the book, and it may even run counter to the overall emphasis that the actual historicity of the events recounted in the OT is essential.
Walton, John H.. “Ancient Near Eastern Background Studies.” In Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.
Walton states his view succinctly in the form of an if/then form:
"If:
"(a) comparative studies provide a window to the ancient worldview; and
"(b) Israel in large measure shared that ancient worldview; and
"(c) revelation was communicated through that worldview; and
"(d) that revelation embodies the theological teaching of the text;
"Then: comparative studies become crucial to the theological understanding of the OT" (41).
He unpacks the syllogism in five theses:
"1. God did not reject the entire-world-picture of Israel’s neighbors, but used much of its structure and framework for revelation" (41).
"2. God often used existing institutions and converted them to his theological purposes" (42).
"3. Revelation did not always counter ancient Near Eastern concepts, but often used them in productive ways" (42).
"4. Literary connections do not negate inspiration of Scripture" (43).
"5. Spiritualized explanations must not be chosen when cultural explanations are readily available" (43).
The strength of this article, especially given its location in a dictionary for theological interpretation, is its insistence that history and cultural context do matter for right interpretation of Scripture. Barthian and Childsian interpreters too often minimize or reject this point.
Nevertheless, problems emerge with the application of each of Walton’s theses.
1. Walton argues that Genesis 1 operates within a world-picture that understands the sky as a solid dome that is "holding back the cosmic waters above." To those who wish to interpret raqi’a as something other than a solid dome, Walton says, "Our doctrine of Scripture would be jeopardized if we felt free to conform the meanings of words to make them more comfortable to us" (42). But is not the inerrancy of Scripture (something I’m sure Walton affirms) jeopardized if Scripture affirms false world-pictures of surrounding cultures?
2. The thesis itself is true, and Walton rightly uses circumcision to illustrate it. But I believe he goes astray with a second illustration: "If we ask where the pre-Mosaic practice of sacrifice derived from, we would have to take the silence of the text as suggesting that it was of human invention, guided by Providence" (42). It is more probable that God instructed the first humans to offer sacrifices in worship and that the practice persisted even after the nations had fallen away from God. Scripture is not silent about the emergence of sacrifices. It testifies that they are practiced as early as Genesis 4. This makes the divine institution of sacrifices the more likely option.
3. Walton once again rightly notes that the temple structure used by Israel with its eastern orientation and levels of increasing sacred space was common in the ancient Near East. But he then says, "We would entirely miss the mark to allegorize the architectural features of the temple, trying to give them ‘theological’ meaning rather than finding meaning in the ancient Near Eastern background, as the Israelites would have. That they can be given allegorical meaning is arguably demonstrated in Hebrews. That the theological interpretation of the text is meant to be fond in allegory or that we have the freedom or ability to pursue such an approach with confidence is questionable" (42). Is Walton saying that the author of Hebrews was correct to find theological symbolic significance in the tabernacle’s structure (apart from ANE background), but that we are not? That has troubling implications for our understanding of apostolic hermeneutics. In any event, it is difficult to see why Walton is raising this objection. He has already granted under thesis 2 that ANE institutions can be "converted" to "theological purposes." Why can the Israelite tabernacle not have followed an ANE pattern and yet have its own distinct theological significance?
4. Walton is correct to discount attempts to relativize the Old Testament by claiming its theology is simply derivative of Babylonian or other ancient Near Eastern myths. He is also doubtless correct that many of the similarities between Scripture and ANE literature are due to shared culture rather than borrowing (though again with theological matters we should not discount the possibility that the nations corrupted original true knowledge of God and his ways). But it is quite another thing to assert that if the Bible were revealed in the modern world, the creation account would have been given in terms of "the big bang" or "evolution," whereas it was given in terms of ANE mythology. The OT may be culturally at home in the ancient Near East, but it cannot affirm the erroneous thinking of ANE cultures.
5. Walton’s two examples here are the tower of Babel (the people were building a ziggurat rather than trying to build a tower up to God through the heavens) and the sun stopping in Joshua 10 (an idiom relating to the alignment of the sun and moon and its perception by the Canaanites that it was an evil omen rather than a halting of the earth’s rotation). With the last example Walton neglects the precise wording of the passage. The sun and the moon stood still "until the nation too vengeance on their enemies," a time period specified in the text to have lasted "about a whole day" (10:13).
Walton’s theses are not entirely wrong (thesis one is the most problematic, and thesis five may draw too sharp a dichotomy), but he does seem to overestimate the importance of ANE background for understanding the text, and this over-estimation has caused him to deploy his theses in some uncareful and problematic ways.
Noll, Mark A. “Jonathan Edwards and Nineteenth Century Theology.” In Jonathan Edwards And the American Experience. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
In this essay Mark Noll documents the competing efforts to appropriate Edwards in the 19th century. Finney and the revivalists appealed to Edwards’s role in the First Great Awakening while rejecting his theology. Proponents of New England Theology, such as Edwards Amasa Park, argued that they were the true heirs to Edwards’s theology as opposed to the Old School Princetonians . Noll judged that argument unconvincing even at the time, especially on doctrines such as the freedom of the will and original sin. In those areas, Princetonian theology agreed with Edwards and New England Theology departed from him. The Princetonians, however, found Edwards’s approach to theology too speculative, and they found his Dissertation on the Nature of True Virtue problematic. Noll notes that the New England Theologians better understood the Dissertation and that, whatever the difference in the content of their theology and Edwards’s, they retained his bent for speculative theology. In fact, one of the differences between Princeton’s approach of Common Sense Realism and the New England Theology’s is that Princeton allowed Common Sense Realism to affect only its method for doing theology whereas it affected the content of New England Theology.
As the nineteenth century wore on Edwards’s views, especially on the freedom of the will, were subjected to numerous critiques. He fell out of favor until Perry Miller revived interest in the early twentieth century. Edwards found more favor in nineteenth century Scotland, especially among Thomas Chalmers and John McLeod Campbell (though the latter rejected penal substitutionary atonement).
Noll notes that Edwards remained significant not despite his difference from prevailing nineteenth century thought but because of it. "He was their foil" (280). More than that, however, "The final reason may well be that while others preached self-reliance or sang the song of the self, Edwards drove nearer the truth—that nothing can be saved without confronting its own damnation, that freedom is found within necessity, that the way to gain one’s life is to lose it" (281).
Cohick, Lynn H. "The Pastoral Letters." In The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament within Its Cultural Context. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.
I confess that I rarely find help in these sorts of books that I don’t already find in commentary introductions or throughout a commentary. Since the commentary always has a fuller treatment, I’d rather read the commentary.
Cole, Graham A. “The Peril of a ‘Historyless’ Systematic Theology.” In Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
Cole’s primary thesis in this essay is that Systematic Theology cannot presume to work in abstraction apart from the reality of the history presented in Scripture. The best part of his essay, however, was a discussion of accommodation that distinguishes Calvin’s view from the Socinian view. Sparks, the focus of critique, is closer to the Socinian view than the Calvinian.
Bergen, Robert D. "Word Distribution as an Indicator of Authorial Intention: A Study of Genesis 1:1-2:3." In DDo Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
This was an interesting study in literary analysis of a passage, but it seemed to have little to do with the thesis of the book.
Hilber, John W. “The Culture of Prophecy and Writing in the Ancient Near East.” In Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
Written evidence from the ancient Near East demonstrates that oral prophecies were often written down shortly after they were given and that the scribes who recorded them were concerned about accurately recording them (though they could range from paraphrase to actual selections of what the prophet said). Thus the critical assumption that the writings of the Old Testament prophets were written long after they were orally delivered and that scribes altered (and even contradicted) the original message is an assumption at odds with the culture of prophecy in the ancient Near East.
Thompson, Mark D. “The Divine Investment in Truth: Toward a Theological Account of Biblical Inerrancy.” In Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
Mark Thompson engages recent critics of inerrancy such as A. T. B. McGowan, Craig Allert, and Kenton Sparks. He argues that their critiques of inerrancy misunderstand classic statements of inerrancy (e.g., those by Warfield, Feinberg, and the Chicago Statement). His main concern, however, is to demonstrate that the doctrine has a broad theological grounding. He roots the doctrine in truthfulness of God. Scripture is both a divine and human-authored book, and Thompson links concursus to the doctrine of providence. He also distinguishes between to understandings of how God accommodates himself to humankind, distinguishing between Calvin’s and Socinius’s views. Nonetheless, it is often claimed that human language is not capable of communicating God’s inerrant intent to humans. Thompson counters that language is a creation of God. Though after the Fall it may be abused, it remains God’s creation and sufficient for his purposes in communicating to mankind. Finally, in light of the character of God just enunciated, Thompson deals with the passages that form Scripture’s own self-testimony to its inspiration.
Walton, John H. “New Observations on the Date of Isaiah.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 28, no. 2 (June 1985): 129-32.
Walton argues in three steps: First, he notes that "the events in Isaiah 36-39 are not in chronological order." The reversal of the chronological order is best explained by the desire to naturally shift the focus of the book from Assyria to Babylon. Thus chapters 40-66 must have been written at the time that chapters 36-39 were moved out of chronological order.
Second, "Kings used Isaiah as a source." Though Kings typically follows a chronological pattern, he breaks that pattern here. The break is best explained in terms of Isaiah’s purposes. There is no clear reason in Kings for moving the account out of chronological order. If Kings used Isaiah as a source, and if Isaiah’s ordering of the material depends on the existence of chapters 40-66, then chapter 40-66 must have been written by the time Kings was written.
Third, "The Hezekiah material in Kings, by almost any standard, is to be dated no later than the time of Josiah and Jeremiah."
Walton, John H. “Creation.” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003.
Walton teaches that Creation in the ancient Near East concerned functions rather than material. He argues this holds true for Genesis 1 as well since he finds Israel’s view of God distinct from the surrounding cultures but not their view of the cosmos. In his view, Genesis 1 is about the assigning of temple functions to the cosmos. Foundational to Walton’s view is his conception of the cosmos as a temple. He is able to demonstrate that in the ANE temples are regarded as the cosmos, but it is not clear that the cosmos was viewed as a temple in the ANE. The whole cosmos is the dwelling place of God. Temples are needed after Fall because sin brought about a condition in which man can no longer dwell with God. A temple mediates God’s presence to man. But to conclude that the cosmos is a temple seems to read the symbol back into the reality. Walton’s proposal (made in other works) that the seven day creation week indicates that Genesis 1 is about the inauguration of the cosmic temple (since seven day temple dedications existed in the ANE) also founders upon lack of evidence. As Walton himself notes, temple dedications were not uniformly seven days in length (Lost World, 181-82, n. 1). Perhaps those that are simply reflect the fact that a full week is an appropriate length of time for something as significant as a temple dedication. Walton’s argument would be more impressive if Moses had emphasized a seven day tabernacle dedication in a way that made clear connections to Genesis 1. If Moses intended the readers to understand the creation week as a temple inauguration, it would make sense for him to reinforce this with the tabernacle narrative. Thus its absence there is striking. The best Walton can do here is note that the Bible does not say whether the events in Exodus 40 took place in one day or over multiple days. He tries to bolster his case by noting that it did take place in connection with the new year (Ex. 40:2, 17), and in Babylon the new year was often a time for reenacting the temple inauguration (the Akitu festival). This observation does not help much, however, since there is no evidence that Israel had yearly inauguration reenactments. Thus Walton is forced to speculate: “The Bible contains no clear evidence of such festivals, but some see hints that they think point in that direction. It would be no surprise if they had such a festival and would be theologically and culturally appropriate” (Lost World, 89-91). This seems more like wishful thinking than marshaling convincing argumentation.
Walton, John H. “Inspired Subjectivity and Hermeneutical Objectivity,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 13, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 65-77.
Walton believes the New Testament authors operated (under inspiration) with a subjective hermeneutic that modern interpreters ought not imitate. A better guide to the New Testament’s use of the Old is G. K. Beale, “Positive Answer to the Question: Did Jesus and His Followers Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? An Examination of the Presuppositions of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ Exegetical Method,” in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?: Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, ed. G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 387-404.
Walton, John H. “Isa 7:14: What’s in a Name?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 10, no. 3 (September 1987): 289-306.
Lewis, C. S. "Animal Pain." In The Problem of Pain. New York: HarperCollins, 1940.
Lewis’s essay on animal pain is ultimately unsatisfying in terms of its conclusions, but, as typical with Lewis, it contains helpful insights throughout. He rightly notes that animal pain is a part of the problem of evil that theologians must address. Further, those who grant evolution are forced to abandon the classic solution to the problem of animal pain: that it entered the world upon Adam’s fall (137). In addition, Lewis notes, “The fact that vegetable lives ‘prey upon’ one another and are in a state of ‘ruthless’ competition is of no moral importance at all. ‘Life’ in the biological sense has nothing to do with good and evil until sentience appears” (133). This is an important fact since some theistic evolutionists try to dismiss the argument that death entered the world through Adam by arguing that eating plants or even the existence of skin demands the presence of death before the Fall (Walton, Lost World, 100).
Joad, C. E. M. and C. S. Lewis, “The Pains of Animals: A Problem in Theology.” In The Collected Works of C.S. Lewis. New York: Inspirational Press, 1996.
C.E.M. Joad was willing to grant the free will defense to the problem of evil, nevertheless he raises an additional problem, “But now I come to a difficulty, to which I see no solution; indeed, it is in the hope of learning one that this article is written. This is the difficulty of animal pain, and, more particularly, of the pain of the animal world before man appeared upon the cosmic scene.” In the article he proceeds to outline the deficiencies in Lewis’s chapter on animal pain in The Problem of Pain. Lewis responded by correcting some misapprehensions, but he did not advance his theory further.
Stambaugh, James. “Whence Cometh Death? A Biblical Theology of Physical Death and Natural Evil.” In Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth. Edited by Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury. Green Forest, AR: Master, 2008.
An excellent survey of the problems of death preceding the Fall. His study of the relevant biblical words confirms Lewis’s observations death words applied to non-sentient life are used metaphorically and that morally significant pain and death applies only to sentient life.
Nettles, Tom J. Review of The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World, by William A. Dembski. Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 13, no. 4 (Winter 2009): 80-85.
William Dembski is one of the few old earth creationists who take seriously the problem of death and suffering before the Fall. He develops an imaginative solution in which the fall precedes death and suffering in kairos-time but in which the order is reversed in chronos-time. Nettles’s review is an excellent rebuttal of this strange proposal.
Johnston, P. S. “Death and Resurrection.” New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000.
Murray, John. “The Fall of Man.” In Collected Writings of John Murray. Volume 2. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1977.
Christ or Criticism
For Sparks it comes to this: either the views of Jesus or the assured conclusions of CBS [Critical Biblical Scholarship]. At least we know what the choice is. What we do not yet know is what good reasons there might be for preferring CBS over the views of Jesus. Sparks points out that the statements of Jesus probably were not ‘historical-critical testimonies.’ Surely Sparks is right; I am tempted to say, ‘Of course Jesus was not engaged in historical-critical research.’ But how is this even relevant. If—and only if—historical-critical research were the only way that Jesus might learn about the authorship of the Pentateuch (or other matters), then we might have good reason to dismiss the claims of Jesus. But why think that Jesus would have had to do historical-critical research to know such things? I can readily think of other possible ways of knowing—for starters, being the omniscient incarnate Son might be relevant. Perhaps this is too quick, for Sparks says that we may need to reevaluate our commitment to classical christology.
—Thomas H. McCall, “Religious Epistemology, Theological Interpretation of Scripture, and Critical Biblical Scholarship,” in Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture, ed. James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 49.
What is perhaps more baffling than the position he takes is that Sparks seems to expect evangelicals to accept his proposals as legitimate evangelical positions when it is not clear that the positions are even Christianpositions.
Books and Articles Read in June
Books
Robertson, O. Palmer. The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2000.
I’ve greatly benefited from O. Palmer Robertson’s work in the past, especially his The Christ of the Prophets. I am frequently refreshed by his forthright rejection of critical theories that stand at odds with Scripture’s testimony to itself. I therefore picked up The Israel of God in the hope that it would provide me with the best argumentation for the position that the Israel of God in the New Testament are the elect Jews and Gentiles who have been brought together in the church (with the implication that there is no future role for the people of Israel in God’s redemptive plan). While there are some helpful sections (e.g., a critique of Childs’ canonical criticism; a study of Melchizedek; a study of the wilderness theme), I was disappointed by the level of argumentation for the book’s primary thesis. Sometimes Robertson simply asserts things that he ought to argue for (e.g., that the land of Israel is a type and only a type). Most significantly, his treatment of Galatians 6:16, a foundational text for his thesis, contains little interaction with opposing views, leading to an overconfidence in his position. He states that taking the kai as epexegetical (so that "the Israel of God" is equated with "all those who walk according to this canon") is the "only explanation of Paul’s phrase . . . that satisfies the context as well as the grammar of the passage." But S. Lewis Johnson demonstrated that it is possible for the "Israel of God" to be a subset of "all those who walk according to this canon," a view that Robertson never considers.* As a result of the overconfidence that "Israel of God" must refer to elect Jews and Gentiles alike, much of the rest of the exegesis seems forced. I had the same feeling that I get when I read some dispensationalists who argue that the kingdom is not currently present in any form. They can get the passages to conform to their theology through exegesis that is possible. But it doesn’t seem to be the most probable reading of the texts. This is especially the case for Robertson when seeks to prove that the salvation "all Israel" in Romans 11 refers to the salvation of Jews and Gentiles throughout the present age. He can get the exegesis to work, but his readings are not the most likely.
*S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., "Paul and the "Israel of God: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study," in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 184, n. 22, 187-88. (This essay is also reprinted in The Master’s Seminary Journal [Spring 2009]: 41-55).
Richardson, Peter. Israel in the Apostolic Church. Cambridge: The University Press, 1969.
Richardson’s research led him to conclude that the term "Israel" was not applied to the church until Justin Martyr so applied it in A. D. 160. Though some hints or steps toward this application were made earlier in the fathers, and indeed, in the New Testament, the actual step did not take place until that point. With regard to Galatians 6:16 Richardson concludes: "We suggest it [Ισραήλ του Θεου] is those within Israel to whom God will show mercy—all those Israelites who are going to come to their senses and receive the good news of Christ . . . . This means that Galatians 6:16 does not presuppose that the church has taken over the name Israel for itself." Richardson does think, however, that a process was begun in the early church that culminated in Justin’s conclusion. The church recognized a certain continuity between itself and Israel and would apply mutually descriptive terms such as "elect" or "brothers." It slowly began to adopt more significant terms such as "people." Two things remained before the title "Israel" itself could be adopted. First, the church had to see itself as third entity, neither Jew or Gentile, rather than a group within Israel. Second, Jesus had to be envisioned as the true Israel (via the Son of Man and Servant terminology). Once that step had been taken, his body, the church could be identified as Israel.
At many points Richardson has provided helpful analyses, but his work is hampered by his critical stance. This leads causes him to attribute different theologies to the varying NT authors, and it in other ways adversely affects his exegesis.
Soulen, R. Kendall. The God of Israel and Christian Theology. Fortress Press, 1996.
Christian’s cooperation with Nazi persecution and slaughter of Europe’s Jewish population. Soulen concludes that the problem is deeply rooted in Christianity’s construal of the biblical narrative. A solution to the problem of supersessionism thus involves reimagining the biblical narrative. Soulen rejects placing redemption at the center of the Christian narrative, and he rejects placing Christ as the "unifying center" of the two testaments. Instead each testament is to be allowed to have its own focus. Furthermore, while the church has a mission to make disciples of all nations, it has no mission to convert Jews to the church. Israel and the church have two separate missions in God’s purposes. Soulen’s reimagining theology is creative but exegetically thin. He interacts briefly with Romans 11 but he entirely neglects key passages such as Ephesians 2 and Acts 4.
Bucer, Martin. Concerning The True Care of Souls. Edited by David F. Wright. Translated by Peter Beale. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1538.
Both helpful pastorally and also interesting historically. On the latter score, it was interesting the role that penance still played for Bucer. It was no longer a sacrament, but it was still present. I’ve also been reading some early Luther, and he held on to penance as a sacrament in the early years, though within a few years of his break with Rome concluded that it was not in any way a sacrament.
Kaiser, Walter C. Preaching and Teaching the Last Things: Old Testament Eschatology for the Life of the Church. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011.
Kaiser had a great line up of topics mapped out in the table of contents. However, those looking for comprehensive treatment of those topics should look elsewhere since Kaiser primarily takes one passage related to the topic and provides a model exposition. These expositions vary in their value from quite helpful to somewhat idiosyncratic.
Fee, Gordon D. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988. [read introduction and 1 Timothy section ]
Excellent defense of Pauline authorship in the introduction; disagreed with his position on women and ministry and did not find the exegesis on that point compelling; found the commentary on 1 Timothy to do a good job of explaining how the letter fits together, how the parts relate to the whole.
Luther, Martin. Word and Sacrament I. Luther’s Works. Volume 35. Edited by Helmut T. Lehmann and E. Theodore Bachmann. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1960.
Read the following (did not read materials related translation):
"The Sacrament of Penance" (1519)
"The Holy and Blessed Sacrament of Baptism" (1519)
"The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods" (1519)
"A Treatise on the New Testament, that is, the Holy Mass" (1520)
"A Brief Instruction on what to Look for and Expect in the Gospels" (1521)
"Avoiding the Doctrines of Men and a Reply to the Texts Cited in Defense of the Doctrines of Men" (1522)
"How Christians should Regard Moses" (1525)
Luther’s treatments of the sacraments in this volume are early, and the introductions in this edition are very helpful in placing these treatises in the development of Luther’s thought (for instance, at this point Luther had reduced the sacraments from seven to three; later he would reduce them to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper). Luther’s primary goal in the treatises on the sacraments is to respond to abuses in the medieval church.
The title to Luther’s "Brief Instruction" is potentially misleading, for it does not provide a guide to the four gospels. Rather, Luther mounts the argument that the gospel is found throughout the New Testament. He contrasts the promises of the gospel with the works of the Law demanded by Moses.
In "Avoiding the Doctrines of Men" Luther argues against the addition of rules, such as avoiding certain foods on certain days, or the rules of monastic orders, as binding on Christians or certain groups of Christians. He also replies to claims that the Scripture itself supports the creation of these human commandments.
In "How Christians should Regard Moses" Luther argues that the law cannot produce righteousness or good works. The Christian must distinguish the law and the gospel. The law says, "do this." The gospel says, "This is what God has done for you." In addition, the Law was given to Israel, not to the Christian. This does not mean, however, that there is no commonality between what God expected of Israel and what he expects of Christians—what is required by natural law, is required both of Israelite and Christian. Luther warns that obeying one part of the Mosaic law as Mosaic law binds one to the whole, but at the same time he does not dismiss the significance of the law for the Christian. The law contains fine examples of law that could be reused (e.g., some of its concrete implementations of natural law can provide guidance to Gentile nations for their implementation of natural law), the law contains many promises, and the law contains examples both good and bad from which the Christian should learn.
I enjoyed the writings on the law and the gospel the most. I think Luther is in general correct in his assessment of the place of the law, though I also think that greater room for the third use of the law can and should be made within this framework.
Articles
Hoffmeier, James K. “‘These Things Happened’: Why a Historical Exodus Is Essential for Theology.” In Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
In light of Kenton Sparks’s attack on traditional evangelicals as obscurantist for insisting on the historicity of biblical events, such as the exodus, Hoffmeier documents both the problematic methodology of the critics and evidence for a historical exodus. He further maintains that a historical exodus is necessary for sound theology and for the health of the church.
Yarbrough, Robert W. “God’s Words in Human Words: Form-Critical Reflections.” In Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
Yarbrough begins his essay with a brief review of "form criticism," a critical approach to Scripture dominant from the 1920s to the 1950s. This critical approach sought to classify the teachings of Christ or Gospel narratives, to determine a life setting in the church that gave rise to the story, and then to reconstruct the history of the units until they reached their final written form. Yarbrough proposes in this essay to analyze Kenton Sparks’s book from a form-critical standpoint.
There is some irony in this approach to evaluation. Sparks is encouraging evangelicals to embrace critical methodology (and castigates those who refuse to do so). By evaluating him in terms of a now-superseded methodology Yarbrough subtly questions the wisdom of Sparks’s fulsome embrace of biblical criticism.
Yarbrough proposes that Sparks’s book falls into the "shift story" form. That is, it tells the story of one who has shifted form one religious position to another. In Sparks’ case he shifted from traditional evangelical beliefs to those of the critics as he studied under John Van Seters. In examining this form Yarbrough documents shift stories of others who moved from critical positions to positions of belief: Heinz Cassirer (1903-1979), Eta Linnemann (d. 2009), and the stories of Victorian skeptics who became Christians documented by Timothy Larsen in Crisis of Doubt. These shift stories that move in the opposite direction from Sparks expose a weakness account. In his telling, evangelicals hold to their position "because of unthinking traditionalism or partisan loyalty" (333, Yarbrough’s words). But what of those whose research moved them toward evangelical beliefs about Scripture?
Yarbrough next turns to the Sitz im Leben of Sparks’s book. Sparks wrote in a context in which a number of scholars’ embrace of critical methodologies and rejection of biblical historical accuracy led to their abandonment of Christianity. Bart Ehrman and William Dever are among the more prominent names discussed. Given this Sitz im Leben Yarbrough notes, "The academic enterprise in its frequent post- if not anti-confessional dress may represent a greater threat to historic Christian faith than Sparks’s book indicates" (336). Thus it should not "be thought innovative, progressive, or attractively risqué that an ‘evangelical’ Bible teacher turns on forebears, peers, and elders in the guild and takes a sizeable step toward the embrace of a contrasting set of authority figures at the point of one of Christianity’s foundational teachings: the doctrine of Scripture" (337).
Yarbrough finally turns to the community out of which shift stories such as Sparks’s come, and he notes that the history of criticism is full of men who have grown up in devout homes, often pastor’s homes, and lost their faith by embracing criticism. Sparks does not wish to travel that road to its destination, but Yarbrough urges caution since the criticism Sparks advocates "has little to no record of fostering or aiding Christian belief" (342).
In the end, Yarbrough finds more promise for the next generation of evangelicalism in the rise of robustly confessional Christians in the global south than in old world criticism.
Blomberg, Craig L. “A Constructive Traditional Response to New Testament Criticism.” In Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
Kenton Sparks argues that evangelicals should abandon traditional approaches to the critics and adopt "’constructive’ responses to biblical criticism" (346), by which he seems to mean abandon the historicity of Scripture at disputed points and adopt the critics’ unbelieving posture. Blomberg finds Sparks’s denunciations of traditional harmonizations and defenses of Scripture’s historicity over the top. He responds by demonstrating in a number of test cases (the timing of the Passover in John, the number of temple cleansings, and mention of Abiathar in Mark 2:26) that these represent reasonable exegetical approaches to the text—approaches that are in some cases clearly superior to the critics. On the other hand, Blomberg chastises those on his right for ruling out of bounds critical conclusions (e.g., the pseudonymity of some NT epistles or claims that part of Matthew is midrash rather than history) when these conclusions are reached in a manner that safeguards inerrancy. Blomberg says these conclusions may be challenged by challenging the exegesis or the background assumptions, but they ought not be ruled out of bounds on the basis of being incompatible with inerrancy. No doubt Blomberg is correct that the methodology must be examined, but if it is found to be faulty, there should be no problem in proclaiming the conclusion incompatible with inerrancy. Furthermore, it is not a fault for more conservative theologians and exegetes to be suspicious when evangelicals develop strained methodologies that enable them to embrace critical conclusions and inerrancy at the same time.
Bock, Darrell L. “Precision and Accuracy: Making Distinctions in the Cultural Context That Give Us Pause in Pitting the Gospels Against Each Other.” In Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
Bock surveys various alleged discrepancies between the Gospels and seeks to demonstrate that they are not in conflict but simply reflect differing levels of precision. They are all accurate, but not equally precise. He uses the three accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts to demonstrate that such variations can be expected even within the work of a single author. Overall his solutions are helpful, though there is perhaps too much confidence in the two source solution to the synoptic problem. Nor was I convinced that positing an "updated saying" is necessary for reconciling the disciples’ opening question in the Olivet discourse.
Pinson, J. Matthew. “Thomas Grantham’s Theology of Atonement and Justification.” Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry 8, no. 1 (Spring 2011): 7-21.
Pinson compares Thomas Grantham’s theology, especially his soteriology, with that of influential Arminian John Goodwin. According to Pinson, Grantham "differed from the Calvinists in his doctrines of election, the extent of atonement, the resistibility of grace, and the perseverance of the saints. On these subjects he agreed with his fellow Arminians. Yet he differed substantially with his Arminian counterparts on the doctrines of sin and depravity, human inability, the nature of atonement and justification by faith, and what was involved in falling from grace" (10). Pinson focuses this article on Grantham’s defense of penal substitution as contrasted with Goodwin’s moral influence approach.
Davis, Thomas W. “Saint Paul on Cyprus: The Transformation of an Apostle.” In Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
Davis provides extensive social and historical information about Cyprus and then draws some sketchy theological conclusions at the end (e.g., it was this encounter that enabled Paul to overcome reticence to actually engage in the mission to the Gentiles).
Haykin, Michael A. G. “Fundamentum Et Colomnam Fidei Nostrae: Irenaeus on the Perfect and Saving Nature of the Scriptures.” In Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
Haykin presents a brief biography of Irenaeus followed by an argument that he taught inerrancy against the Gnostics who taught the apostles had erred in their writings.
McCall, Thomas H. “I Believe in Divine Sovereignty.” Trinity Journal 29, no. 2 (Fall 2008): 2050.
Piper, John. “I Believe in God’s Self-Sufficiency: A Response to Thomas McCall.” Trinity Journal 29, no. 2 (Fall 2008): 227-34.
McCall, Thomas H. “We Believe in God’s Sovereign Goodness: A Rejoinder to John Piper.” Trinity Journal 29, no. 2 (Fall 2008): 235-45.
In this trio of articles, McCall argues against deterministic accounts of God’s sovereignty. He argues that non-deterministic alternatives avoid theological problems, though he does not unpack an explanation of the alternative. More particularly he argues that John Piper’s (and before him, Jonathan Edwards’s) account of divine sovereignty undermines the asetiy of God because the essence of God is to be glorified and demonstrating wrath toward unrepentant sinners is a necessary part of his receiving his fully glory. Thus the creation of the world (indeed the creation of world that would fall) is necessary to the being of God.
Piper confesses that some of his statements could be misread this way, but denies the conclusion. He notes the difficulty of affirming both God’s utter self-sufficiency and ascribing purpose to the creation. Nonetheless, he believes Scripture constrains us to do both.
McCall, in his rejoinder, does not think that Piper has escaped the original charge concerning aseity. He also raises the charge that God is a moral monster if he determines all things (including sin and suffering) for his own glory.
McCall’s critiques are highly philosophical in nature. This led me to think as McCall was arguing, "is that a necessary conclusion from what was said?" or "but what if the Bible does teach both this and that?" McCall would have been more convincing if he had expounded an alternative to Piper’s view on firm exegetical grounding.
Averbeck, Richard E. “Pentateuchal Criticism and the Priestly Torah.” In Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
Averbeck surveys critical approaches to the Pentateuch and then critiques them with a case study on Exodus 19-24. Though he is gentle (perhaps too gentle) in stating his conclusions, he finds that critical methodologies often obscure rather than illumine the text (at one point he says of source critics: "It is as if ancient writers could not hold two related concepts together. The assumption is that such a tension must be explained diachronically." But if the assumption is bad the scholar spends a lot of time chasing the wind instead of examining how the two concepts relate).Averbeck is careful to affirm critical thinking and eschew facile harmonizations, but he denies that one has to adopt the premises of the critics to think critically.
Books and Articles Read in May 2012
Books
Hill, C. E. Who Chose the Gospels?: Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy. Oxford University Press, 2010.
The fictional claims of Dan Brown, the sensationalized claims of Bart Ehrman, and the more scholarly arguments of Lee Martin McDonald, Ehrman, and others have promoted the idea of an early Christian movement notable for theological diversity. According to this storyline, the imposition of orthodoxy and a church-dictated canon of Scriptures stifled the creative diversity of the early church. Hill challenges this view by demonstrating that it is based on a faulty methodology, overstatements, and a sloppy handling of the evidence.
For instance, one scholar claims that "gospels were breeding like rabbits" (2). Yet that scholar finally lists only nine non-canonical gospels that have been discovered. This scholar calls his listing "partial." Hill notes, "It is not unlikley that more Gospels might have circulated before 175. But if they once existed, they have left no record, even in later lists of books to be avoided" (8).
Since Irenaeus provides an early testimony to the four-gospel canon, scholars promoting a late canon must marginalize him as an aberration (and not very nice, to boot). But Hill documents at least eight theologians (some of note) close to the time of Irenaeus who share his four gospel canon (Hill also argues that Irenaeus wasn’t as mean as some people make him out to be).
Having established that Irenaeus and the church of his era did have a four-gospel canon, Hill then works his way back by looking the citations of the four gospels and non-canonical works in the church fathers, gospel harmonies, and even the writings of the non-orthodox to demonstrate that evidence for the four gospel canon extends back to the early second century. Hill is fair in his interpretations of the evidence, noting when some of it is not as clear or a certain as other evidence.
So, to restate the title question, Who chose the Gospels? Hill’s answer to that question toward the end of the book is worth quoting at length:
Who, then, first chose the Gospels, if it wasn’t anybody in the fourth century? It wasn’t Origen, Tertullian, or Hippolytus in the first half of the third century, or Clement of Alexandria or Serapion at the end of the second. It wasn’t even Irenaeus or anyone writing in the last quarter of the second century. All these had inherited the same four Gospels from previous generations.
It wasn’t Tatian in Rome or Syria or Theophilus in Antioch. . . . It wasn’t Justin Martyr, who by the early 150s in Rome was using the same four Gospels, and treating evidently only these four as ‘Memoirs of the Apostles,’ composed by the apostles and their followers . . .
The evidence brings us, then, to an earlier time. But how much earlier? While the date prior to 150 are not quite so clear, the four Gospels are known as authoritative sources in the Epistle of the Apostles and the Apocryphon of James in the 140s. Papias, probably in the 120s, knows all four; Aristides, at about the same time, knows ‘the Gospel’ in multiple individual written expression, including Luke and John, and a decade earlier Ignatius knows at least Matthew and John. And sometime around the year 100 Papias’ elder discusses the origins of Matthew and Mark, and, if the argument summarized in chapter 10 is near the mark, Luke and John as well.
How is it that these four Gospels came to be known so widely from such an early time? There was certainly no great council of Christian churches before 150 which laid down the law on which Gospels to use. No single bishop, not even the bishop of Rome, should he ever have made such a proclamation (and there is no reason to think he did), had the clout to make it stick. If there was any authoritative figure who endorsed the four Gospels, the most viable option would have to be, as a tradition known to Origen and possibly Papias’ elder said, the aged apostle John. Such a story is a long, long way from historical verification, though that fact in itself does not make it impossible.
But if we set aside that story as likely to be legendary, our search appears to have reached a dead-end. We cannot find who chose the Gospels. It looks like nobody did. They almost seem to have chosen themselves through some sort of ‘natural selection.’ And this at least concurs with the conclusion of Bruce Metzger, one of the last generation’s premier scholars of the New Testament canon, who wrote, ‘neither individuals nor councils created the canon; instead they came to recognize and acknowledge the self0authenticating quality of these writings which imposed themselves as canonical upon the church" (227-29).
The idea of self-authenticating Scriptures may not sit well with some, but Hill notes that this best with the way the early Christians spoke about the gospels: "Christian writers of the second century do not speak of choosing the Gospels or of the criteria they might have created for making such choices. This is not the way they thought. When speaking of the church’s part in the process they instead use works like ‘receive,’ recognize,’ ‘confess,’ ‘acknowledge,’ and their opposites" (231).
In sum, Hill’s believing stance, tight argumentation, and engaging writing style made this one of the best books I’ve read this year. As an added benefit, I think it makes a marvelous case study in presuppositional apologetics that makes good use of evidences (though I must admit that I do not know how Hill would self-identify in terms of apologetic method).
Letham, Robert. Union with Christ: In Scripture, History, and Theology. P&R, 2011.
This is not an introductory book to the union of Christ theme. To adequately evaluate this book, I’d first need know a good deal about the doctrine already and then know something of the Greek Orthodox doctrine of deification to know whether Letham is making appropriate use of it in his discussion. I also find his view of union more sacramental—not Roman Catholic, but more Nevin than Hodge. In the end I came away without any clear definition of what union with Christ is.
Lewis, C. S. The Screwtape Letters. Focus on the Family Radio Theater. [Audiobook]
This is a well-done dramatization of a book that is difficult to dramatize (being a collection of letters). That said, I think I would probably prefer a well read audiobook to the dramatization with this particular book.
Greenblatt, Stephen. Hamlet in Purgatory.. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
A Protestant Hamlet just returned from Wittenburg is confronted by his father’s purgatorial ghost. This strange happening sets Greenblatt off on a quest to understand the development of purgatory and the Protestant polemic against it. Eventually Greenblatt applies his research to Shakespeare’s plays and to Hamlet in particular. The research on purgatory and it’s reception history is well done.
Cole, Graham. God the Peacemaker: How Atonement Brings Shalom. Inter-Varsity Press, 2009.
This is a good book. Cole covers a great deal of ground from the nature and character of God to his ultimate goal for creation and redemption: his glory–and much in between. But this also proved to be a weakness of the book. It seems that he could have dropped material covered in depth in other works to focus on less treated aspects of the atonement which he was able to cover only superficially given his scope. His subtitle, "How atonement brings shalom" does not receive an in-depth answer. Nonetheless, it is a good book that points the intermediate theologian in the right direction on a number of crucial issues relating to the atonement.
Athanasius. On the Incarnation. Crestwood, NY: 1944; repr., St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1977.
Athanasisus’s work on the incarnation is actually a full theology organized in a creation, fall , redemption, apologetics structure. It is not without occasional errors, as Lewis notes in his justly famous introduction to this translation, but for the most part it is rich, devotion-inspiring theology. In his introduction, Lewis wrote, "For my own part I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the devotional books, and I rather suspect that the same experience may away may others. I believe that many who find that ‘nothing happens’ when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that their heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology" (8). That is certainly true with this work.
DiCamillo, Kate. Because Of Winn-Dixie. Cambridge, MA: Candlewick Press, 2000.
Leedy, Randy. Love Not the World: Winning the War Against Worldliness. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 2012.
Discussing topics such as worldliness or eternal punishment or ecclesiastical boundaries are rarely enjoyable. The gospel, the new heavens and new earth, or the missionary advance of the church are more engaging topics. Nevertheless, ecclesiastical boundaries are necessary for healthy missionary advance. Understanding the punishment we all deserve for our guilt and sin is important for fully understanding the salvation we have in Christ. And understanding and applying Scriptural teaching about the world is essential for living out the gospel and its implications.
Leedy’s study of biblical theme of the world breaks into three parts. In two chapters he defines the world. Though this terminology is New Testament in origin, Leedy finds a parallel in Old Testament warnings for Israel not to conform to the nations. Since God’s New Testament people are multi-national, the Bible shifts from warning against conformity to the nations to warning against conformity to the world. Leedy does a good job documenting why this shift was necessary as well as surveying the varying senses of kosmos and aion, the two Greek words typically translated "world" in English versions. This section could have been strengthened, in my opinion, by reducing the space given to describing the difficulty that early Jewish Christians had in embracing Gentile Christians to make space for an examination of why world or age replaces nations in these warnings.*
The core of the book deals with the difficult task of defining what worldliness is. Based on the theological definition developed in the first part of the book, Leedy surveys various New Testament passages that describe worldliness. From this survey he is able to chart and categorize the explicit Scriptural descriptions of worldliness. But what about issues that the Scripture does not directly address? Leedy argues that the open-ended nature of Scriptural vice-lists compels Christians to acknowledge that Scripture does not provide a comprehensive list of worldly behaviors and attitudes to avoid. In other words, simply because it doesn’t show up in Scripture as explicitly prohibited doesn’t mean a Christian has the liberty to love it or do it. On the other hand, Leedy warns against simply adopting human lists of dos and don’ts. In the face of these false alternatives, Scripture demands discernment, and Leedy illustrates this by examining passages in which Scripture models this demand for discernment. His treatment of 1 Corinthians 8-10 is masterful, providing not only a clear outline of Paul’s argument but also a model for understanding how the epistolary authors reason with their readers. With this Scripture foundation in place, Leedy sets up a framework for applying Scripture to present-day culture.
The book’s final chapter moves into practical thoughts about overcoming worldliness. It begins with a serious consideration of cost of worldliness, before moving toward practical steps for resisting worldliness. This application is firmly grounded on the recognition of what Christ has accomplished in overcoming the world. Sanctification is not a matter of mere will power. It does involve means of grace, however. Leedy lists, "the indwelling Spirit, Scripture, prayer, and fellowship with other believers," and he develops at length the role Scripture study and meditation play in overcoming worldliness. No doubt space constraints played a role in focusing on Scripture, but this section would have been strengthened by a consideration of the other elements listed. I would have been especially interested in a discussion about the role of the indwelling Spirit.
In all, Leedy has provided a helpful guidebook to a distasteful but very important topic.
Articles
Hess, Richard S. “Yahweh’s ‘Wife’ and Belief in One God in the Old Testament.” In Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
By the late 1970 archaeological discoveries revealed inscriptions that paired Yahweh with Asherah. This has led some scholars to assert that the Israelites were not monotheistic until the time of Josiah or even until the time of the exile. Hess looks at inscriptions, cultic sites, iconography, and the presence of the divine name in people’s name. He concludes that it is difficult to demonstrate that monotheism did not exist early in Israel’s history. Furthermore, the difficulties in explaining how monotheism arose in the time of Josiah or during the exile coupled with the heavy dominance of the name of Yahweh in Israelite personal names makes the earlier existence of monotheism probable. Since Hess is arguing from archaeological evidence alone, this is the best conclusion he can reach. He does not engage in a defense of traditional dating of the biblical books nor does he make his case from Scripture.
Gumerlock, Francis X. “Mark 13:32 and Christ’s Supposed Ignorance: Four Patristic Solutions.” Trinity Journal 28, no. 2 (Fall 2007): 205-13.
The solutions Gumerlock documents are as follows: (1) Basil of Caesarea argued that the correct translation of the verse is "But of that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, if not (ei me) the Father." Thus Jesus was claiming that he did know the time of his return, though if he was not one with the Father he would not know. (2) Augustine argues that know is used in the figurative sense reveal. The Son knows, but does not reveal the day or hour of his return. There is biblical precedence for this use of know (cf. Deut. 13:3). (3) Gregory of Tours takes son as a figurative designation for the church and father as a figurative designation for Christ (cf. John 13:33; Heb. 2:13). Further support for this view may be found in in the context of the Olivet discourse in which Jesus does describe his relationship to his followers in relational symbols (bridegroom/virgin; master/servant; thief/servant). (4) Athanasius taught that Jesus was conceding limited knowledge in his humanity while not denying the his divine omniscience.
Gumerlock notes that the fourth view is currently most popular, but it also raises the most serious theological objections. Subsequent to Athanasisus theologians came to believe that this position had Nestorian tendencies by ascribing knowledge to a nature and not to the person. And yet, opponents to the fourth solution do have trouble with other verses: Luke 2:52 and Heb. 5:8. The other three options do not raise serious theological problems, but they raise exegetical objections. Basil’s interpretation makes sense of the Greek text in Mark, but it runs contrary to the parallel passage, Matthew 24:36. Augustine’s view, taken consistently, would not deny knowledge of the timing of Christ’s return to persons or angels but simply affirms that those who know will not reveal it until the Father reveals it. Gumerlock finds this less likely in light of 1 Thess. 5:2; Rev. 3:3; Acts 1:7. Gregory of Tours’ interpretation is imaginative, but there is no compelling reason to think that Jesus intended his language here to be taken as symbolic.
In the end Gumerlock remains agnostic about the actual solution and maintains that all four patristic solutions are viable if not unproblematic.
Hasel, Michale G. “New Excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa and the Early History of Judah.” In DDo Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
Argues against minimalists who deny a united kingdom. He bases his argument on the new excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa.
Dvorak, James D. “John H. Elliott’s Social-Scientific Criticism.” Trinity Journal 28, no. 2 (Fall 2007): 251-278.
Dvorak argues that there is value for an interpreter to consider his own and the biblical author’s cultural backgrounds. It also helps interpreters avoid "theological docetism"—seeing theology as the only important aspect of the biblical text. Social-Scientific criticism can supplement and revitalize historical-critical approaches. Three dangers, exist, however. First, the interpreter may "over-read" the text and over-value his guesses as to what cultural element is reflected in the text. Second, the interpreter should not over-value this approach and undervalue other interpretive approaches. Third, the interpreter must be careful of eisegesis: reading a cultural situation into a text rather than out of the text.
Hoffmeier, James K. “Ramses of the Exodus Narrative Is the 13th Century B. C. Royal Ramesside Residence.” Trinity Journal 28, no. 2 (Fall 2007): 281-89.
Hoffmeier seems to have corrected some errors in a particular defense of the early date for the exodus, but his exegetical arguments for the later date remain unpersuasive.
Schnabel, Eckhard J. “Paul, Timothy, and Titus: The Assumption of a Pseudonymous Author and of Pseudonymous Recipients in the Light of Literary, Theological, and Historical Evidence.” In Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
Schnabel does a good job debunking the arguments against Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles. Schnabel also investigates the views of the early church regarding pseudipigraphal writings and concludes that the church was not receptive of such writings. He concludes by examining the theological consequences of concluding the pastorals were not written by Paul. This investigation of the theological issues raised by points of biblical introduction is welcome.
Smith, James K. A. “Reforming Public Theology: Two Kingdoms, or Two Cities?” Calvin Theological Journal 47 (2012): 122-137.
Smith argues that VanDrunen and others are wrong to conflate Augustine’s Two Cities and Luther’s Two Kingdoms. A Christian cannot be a citizen of the Two Cities while he ought to be a citizen of both kingdoms. Smith finds the two cities paradigm more useful since it better reflects that antithesis between the Christian and the world while not raising that antithesis to the point where limited cooperation with unbelievers is impossible. Smith also believes that VanDrunen confuses the ontological existence of natural law with the epistemological question of an unbeliever’s knowledge of it. Smith does agree with VanDrunen and related scholars’ ecclesial emphasis and on the objections to neo-Calvinist triumphalism.
Ortiz, Steven M. “The Archaeology of David and Solomon: Method or Madness.” In Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
Reviews and demonstrates fallacies related to the low dating of Finkelstein and co.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- …
- 81
- Next Page »