Seeking the truth...

Song of Songs: A Plan of Attack

2012-01-18T07:30:00.000-06:00

So I've started working through some background on Song of Songs. Hopefully within four to six weeks a post or two will start rolling out here. I thought I'd give you all a heads up on my plan of attack.

This study will probably move slowly, both because I'm sure I'll get sidetracked for various reasons and because I want to try to do a fairly detailed study. I'll be working out of the LXX for three reasons. Two of them are practical - I don't know Hebrew and I need to sharpen my Greek. Thirdly, though, in our quest to recover the 'original' reading (I'm not sure what exactly constitutes an original reading for most OT texts, Song of Songs included), we've often completely shelved the LXX in favor of the Hebrew MT. I'm not so sure that we should for several reasons, two of which I'll briefly mention. One, the LXX represents the earliest interpretation we have of the OT. Second, the LXX was an authoritative version of the early church and became the primary version of the Christian church. It would be a shame to silence that voice from continuing to speak to the church today.

As for modern commentaries I've penned in Pope, Garrett, Davis, and Exum. Longman, Bergant, and Griffiths are penciled in. For non-commentary studies, I'll utilize that of Fox and possibly Barbiero. I'll also use selected pre-modern works. For sure, I'll use the commentary of Hippolytus of Rome, and possibly the homilies Bernard of Clairvaux. My goal isn't to be exhaustive but to be representative. Are there any that I'm missing out on that I should be using, or are any of the above a waste of time? Does anyone know of a good reformation commentary or collection of homilies on the Song?

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: the Domestication of Lisbeth

2012-01-11T07:30:00.000-06:00

Saturday night I went to see The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. I had been looking forward to this since I first saw the Swedish original in the summer of 2010. I would give the original a 9 out of 10. The American version gets a 7. I have a couple of minor quibbles witht the film, but I don't want to focus on those. I want to focus on a bigger issue. To be clear, I have not read the book, so I'm only comparing it to the original Swedish adaptation.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, you will see a fair number of posts on this blog on topics related to sexuality and gender. I think that I want to use some of that to explore out own (American) cultural values. Periodically movies will come along that give interesting insight into how we view women and sex. This is definitely one of those movies. What gives us an even better opportunity here is that we have a Sweadish version of the same movie to compare against.

Part of what I liked about the Swedish original so much was the character of Lisbeth. She was completely crazy, unpredictable, and totally independent. She was rough, wild, and unattractive. No one was going to tame her. Mikael needed her more than she needed him. Lisabeth was other. Saturday night I saw that Lisbeth get flipped on her head to my disappointment.

I think the problem was us the American audience. A film this high profile needs to be profitable, so Lisabeth had to be appealing, likable, and relateable. So what happens? Lisabeth undergoes a transformation throughout the movie. She's taimed by Mikael. Watch how her hairstyle changes by the end of the movie. It progressively becomes more and more normal, not only in her attempt to become more attractive to Mikael, but also to us. You also can't help but notice how stunningly beautiful she is in the sex scenes (and that there's an additional sex scene as well). Rooney Mara is too pretty for the role. In the Sweadish original, Noomi Rapace looks like a boy. Why the difference?

I have to imagine that it's because they know that they have to make Lisbeth fit our American conceptions of normal and attractiveness. Normal includes wanting to be possessed by a guy and attractive means having a nice body and normal hair. A different presentation of Lisbeth would have driven people away from this film and the two that follow.

Commentary Review: Galatians

2012-01-04T07:30:00.000-06:00

There are a glut of Galatians commentaries on the market. Memo to publishers, no more traditional commentaries on Galatians for ten years, please! An entry from the Brazos or Two Horizons series would be welcome, though. With there being so many on the market, there are a few that I haven't looked at much and hence will not review (e.g., Bruce, Matera, and Witherington). It's not that I don't think that they're up to the level of the ones below, I just had to draw the line somewhere. As usual, if you're unfamiliar with any of the series, please visit my commentary series overview page.

In my opinion, one commentary stands above them all on Galatians, James Dunn's, even after almost twenty years. Anytime I had an interpretive question, Dunn's was the first commentary I turned to. It contained enough detail to be thorough but it wasn't excessively long. It's also not just a commentary for New Perspective on Paul (NPP) fans, which I think is a major misconception. Of course his understanding of works of the law has a significant impact on the commentary, but it's far more than a defense of the new perspective. Dunn is solid in his discussion of every portion of the letter and I consistently found it to be one of the two most helpful commentaries, no matter which passage I was studying. Interpretive decisions were always careful weighed and well reasoned. Alternative views are considered carefully, but the discussion never gets bogged down in the process. Dunn's writing is clear and he avoids wasting space with unnecessary filler. Every student of Galatians would benefit from reading Dunn's work, and for me it was the one that got me fully on board with the NPP. 5 stars out of 5.

While Dunn's commentary is in a class of it's own, there are two other commentaries that are top notch. The first we will look at is Richard Hays' entry in the New Interpreter's Bible Commentary series. Unfortunately it's not sold as a stand alone, which makes it a bit pricey to own for a short commentary. Fortunately the other volumes that it's bound with are pretty good so it's not a waste to invest in. This commentary is a model for writing brief commentaries. Hays does a wonderful job of summarizing recent Pauline scholarship, merging together the best of both the NPP approach of Dunn and the apocalyptic reading of Martyn and adding in some of his own twists. If I were to rate commentaries solely in terms of my agreement with them, Hays would be at the top of the list. The reflections at the end of each major section also should not be ignored. I found a lot of good material to ponder and many of his points could definitely bolster some sermons. Hays' 1 Corinthians commentary receives all of the adulation, but I think his Galatians is more helpful to the teacher and preacher even if not more original. 5 stars out of 5.

Unfortunately, Gordon Fee's commentary on Galatians very quickly ceased to be sold on Amazon and scarcity has made the used market get out of hand. You can still find it somewhat reasonably at CBD. This one comes in a little longer than Hays and a little shorter than Dunn. Fee is his usual self here. You can't box him in or label him as either traditional or NPP. He seems to be a bit of both. Just when you think that he's going down the New Perspective path in chapter 2, he explains the works/faith contrast in very traditional terms. No surprise, Fee is by far the best on the Holy Spirit in Galatians, a central theme. His comments on the Spirit were critical in helping me see how the whole letter worked together (the Holy Spirit is a more important theme in Galatians than justification by faith). His comments were so penetrating that at times I found myself wanting to quote him by the paragraph (I actually did, once). At every point his exposition was careful, and even where I disagreed (like on his understanding of pistis Christou) he forced me to wrestle with what he had written. It's definitely a good one to consult and think it would be a favorite among those who largely favor a more traditional interpretation of Paul. 4.5 stars out of 5.

J. Louis Martyn has written by far the most thorough commentary on Galatians at over 600 pages. But it rarely felt long, as Martyn's exegesis was fascinating even though it was not always convincing. Martyn utilizes the comment section in a unique way in what really are excurses (there are 52 total!). From an organizational standpoint this is great because the main comments in the commentary are no longer than Dunn, enabling you to get through the main point relatively quickly and giving you the option to read the sometimes very lengthy excurses or not (they're mostly worth reading). Martyn's commentary is written from a thoroughgoing apocalyptic perspective. At times this helps at times it's a hindrance. Martyn also does more mirror reading than any other commentary on the market coming up with an elaborate reconstruction of the background of Galatians. On chapters 1 and 2 I found it to be brilliant. I think he's less successful after that. Still, though, Martyn has written a great commentary that is the strongest on the market on the first two chapters. Hays has incorporated the best of his insights, but is brief enough that it's definitely worth going back to the source. 4.5 stars out of 5.

Schreiner's volume in the ZECNT series is the newest Galatians offering on the market and is the most thorough of recent volumes from the traditional Protestant position. This commentary came out too late for me to utilize it in my studies, but I did spend some time with it in the library. In term of detail it's on par with Longenecker and surpassed only by Martyn. The strength of Schreiner's contribution lies in his detailed presentation of opposing view points (something he does well in his Roman's commentary. Where he does not excel, however is in his refutation of them. For example, Schreiner devotes more than a page to Sanders' and Dunn's understanding of works of the law and second temple Judaism. The summary is excellent. The problem is that he offers a two sentence dismissal that the situation is more varied than Sanders and Dunn allow and then comfortably unpacks his position with the NPP out of mind.

Overall I thought Schreiner's work on Galatians was good. He does take on board some of the advances that have come from a renewed study of Paul in light of second temple Judaism, particularly their identification of a/the major issue of the letter being the identity of the people of God. On some issues I found him to be far too "Lutheran" in his reading for my taste. Additionally, I did not feel that he utilized the unique ZECNT format as well as some other contributors to the series. 4 stars out of 5.

Richard Longenecker's commentary on Galatians is best described as workmanlike. Of the commentaries I used, it was the most detailed in its discussion of the Greek. The 'Form/Setting/Structure' section was the most helpful portion of the commentary. Longenecker performs a thorough but chastened rhetorical analysis on the letter. For the most part I found it to be helpful, particularly in developing an outline of the letter, and I never felt like he forced the text into a mold that was absolutely foreign to it. With that said, I'm not sure that I followed his classifications of every single passage. The 'Notes' was thorough, but rarely eye opening, and the explanations were a bit brief (not much longer than most of my blog posts). The other major strength of the commentary was the background material in the introduction. I thought his discussion of the wider background that precipitated Peter's behavior and gave the rationale for the arrival of the Teachers and their insistence on following the Torah was so helpful. Overall it's a solid commentary and for help on technical matters it was the first commentary I turned to and was glad it was in my arsenal. 4 stars out of 5.

Scot McKnight's commentary is a good entry in the NIVAC series. It's probably the first commentary that tried to bring the results of the NPP to the average person in the pew. His applications were built off of his new perspective reading and for the most part were very strong, though at times a little dated (a lot has changed in the world since 1995). Even there I think they give good examples we can relate to having experienced in the past and get us thinking on the 'right track.' The original meaning sections were a bit briefer and less technical than some others in the same series, but that's probably a positive given the intended audience. Definitely make sure to check out his lengthy discussion of legalism in his introduction. It's excellent, as is the rest of his discussion of legalism throughout the applications section of the commentary. Until something surpasses it, I would rate McKnight's commentary as the best option for the lay person. Preachers and teachers also would benefit from seeing how McKnight works out his applications of the text. 4 stars out of 5.

The last of the modern commentaries that I'll cover is Cousar's in the Interpretation series. I acquired this one late in the game so I didn't dig into it in quite the same way I did most of the above. Overall I thought Cousar's commentary was adequate. Occasionally he had insight that I didn't find in other commentaries (it seems to be largely ignored by recent commentators), though on the whole I don't think it added a lot that I could not have gotten elsewhere. In the portions I read his explanation was fairly traditional and as it was written more than twenty-five years ago, one does feel some distance from the author at times. I personally would recommend dropping the extra money for Hays before electing for Cousar, though it's certainly not a bad commentary. 3.5 stars out of 5.

In addition to the modern commentaries above I also used three commentaries that drew on material from earlier in the history of the church. My personal favorite was the Bible in Medieval Tradition series. This volume contained a translation of all of or portions of the Latin commentaries for six significant Medieval theologians: Haimo of Auxerre (complete), Bruno the Carthusian (complete), Peter Lombard (ch. 2), Robert of Melun (questions on Galatians), Robert Grosseteste (Ch. 3), and Nicholas of Lyra (Ch. 4). I particularly enjoyed Bruno's commentary. In addition to the commentaries you get a seventy page introduction, which alone was worth the price of the book. It provided a lengthy discussion of Medieval theology and theological method and gave an overview of the lives of each of the commentators listed. Medieval Catholic theology is misunderstood and gets a bad rap at times. If all of your information on it is from Luther and Calvin, you're definitely getting a skewed picture. Do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of this commentary! 5 stars out of 5.

Luther's commentary is difficult rate. For impact on subsequent understanding of Galatians it's obviously a 5 out of 5. However, I found myself frustrated with the commentary early on. What I realized in the end is that this commentary is an excellent work of systematic theology, or perhaps better put, the type of exegesis done by someone primarily concerned with systematic theology. Luther saw real problems in the church of his day. He saw how Paul's letter addressed those issues and pointed him in another direction doctrinally. What needs to be recognized is that this is all Luther's commentary is. It's not an example of critical exegesis so it shouldn't be evaluated the same way as other commentaries. We also need to make sure that even if we are within the Lutheran tradition that we don't force his view of what Paul was saying to be normative. At the end of the day I did find Luther brilliant, and I do have to force myself to remember that his sitz im leben is greatly different than my own. With that said, I'm not sure how helpful this commentary is to pastors and teachers today. I don't think that there's anything here that you can't get somewhere else. It's on that basis that I'll go with 3.5 stars out of 5.

Last and certainly not least is the ACCS volume. Galatians seems to have been a popular epistle in the early church, so most of the greats commented or preached on the text at some point. Selections were made from Chrysostym, Augustine, Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Marius Victorinus, and others. On the whole I enjoyed Ambrosiaster's work the most, to the point that I almost picked up the full text of his commentaries on Galatians-Philemon. It was nice to read what some of the early church fathers thought on the text. What I most appreciated were the comments that applied the text. I often found them to be very thought provoking and on a couple of occasions spurred me on to find the full comments by that person on the section. Seeing how brief each section is (I usually could complete reading it in ten minutes), I don't think one should pass up reading it. 4.5 stars out of 5.

Galatians: One Big Application

2012-01-02T07:30:00.000-06:00

Now that Galatians is in the books, I feel that I must ask what I've learned. What made the study fruitful? One thing that became crystal clear to me was the source and importance of unity.

There is a lot of discussion in the parts of the Evangelical world today about gospel unity. In short it seeks to ground unity in the gospel, meaning that we are united to one another by virtue of having a similar confession and we can work for the kingdom with anyone who agrees with us on key doctrinal issues and a particular formulation of the gospel. I want to rain on this well attended parade. I don't find this to be a helpful way to ground our unity. Galatians (and Paul generally) presents a different source, and to be very provocative I fear that this approach runs far too close to that of the false teachers who had infiltrated Galatia (though I certainly would not call them false brothers).

Orthodoxy isn't the source of our unity. The Holy Spirit is. Full stop.

What is the problem in Galatia? It's exclusion from fellowship. Why? Because of a doctrinal disagreement. Full stop.

The Teachers excluded the Gentile Galatians because they had not been circumcised, saying that they had not become full members of the people of God. Their understanding of what it meant to be part of the people of God caused them to insist upon Torah as the defining mark. Paul says, 'Nein!' You are part of the people of God if you have received the Spirit. The Spirit is what defines Christian community and is the source of our unity. Thus to impose the necessity of Torah or particular stances on the atonement (or more secondary matters like inerrancy or evolution) as a litmus test for association is dead wrong. It's opposed to the gospel. The true measure is the presence of the Holy Spirit. Do these Christ-confessing communities demonstrate love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control? If they do, then they're your brothers and sisters in Christ, whether Calvinist or Arminian; Evangelical or Mainline; Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox.

Paul's Argument in Galatians 6:11-18

2011-12-26T07:30:00.000-06:00

¹¹ See what large letters I use as I write to you with myown hand!
¹² Those whowant to impress people by means of the flesh are trying to compel you to becircumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for thecross of Christ. ¹³ Not even those who are circumcised keep thelaw, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about yourcircumcision in the flesh. ¹⁴ May I neverboast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which theworld has been crucified to me, and I to the world. ¹⁵ Neithercircumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the newcreation. ¹⁶ Peace and mercy to all who follow thisrule—to the Israel of God.
¹⁷ From now on,let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.
¹⁸ The grace ofour Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers and sisters. Amen.

In his conclusion to the Galatians Paul takes up the pen in his own hand, not so much to underscore authenticity as to draw attention to the importance of what he now has to say. This section is probably the most power packed of any in the Pauline corpus.

One last time Paul wants to go on the offensive against the Teachers. He impugns their motives, claiming that on top of being wrong, they’re insincere. The real reason why they’re making Torah observance a big issue is out of a desire to avoid persecution (note they’re given the same charge as Peter in chapter 2) being carried out by zealous Jews towards those (like many in the early church) who were soft on Torah, especially on Jewish identity markers like circumcision. If they could convince the Gentile Galatians to become Jews then, rather than being persecuted, they would be lauded and have grounds for boasting.

In vv. 14-15 we see the strong apocalyptic themes in Paul’s thought. The time for defining the people of God by Torah is a thing of the past. Torah with its inherent division of humanity into Jew and non-Jew is a thing of the past. All distinctions have been erased by the cross. The problem of the Teachers isn’t that they’re Jewish, it’s that they’re trying to restrict the people of God ethnically. ‘Here too, the irony of Paul’s critique should not be missed: the very appraisal of circumcision by which Jews typically saw themselves as marked out from the wider world (as special to God) was itself a mark of belongingness to the world in its distance from God and deserving of God’s judgment’ (Dunn 342 - emphasis original).

Paul concludes with words of blessing and a hopefulness that the Galatians will ultimately be on his side. Sandwiched in there is his wish to not have to deal with this issue again. His cruciform lifestyle was self evident and should have been all of the testimony he needed of his genuine apostleship.

Movies of the Year: 2011

2011-12-23T07:30:00.000-06:00

I've started watching more movies over the past year, so I thought that I might put together my list of movies of the year. Much like my books of the year post it's a list of the best movies I watched this year, regardless of release date.

5. A Serious Man

This Coen brothers' film definitely has a niche audience, but I have to agree with some of the critics who thought that this movie was better than No Country for Old Men. It weaves together popular wisdom and biblical themes into a rich tapestry on which to explore the question of suffering.

4. The Silence of the Lambs

I do not like horror movies, but this movie and Hopkins performance are as good as advertised.

3. Sucker Punch

This may be the most misunderstood film in a long long time. Not only does it not suck, like it's critics claimed, but it's a phenomenal film and brilliantly told if you'll take the time to dig your teeth into it after you're done watching it. See my review and defense of the film here.

2. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

This fall I showed my wife a few of Steve Martin's films to expose her to the best of American comedy. I had only seen bits and pieces before. After watching it the whole way through, I think I have to say that it's my all-time favorite comedy.

1. Black Swan

Black Swan is probably in my all time top ten. It's been years since I've seen a film that caused me to well up with pure delight (it's similar to how I felt about Godfather II when I saw that for the first time a few years ago). The story telling is exquisitely beautiful and Natalie Portman deserved her Oscar.

Now for the top 5 movies that came out this year that I haven't seen yet and hope to see next year.

5. Pearl Jam Twenty

Pearl Jam is by far my favorite band and this is the definitive documentary released for their 20th anniversary. It should be two hours of awesome music and great insight into the last great rock band.

4. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

Gary Oldman is an excellent actor and I love spy movies. Unfortunately I can't find a movie theater nearby showing it so I guess I'll be watching on Netflix.

3. Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol

My favorite genre of movie is PG-13 action movies. Hopefully I'll catch this before it's out of the theaters.

2. Moneyball

Baseball is my favorite sport and I think that Billy Beane's insight was real. I think it should be interesting.

1. Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

I love the Swedish original. I love Daniel Craig. I love Rooney Mara. I'll be at the theater next weekend.

Books of the Year: 2011

2011-12-21T07:30:00.000-06:00

This was the first full year of my daughter's life. Probably unsurprisingly, it also was probably the year I read the least. I still read enough quality, though, to have what I view as a strong list. As always, the rule here is that I must have read (finished) the book in 2011 and have not finished it in a prior year.

5. Women in the Hebrew Bible ed. Alice Bach

This book is a collection of 'greatest hits' of feminist OT scholarship. It was a delight to read. Virtually every article was interesting even if not persuasive. One essay in particular stood out, 'Genesis 22: The Sacrifice of Sarah' by Phyllis Trible. It was one of the two best essays I read all year.

4. One.Life by Scot McKnight

Scot McKnight is one of those people who I consider a mentor through their writings. This is a great little book on discipleship for teenagers up through people in their early thirties. I was particularly impacted by the stories he told about his interactions with students. It gave me a model to follow if and when I ever become a professor.

3. Jesus and the Victory of God by N.T. Wright

This book is class Wright. While overdone in places, Wright's analysis is very insightful. It paints a very coherent picture of a Jewish Jesus and has helped me in many cases understand just what the Synoptic writers were trying to convey.

2. Galatians by James Dunn

This is hands down the best commentary on Galatians. Even if you're not a NPP person there's a ton of useful information here, and hey, it may persuade you. It did me.

1. Constructing Jesus by Dale Allison

I've always loved the work of Dale Allison. This book reminded me why. He's so attentive to detail and also integrates data from other disciplines effectively. The sections on human memory were particularly eye opening and his overall approach to historical Jesus studies seem to me to be right on track.

Now for my top 5 books that came out in 2011 that I have not yet had a chance to read but wish to.

5. Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology by John Walton

I loved Lost World of Genesis One (see review), so I think I'll like this book, which is a scholarly treatment of the same material.

4. Justification: Five Views eds. James Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy

If the contributors are strong I really enjoy books that attempt to provide debate on important issues. Justification is a topic of interest for me and I like several of the contributors, especially Michael Horton, Michael Bird, and James Dunn.

3. Proverbs & Ecclesiastes by Daniel Treier

Of the commentaries that came out this year, this is the one I'm most interested in. I took a brief peek at it in the library and found it to be very rich.

2. Simply Jesus by N.T. Wright

I'm always on the lookout for books on Jesus that I can recommend to lay people. I expect that this will probably be at the top of my list.

1. Life After Death by Anthony Thiselton

I'm not too interested in hell, but I am interested in what happens to a believer when they die. I actually think this isn't completely clear in Scripture. In his intro to Paul, Thiselton in passing made a comment that he thinks Paul took what we would now call a 'soul sleep' position. Unfortunately there wasn't much discussion of it. There will be here, I assume. Thiselton also is fairly aged so it'll be interesting to get the perspective of a scholar who is closer to the end of his life than further.

Book Review: A Community Called Atonement

2011-12-19T07:30:00.000-06:00

Last year I reviewed Inhabiting the Cruciform God by Michael Gorman at great length. For as long as this blog is kept running, I want to do the same for one book each year. This year's review will be of A Community Called Atonement by Scot McKnight. If you have any requests for next year's book, leave me a comment and we can have further discussion.

It's important to read the prologue of this book. Here McKnight lays out his major goal, to which he constantly refers throughout the rest of the book. He likens our atonement theories and metaphors to golf clubs. When you play golf you need more than one club if you're going to be successful, and the Bible uses more than one image to describe the atonement. We need to find a golf bag in which we can fit all of our atonement clubs and we need to know what the purpose of each club in that bag is (xiii). In the following pages, McKnight lays just that out.

McKnight begins with the claim that the atonement is the good news of the gospel, and that it explains how the gospel works (1). He also insists that atonement must make a difference in your life, in the way you live right now (1-2). Atonement brings reconciliation and healing, and extends beyond our relationship with God to our relationship with one another. Atonement theory is practical and, 'the gospel we preach shapes the kind of churches we create.' While, 'the kind of church we have shapes the gospel we preach' (5). These are two key assumptions that drive much of what McKnight says throughout the book. Both our preaching and our communities need to reflect the fullness of what God has done through Christ in bringing atonement.

The discussion of atonement begins in the logical, but often overlooked place, with Jesus; more specifically with Jesus proclamation of and ushering in of the kingdom. McKnight's main thrust through this chapter is that, 'any atonement theory that is not an ecclesial theory of atonement is incomplete' (9 - emphasis original), because the saving work of God brings in a just society where we experience peace (10). The kingdom is the telos of the atonement (13). The bulk of this chapter deals with several key passages in Luke-Acts illustrating the centrality of those elements of Jesus kingdom teaching.

The kingdom isn't McKnight's only starting point. McKnight starts this chapter by emphasizing the obvious; where you start determines where you'll end. If you start with wrath, you'll end up with penal substitutionary atonement (15). Others pick other starting points and end up with equally narrow atonement theories. So, in this chapter, McKnight trots out three more starting points along with kingdom (the next will bring up another three), God, humanity, and sin. Drawing on the Eastern emphasis on periochoresis, McKnight stresses that atonement brings a fourfold reconciliation between us, images of God broken by sin, and God; one another; ourselves; and the cosmos (22). The biggest problem we face is that we've sinned against God, but we need to see the full scope of our needed restoration if we're to get our understanding of atonement right (23).

McKnight's final batch of three starting points are eternity, ecclesial community, and praxis. The core of this chapter can be summed up in this quote, 'Atonement is the work of God to create and ready his people for just these things: union with God and communion with others in a place of perfection, with a society of justice and peace and above all worship of the lamb of God on the throne' (27). Life here and now is supposed to be lived in light of this future reality, to be lived as if it really is true (25). Individuals benefit from atonement, but always in the context of a community (27). And the communities that God creates bring atonement, it is the task of the church to perform atonement (28-31).

Now that McKnight has given us a well-rounded picture of the different elements that need to be held together in our atonement theology, he moves onto addressing different atonement metaphors. The discussion begins with a discussion of metaphor and what it means to call atonement theories metaphors. He cites Vanhoozer,

any given theory of atonement is "not a set of timeless propositions, nor an expression of religious experience, nor grammatical rules for Christian speech and thought, but rather an imagination that corresponds to and continues the gospel by making good theological judgments about what to say and do in light of the reality of Jesus Christ" (36-7 emphasis McKnight's).

Another key point that McKnight makes is that we understand metaphors by indwelling them, not by dissecting them (37). The reason why metaphors are used is because they are so effective at pointing to another reality, to a reality beyond themselves. They're a lens that we look through to see the thing (38).

McKnight then goes on to evaluate penal substitution and its critics, offering three concerns with what he sees as distortions that come from some proponents of the theory. The two main points that he makes are these, we need to make sure we don't present God as being in conflict with himself as if his love and holiness opposed one another (41-2) and second that we need to recognize that it is one metaphor among others that Scripture gives us. '[A]dvocates of this theory run the risk of playing the game of golf with one club' (42). McKnight issues a challenge to those who oppose penal substitution as well, saying that they often caricaturize the theory (40).

The sixth chapter continues to extend some of his earlier discussion about the need to start at the right place to get the end result, in the process deepening his earlier discussion on humanity and sin. In what follows McKnight addresses the three key moments of the atonement; the incarnation, crucifixion (which is the central key moment), and the resurrection.

We will highlight how McKnight handles one of these themes. Since it's Christmas let's opt for 'incarnation,' which 'means identification for the sake of liberation' (55). Jesus becomes what we are and in the process creates a people around himself (57). This happens through our union with Christ. Union with Christ is central to McKnight's entire atonement theology. Wisdom, sanctification, redemption, and justification all flow to us because of our union with Christ (59-60). The incarnation is crucial for union with Christ to take place. The central passage for McKnight is Phil 2:5-11, the passage he calls, 'the most complete statement of the atoning work that we can find in the entire New Testament' (60). Here we see how Jesus entire life of selfless service atones for sinful people (60). It's an atonement that draws us into the very life of God and calls us to live in accordance with Jesus example (60).

The next three chapters discuss how four of the churches most important 'theologians' discussed atonement. Chapter 11 examines Jesus' understanding of his death, looking at the Last Supper. McKnight stresses that the Last Supper 'storified' Jesus death for his disciples (83). Jesus dies during Passover, not on Yom Kippur. That fact gives shape to our understanding of the atonement. "Jesus' act at the Last Supper declares that his death is atoning, that his blood is like the Passover blood, that his blood absorbs the judgment of God against sin and systemic violence, that his death will save and liberate his followers from their own sins, and that his death will create the new covenant community around him" (86).

Next, McKnight looks at Paul, sketching his doctrine of justification. Building off of the work of N.T. Wright, justification is defined as, 'the declaration of God, the just judge, that someone is (a) in the right, that their sins are forgiven, and (b) a true member of the covenant family, the people belonging to Abraham' (93 - emphasis original). In contrast to the Reformers, McKnight emphasizes that justification is not about how one gets into God's family. It simply is a declaration that this has taken place (93). Point (b) is critical to properly understanding justification. It helps us move beyond an individualistic understanding of what happens at justification. Additionally, it opens the door to justification being effective in the believer and communities now, having moral impact (97-8).

The last chapter in this section showcases Irenaeus and Athanasius. McKnight selects these theologians of the early church because of their emphasis on recpaitulation, which he considers to be the bag that holds the clubs. Christ recapitualtes, or sums up, Adam's life, Israel's life, and our own in both an exclusive sense (standing in our place doing what we cannot) and an inclusive sense, incorporating us into his life. Here McKnight works along lines similar to Michael Gorman, emphasizing theosis - a theory which contends that by our union with Christ we, while remaining distinct from God, participate in his very life (103).

In chapter fourteen McKnight moves to summary. His central theme is, 'identification for incorporation' (107). Jesus identifies with us and incorporate us into his death and resurrection (107). Identification grounds the atonement with the purpose of incorporating us (108-9). The rest of the atonement theories work out different pieces of this concept of identification for incorporation (110-4).

Unfortunately I have run out of space to provide but the briefest of summaries of the last major portion of the book. The title of the book is 'A Community Called Atonement,' meaning in part that atonement is something that the community does and brings. McKnight explores several different avenues under the heading of praxis, looking at a wide range of issues of worship, community, and external mission. These themes are looked at to help us see how we can both experience and bring atonement here and now.

Overall I was very pleased with McKnight's work. In many ways it brought clarity to my own thoughts on the subject. There were three aspects in particular that I thought were important. First, I think it's critical that we play with a full set of clubs. I have seen far too many Christians (both on the left and right) emphasize one aspect of the atonement to the neglect of the others. These have the effect of presenting an imbalanced portrait of God. I found McKnight's proposal, that we need to have more than one starting place for our discussion to be so helpful in guarding against that mistake. If, for example, you start your atonement theory at the fall then you're going to have a narrow understanding of the atonement. McKnight integrates themes and texts very, very well.

Second, I thought McKnight's discussion of justification was rich and broad. McKnight's view is very nuanced and helpfully develops N.T. Wright's work. It also was short, and that's a good thing. There's so much more to the atonement than justification. My only wish here was that it had been later in the book, after he had introduced the 'identification for incorporation concept' so that he could present it as an alternative formulation to double imputation.

Third, it is wonderful that one third of the book is devoted to matters of praxis. If we do not ultimately live as agents bringing atonement to the world, if we do not experience the effects of atonement now, and if we do not live in hope of the culmination of God's atoning work then the previous discussion does not matter. We need more scholars and theologians to write these kind of books. We need them to be written by scholars because we need to read the best work that has the most rigorous research behind it. We need practical books because it's too easy for many of us to make our theology a point for debate not a pointer for how to live.

I do have one criticism and one point that I would have liked to have seen developed more fully. I'll begin with the latter. In his discussion of resurrection, McKnight explains how God is at work creating a transnational people (72). The work of Christ erases distinctions that divide and puts everyone on an equal playing field before God. I felt McKnight's treatment of this topic was far too brief. It could be argued to be the central theme of several of Paul's most important letters (Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians). It only gets about half of a page. A neglect of this theme permeates large swaths of the church and we needlessly create division among ourselves and claim superiority over others for a variety of reasons. Unity is at the heart of the gospel and the atonement. Unity is a matter of first priority. I would have liked further discussion here.

Also, as McKnight has noted in King Jesus Gospel, the gospel can't be equated with atonement. The gospel saves, but that does not mean that we should equate gospel and atonement as McKnight does on the opening page of the book (he discusses his shift from this approach in the King Jesus Gospel - see my review). The gospel is the story of Jesus. It includes his life (especially his public ministry), death, and resurrection. To be clear, McKnight's understanding of the gospel is far from transactional in this book, however he still defines the gospel too narrowly.

These criticisms are minor. I found A Community Called Atonement to be an excellent discussion of atonement that hits its target audience (pastors). It's neither too long and dense nor too short and superficial. A Community Called Atonement is theology come to life, as McKnight not only explains what atonement is but tells us how to live it. It is a timely call and challenge to all who have inadequate atonement theologies. Will we listen and bring atonement to this world?

Correcting Erring Saints, In Canonical Context

2011-12-09T11:00:00.000-06:00

¹ Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. ² Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. ³ If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves. ⁴ Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else, ⁵ for each one should carry their own load. ⁶ Nevertheless, the one who receives instruction in the word should share all good things with their instructor.

⁷ Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. ⁸ Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. ⁹ Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. ¹⁰ Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers. (NIV)

Here in Galatians 6:1-10 Paul explains how to deal with erring saints. They are to be restored with gentleness. How do we square this with his attitude towards the Teachers, as well as his stance in 1 Corinthians 5, or Jesus words on this subject in Matthew 18? What model is to be the primary model for dealing with sin in the community?

We will start with this text. There are three main emphases. Correction is to be restorative, it is to be done gently, and it is to be done humbly. While this text doesn't focus so much on the mechanics, it does provide a framework within which to act. It's not a manual, it's a list of virtues to embody. For those who love virtue ethics, this is the text for you.

Second, we will consider Matthew 18:15-20. This passage is much more like a manual, do this and if it doesn't work then do that, and so on. This is probably the standard text in evangelicalism for how to enact church discipline. And I understand why, because it's clear cut. We like easy to follow rules. The problem is that this text often gets implemented without paying any attention to our current Galatians passage. Yes, go ahead and follow the steps on this list, but make sure it's done with gentleness. Much seems to be done in haste to deal with sin quickly and decisively. Why?

Well probably because of the impact of 1 Corinthians 5. Here Paul rips the Corinthians for their failure to deal with a major, open sin issue. It's important to a key point about this text, though. The issue is with the Corinthians because they didn't do anything. It's not that they were slow and careful in dealing with the problem. In fact, they practically encouraged it! And the guy seemed to show no sign of remorse. Paul's concern is that the Corinthians won't do anything about the matter. They won't go through the last step of Matthew 18 and finally remove the unrepentant individual (notice vs. 5 does show some concern for the individual) from the community. 1 Corinthians 5 is not ordering swift and decisive action, as it might appear to be at first glance. It's simply upbraiding pure inaction and the attitude that sin doesn't matter.

So what does a well rounded understanding of correction look like? First it needs to be stressed (because of how commonly we have erred here) that it needs to be done in gentleness and humility. The whole goal of discipline isn't expulsion, it's restoration. Second, sin matters. The community is called to be holy and needs to take that calling seriously. Gentleness isn't the lack of correction, it's the spirit in which correction is to be performed. Finally, there's a clear protocol to follow. Don't expose sin publicly unnecessarily, but deal with it in a discrete and firm manner.

Galatians winding down, next up?

2011-12-02T07:30:00.000-06:00

There's now one section left to cover in Galatians to finish up the letter. A while back I had mentioned that I would be tackling John next. Well plans have changed. I've decided that I want to start a long term research project that you'll probably read a lot more about in the future on this blog (if you keep reading it of course). The next book up will be Song of Songs.

I'm just starting a study sexual ethics, particularly focusing on the relationships between sex, identity, and power. This will probably be a long study that will take years if the Lord gives me the energy and desire to see it to completion. To start I'll have a dual focus. First will be to look at how the Bible gives positive shape to our understanding of sex, sexual ethics, and sexual identity. Song of Songs becomes an obvious starting point here. The second starting point will be to seek to gain a better understanding of gender in the Bible. How 'gendered' are the biblical texts and how does that 'genderedness' affect the content and presentation? I do believe that the Bible is the word of God, but I believe that it is the word of God to a particular people in a particular point in history. I do think that we need to account for that particularity. How to best do that is something that I am still uncertain of and will be one of the fun elements of doing this study.

Here's where I think that feminist theology can be a critical help, or at least a certain brand of feminist theology. Feminist theology, much like the Latin American liberation theology that it comes from can be oh so helpful, showing us our own biases as well as biases that affected the biblical texts, as long as it doesn't seek to turn the tables and replace one hierarchy with another with women at the top (as noted by Alice Bach in the introduction to Women in the Hebrew Bible xv).

So, along side Song of Songs, you will probably see some posts on Proverbs 1-9 and Proverbs 31 as I examine Old Testament perspectives on women and gender (drawing this idea from the fascinating article by Carol Newsom titled 'Woman and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom: A Study of Proverbs 1-9 in Women in the Hebrew Bible). Though, initially this will probably be a smaller focus.

Why do I want to tackle this topic? Mainly I want to understand myself better and grow in holiness. I'm honestly not totally sure what sexual holiness means precisely (beyond a few obvious prohibitions like adultery or watching porn) or how to best pursue it. Some of the hyper-avoidance methods that have been popularized strike me as both unhelpful and potentially demeaning or even dehumanizing to others. Yet clearly boundaries can still be helpful.

Sex is everywhere. Living in early 21st century culture certainly has shaped my understanding of sex drastically. It's changed the way I see the world and probably changed the way I interact with women in ways I'm not aware of. Perception isn't neutral (more on this in a future post). I want to shape it so that I can live in a way that is pleasing to God and hopefully learn from and provide resources to others journeying with me.

Paul's Argument in Galatians 6:1-10

2011-11-30T07:30:00.000-06:00

¹ Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. ² Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. ³ If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves. ⁴ Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else, ⁵ for each one should carry their own load. ⁶ Nevertheless, the one who receives instruction in the word should share all good things with their instructor.

⁷ Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. ⁸ Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. ⁹ Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. ¹⁰ Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers. (NIV)

In this section Paul finishes the body of the letter. The closing exhortation builds off of the last section, specifically the call to live by the Spirit and exhibit its fruit. Martyn has a diagram that shows the specifics on p. 543, which I'll summarize (since you can no longer insert Excel tables into blogger). Vs. 1 calls for gentleness, vs. 2 for patience, vv. 4-5 for self-control, and vs. 6 for generosity.

If the community possesses the Spirit then it will exhibit the fruit of the Spirit. But what do they do when a member fails to live up to that standard?[1] The law had an answer for that. The Torah not only shaped identity it also stipulated punishments for failure to keep it. How should a community dependent on the Spirit react? Paul answers by telling them to live out that fruit in the way they deal with erring members. Be gentle and have self-control. The goal isn't to punish, but to restore. Have patience with one another. Working out issues of sin takes time. The community must come together and help each other strive to be holy.

Rather than excluding one another Paul calls for the Galatians to bear each other's burdens. Listen to each other, fast and pray for each other, encourage each other, keep each other accountable. Paul makes the community responsible for the growth in holiness of each individual member. Through that costly ministry the law of Christ is fulfilled.

Paul can foresee a potential problem happening, though. When there's this much contact between people there's an opportunity for pride to creep in. Paul commands that no such thing be done (is this perhaps a veiled shot at the Teachers who may have been boastful of their righteousness as Torah observant Jews a la Wisdom of Solomon?). Each person has enough to worry about just keeping track of themselves. Each person is judged on the basis of their own works (the Bible is univocal that judgment is on the basis of works).

While each person is responsible for themselves on judgment day, Paul reiterates that the community is responsible for its own. This time he focuses on support of those who teach. Even from the earliest times teachers were held in highest regard. A generous gift or payment by the congregation was seen as both natural and compulsory.

Verses 7-10 wrap up this section in an interesting way. Paul reaffirms the call to follow the Spirit as the sole guide for Christian life. Sowing in the Spirit yields life, meaning it produces the good works that will result in passing the final judgment. Sowing in the law yields death as it does not produce the fruit that are necessary. It cannot adequately restrain one from committing sins of the flesh. Thus, Paul urges the Galatians on in doing good, that is in walking in the Spirit, for the benefit of all around them, especially the community of faith.

--------------------------

[1] There is clearly an element of unexpectedness present in the being 'caught.' The question of whether the person accidentally fell into the sin (sin caught the person) or a person was surprisingly caught sinning (his being caught by the community). It's difficult to decide between the two, as either would fit the context, though I think the latter fits ever so slightly better. Hidden sin coming to light would be a bigger issue for the community to deal with and be more necessary for Paul to address.

Top 10 Burger Toppings

2011-11-21T09:30:00.000-06:00

Long time readers of this blog will remember some of my prior top 10 lists. I'm going to try to bring them back, but rather than doing them monthly, I'll aim for quarterly. This quarter's top 10 list is the top 10 burger toppings. In the past the lists have been the compiled results of one to three of my co-workers. This time around, because the topic was so important, I pooled together the responses of eight individuals (including myself) to make it so that one person's preferences don't skew the whole list.

10. Mustard (19 pts): When combined with the right other toppings mustard gives a burger some good zip. McDonald's has perfected the use of mustard on a burger.

9. Avocado (20 pts): Sliced avocado is a nice topping on high quality burgers. It's mild flavor doesn't draw attention away from the meat.

8. Pickles (23 pts): Pickles are a must have on all fast food burgers (and Chik-fil-a sandwiches).

7. Lettuce (24 pts): Lettuce (along with cheese) was the item that appeared on the most lists, only being omitted once. It only comes it at number 7 because it doesn't rank highly on any list. The key with lettuce is that it is so versatile and almost never detracts from the experience.

6. Onions (25 pts): The nice thing with onions is that you can utilize them in a number of forms: raw, sauteed, or deep fried. It all depends on what the burger calls for!

5. Ketchup (31 pts): When the burger comes off the grill at a barbecue the first thing I'm grabbing for is the ketchup.

4. Tomato (32 pts): This is the highest rated item that didn't appear on my personal list. Tomato, much like lettuce, largely makes the list because of it's versatility.

3. BBQ Sauce (33 pts): After seeing the list one of my coworkers commented that when he starts a burger restaurant he's definitely featuring a barbecue bacon burger. My personal favorite burger is topped with bbq sauce, bacon, cheddar, and onion strings.

2. Bacon (46 pts): Bacon makes just about everything better, including burgers. The enhancement by its crispiness and moderate saltiness is almost unparalleled.

1. Cheese (57 pts): As you might have expected cheese was the runaway winner, taking three out of eight first place votes. The varieties of cheese available mean that there's always a cheese to go with the rest of your toppings. And in my opinion, a burger isn't a burger if it doesn't have cheese.

Book Review: The Dictionary of Christian Spirituality

2011-10-17T07:30:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Zondervan for supplying me with a review copy and a slot in their blog tour.

Christian spirituality is an interesting topic to devote a dictionary to (and Zondervan isn't the first to do this). The church has historically pursued spirituality with intellectual vigor. Unfortunately, it seems to me that this is not the case as strongly as it was before. We have a bifurcation, spirituality as dissected in the academy and a pragmatic spirituality of the churches (at least in American low-church Evangelicalism). The goal of The Dictionary of Christian Spirituality is to provide an accessible resource that draws upon the rich spiritual history of the church as well as the advances in understanding that academic study of Scripture, theology, science, and other disciplines have brought.

The dictionary is split into two main parts. The first part contains thirty-four essays from four to seven pages in length covering major topics in Christian spirituality. These are wide ranging, from essays on 'Music and the Arts' to 'Byzantium and the East (600 - 1700)' to 'Grace and Spiritual Disciplines' to 'Contours of Evangelical Spirituality.' The vast majority of these are solid and very informative. Each of the topics covered were split into a half-dozen or sub-topics in which, depending on the subject of the essay, either briefly detailed the history of the topic or explained and evaluated the range of views on the matter. They also provided a bibliography of ten to twenty works if you wanted to read further on the topic

The second part of the dictionary contains typical dictionary entries. These are typically between a half a page and a page long. In terms of topic selections I thought that there were two major strengths. There are quite a few articles on various spiritualities. These include non-Christian spiritualities like Muslim and Native-American spirituality as well as Christian Spiritualities covering a specific geography, like Korean Christian Spirituality (which was very illuminating for me, in a Korean-American church setting). There also is a wealth of entries on different figures in church history, from Ignatious of Antioch all the way to contemporary people like Wolfhart Pannenberg. The insights to Christian spirituality that they had are explored. For figures from church history a a relevant, brief overview of their life is included.

I attempted to read a wide range of both essays and dictionary entries. Some of them were very, very good. However, there was a bit of a problem of unevenness both in quality and depth, especially among the dictionary entries. Some, like 'Knowledge of God' utilize a lot of undefined technical language. Others, like 'Lifestyle' are very basic, almost to the point of not being of much help. It seems like the dictionary could have used a stronger editorial hand to achieve a bit more uniformity.

Also, as I tried to think through how someone would use this book, I think that an organized index or table of contents would have been helpful, at least of the people covered in the dictionary entries. I know that this isn't usually done in dictionaries, but I think it would be helpful here because most people won't come to the dictionary wondering about the spirituality of William Penn. However, someone might come to the dictionary as their first step in researching Quaker spirituality. That person will probably never stumble across the entry on William Penn. If you had some sort of organized list of people covered in the dictionary, then they might.

With all of that said, I still have to say that I found The Dictionary of Christian Spirituality to be a useful resource. Pastors in a shepherding role dealing with spiritual formation would probably be the target audience and for them it would be a good addition to their libraries. It's a good, quick, non-technical resource that would aid in developing curriculum or as a starting point for personal study. The breadth of topics and ecumenical focus more than make up for any of its deficiencies.

Pannenberg on Risk, Community, and Spirituality

2011-10-07T07:30:00.000-05:00

My review copy of the Dictionary of Christian Spirituality arrived in the mail Wednesday. I was flipping through it and the entry for Wolfhart Panneberg caught my eye. I'll quote a paragraph:

He recognized that those who seek to control their lives and to protect themselves from hurt inflicted by others or by the way the world works actually close themselves off from what God is seeking to do in their lives. Here Pannenberg built on the foundations laid by Martin Buber, a Jewish philosopher, and Karl Barth, a Reformed theologian. Living as we do in a dangerous world, Pannenberg discerned that safety, or at least the offer of safety, is a great temptation to compromise. However, it is only in "risking oneself outwards" toward the world, and ultimately toward God, that human beings find anything meaningful or worth living for. His writings help to frame the promise of Jesus, "Whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it" (Matt. 16:25), in a way that contemporary Christian spirituality can understand and appropriate. This message is especially important for those living in the West with its inclination toward a highly individualized and risk-averse spirituality (Morton, Christopher 653).

Book Review: The King Jesus Gospel

2011-09-21T07:12:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Zondervan for a providing review copy and a spot in their blog tour.

For me, this summer has been a summer of reading Scot McKnight. I had the chance to read A Community Called Atonement (review forthcoming) and One.Life. Both of those were excellent books, so I was very excited to check out The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited. McKnight is a professor at North Park University and blogs over at Jesus Creed. As both an eminent New Testament scholar, a teacher of undergrads at a Christian university, and a man deeply committed to the church he leads the short list of those qualified to address the most important question that the church faces: 'has the church gotten the gospel right?'

Before jumping into that question, McKnight begins by pointing out that we have a major problem in evangelicalism (this book isn't written solely to evangelicals, but as McKnight is an evangelical, much of it is attempting to correct common evangelical errors). It's a problem that I think evangelicals need to face head-on. "I would contend there is minimal difference in correlation between evangelical children and teenagers ho make a decision for Christ and who later become genuine disciples, and Roman Catholics who are baptized as infants and who as adults become faithful and devout Catholic disciples" (20, emphasis original). He cites some statistics to go along with that claim. 90% of non-mainline protestants claim to have made a decision for Jesus, but only 20% actually become disciples (20 - here McKnight cites research by the Barna group). Even if those numbers are a little off, it's still a massive, massive problem. Other segments of Christianity are doing as poorly or even worse. McKnight's contention is that we're in this situation because we've lost our grasp on what the gospel actually is.

McKnight then moves into asking the question, 'what is the gospel?' often asking other related questions along the way. One of them is, 'did both Jesus and Paul preach the gospel?' Something McKnight points out is usually what has been meant by this question is, 'did Jesus preach Paul's gospel - justification by faith'. At the end of chapter one McKnight gives us one of his main contentions, 'the word gospel has been hijacked by what we believe about "personal salvation," and the gospel itself has been reshaped to facilitate making "decisions."' (26 - emphasis original).

In the second chapter McKnight extends his line of reasoning here. He contends that the gospel is the story of Jesus as the completion to the story of Israel. We (Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox) have instead reduced the gospel down to the plan of salvation and packaged it through various methods of persuasion that we use to coerce conversions (he even suggests that Evangelicals should change their names to Soterians). Here lies the problem. What motivation do these converts have to be disciples? Why doesn't the gospel lead to more transformation in people's lives? It's because we've gotten the gospel wrong.

The next five chapters seek to correct that deficiency by taking us back to the Bible to reexamine what Paul, Jesus, and Peter (in Acts) tell us the gospel is, as well as looking at church history to see how we got to this point. One of the questions he asks in this section I think is critical and so often overlooked. Why did the early Christians feel it appropriate to call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John 'gospels?' The answer should be obvious. They all are the gospel, because the gospel is the proclamation of the story of Jesus, and not just his sinlessness, death, and resurrection. All of the gospels are the gospel because they are a proclamation of the story of Jesus as the resolution to Israel's story. McKnight also finds the same pattern in the preaching of Paul and Peter. They proclaim Jesus as the resolution to Israel's story, a story that begins with creation and ends with the consummation of all things. One point of clarification is needed here. In none of these statements is McKnight saying that what we typically call the gospel (the plan of salvation) is incorrect. He's simply (but importantly!) saying that it's not the gospel. In the end, for McKnight, the gospel isn't about 'sin management' (a line he borrows from Dallas Willard), rather it's a summons to confess and completely follow King Jesus. Jesus status as Messiah and Lord is an absolutely critical element of the gospel.

Chapters nine and ten address our contemporary setting, giving us guidance on some practical matters related to our gospeling, and develop a little further some of the elements of the gospel unearthed previously. Two points that he makes in the eighth chapter are particularly worth mention. First, we need to remember what problem the gospel is seeking to solve. It's not primarily aimed at dealing with an individual's sin (though it does do that). The main problem is that God's kingdom is not manifest in this world as it should be, and that death reigns. Second is the reiteration of what he has said all along. 'The book of Acts reveals that gospeling was not driven by the salvation story or the atonement story. It was driven by the Story of Israel, and in fact makes most sense in that story' (134).

The tenth and final chapter brings the book to a fitting close. McKnight clearly and eloquently proclaims the gospel to us and then makes some suggestions on how we can transform our churches to have a gospel culture. Much of it revolves around, you guessed it, Jesus and story. We need to immerse ourselves in the story of Jesus and see our story as the church as a continuation of the story of Jesus and the story of Israel. After the tenth chapter there are three brief but very helpful appendices that give the full text of Paul's gospel summaries, the full text of the sermons in Acts, and a short snippet from Justin Martyr.

The sketch above is a very brief overview of the book that hopefully provokes some questions, and unfortunately flattens out some of the nuance of McKnight's positions. McKnight certainly isn't the first one to say some of the things said in The King Jesus Gospel, but the depth and clarity with which he presents his view is a big part of what makes this book so important. In his main contention, that we've misconstrued the gospel, McKnight is dead on and we need to join him reexamining what the Bible tells us the gospel is.

I think it's particularly important for us to ask what the role of the Old Testament is in our gospel preaching. Why is the Old Testament part of our Scriptures? McKnight shows that it's more than just a mere pointer to Christ. Jesus fulfills the Old Testament. The prophecies aren't there to primarily aid in identifying who the Messiah is, as if they were a random check list. The Old Testament story is going somewhere, and the way that plot develops is critical to our gospel proclamation.

I also really appreciated McKnight's comments on method. Our job isn't to be the most persuasive salespeople we can be. Our job is to faithfully proclaim Jesus, the king.

When reading A Community Called Atonement, I told my wife, 'if I could write a book this is the book I would want to write.' McKnight's works often seem to scratch right where I itch. The same is definitely true with The King Jesus Gospel. I found reading it to be a deeply enriching and encouraging experience. The church needs this book and I strongly encourage you to pick up a copy and read it prayerfully to see how God can use you in bringing a culture shift within the church, a refocusing of our proclamation on Jesus, Israel's Messiah and Lord of all.

Paul's Argument in Galatians 5:13-26

2011-09-19T07:30:00.000-05:00

¹³ You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. ¹⁴ For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”¹⁵ If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
¹⁶ So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. ¹⁷ For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. ¹⁸ But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
¹⁹ The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; ²⁰ idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions ²¹ and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
²² But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, ²³ gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. ²⁴ Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. ²⁵ Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. ²⁶ Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Here Paul continues the argument begun at the start of chapter 5. Specifically, the opening verses tie back to 5:6. Paul's main goal here is two-fold. He wants to deal with actual problems in Galatia and head off criticism of his gospel. It appears that the Galatians were having problems within the community. They weren't displaying the love and other regard that communities led by the Spirit should display. Paul know he needs to correct this, especially as the Teachers had come in and seen the problems and proposed a solution: Torah. Torah would act both to restrain behavior but also act as the source of identity.

Paul will have nothing to do with that line of thinking. The Galatians were freed from the law. However, that freedom wasn't freedom to do whatever they wanted. It was to serve one another in love. The Galatians had been told this before, but it hadn't fully settled. Perhaps the explicitness of the law had appeal to the Galatians. But even then, a life of service to one another in the Spirit fulfills the law. Paul recognizes God's will in the law, but insists that it's fullest expression is the command to love (so Fee). The Galatians just needed to be reminded and buy in.

Paul goes on to contrast two lists, one of virtues and the other of vices. It's absolutely critical that we see that these identify community traits. Communities that are lead by the Spirit don't look like 'x' but like 'y.' This comes through very clearly when we look at the list of vices. Eight of the fifteen items deal with obviously interpersonal issues. Yes the individuals in the communities need to have the fruit of the Spirit for the community to exhibit it, but it must be exhibited at the community level. Discipleship is not an individual matter. The church is a discipleship collective.

I am going to refrain from commenting on the lists individually as I think it's fairly clear what most of the vices and virtues are. Paul closes by reinforcing what he said previously, but he makes an important clarification along the way. By contrasting the works of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit it may mislead one to think that discipleship is a passive process. Verse 24 should show how mistaken that thinking is. We are active participants, crucifying the things that would lead to a community that is out of step with the Spirit and reflects our sinful tendencies.

Scot McKnight on the Problem the Gospel Solves

2011-09-14T07:30:00.000-05:00

But I would urge us to think much more deeply about the problem that the gospel resolved in light of our study so far. If the Story of Israel finds its completion in the Story of Jesus and if that is the gospel, we must find the problem within the contours of Israel's Story and not just in my needs in my story. We need to find the problem behind the solution Jesus offered. Jesus word for the solution is the kingdom, or, if we frame it as John did, eternal life (which, too, is more than personally living forever with God after we die). If kingdom is the solution, the problem was about the search for God's kingdom on earth and the problem was the absence of God's kingdom on earth. If eternal life is the solution, then the problem was death and the absence of God's abundant life and the worldliness of this world (The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited p. 137).

Review coming soon...

Revamping the Masters of Divinity Degree

2011-09-12T07:30:00.000-05:00

Seminary is something that I think about a lot. In part because I've done some course work there (at TEDS). In part because several friends have completed seminary, are going through it now, hope to go, or hoped to go. It's a frustratingly long program. Brian LePort's post a few weeks back rekindled my thinking process to the point that I would like to propose what a Master of Divinity curriculum would look like if I were the one designing the program from scratch.

First, I think we can shorten the program a little bit, trimming it down to 78 credit hours. This makes it doable in three years or less for everybody who attends full time. This is largely done by reducing the number of electives, but also by applying some trimming in a couple of places (specifics below). Second, the curriculum hopefully would have a little bit of a liberal arts type of feel. Classes hopefully would be taught and designed to encourage pastors to be life long learners. The biggest challenge is that a Master's of Divinity in some senses is a 'professional degree' and in some sense isn't. Any curriculum needs to walk a fine line there. However, seminary is not trade school. It should not seek to replace the things that churches are supposed to be doing to train their future leaders. It is an academic institution that should be seeking to give future and current pastors the training of the mind necessary to be effective ministers. I think some discussions about seminary veer off course because people don't understand or like the purpose of seminaries.

Here's how I would structure things. First, I would have two distinct tracks, one for those who want an MDiv and intend to go on for a PhD, and another for those who want to enter into pastoral ministry. The tracks would share a large core of courses together, but there would be two areas where they differ. First, introductory languages would be taught differently depending on your track. Pastors will learn the language alongside Bible software like Logos, Accordance, or Bible Works (for the record I am in love with Accordance, though I've never used the others). Pastors are going to forget the finer points of the languages over time, so give them something that will help them excel at the basics (this is no different than teaching statistics students how to do regression analysis using SPSS - something regularly done in most universities). If you're going the academic route, then you better learn the languages inside out. The second area of difference lies in the concentration. There will be a different concentration depending on your area of focus, pastoral ministry (perhaps even different focuses depending on the type of ministry) and academic ministry (definitely different focuses depending on your desired field of study). The specifics of the concentration areas as well as the specifics of the rest of the curriculum are laid out below.

Languages (12 credits following the two track approach outlined above)
Introductory Greek: 3 credits x 2 semesters
Introductory Hebrew 3 credits x 2 semesters

New Testament (12 credits)
Gospels: 4 credits
Acts and Paul: 4 credits
General Epistles: 4 credits

Old Testament (12 credits)
Pentateuch: 4 credits
Historical Books and Wisdom Literature: 4 credits
Prophets: 4 credits

The OT and NT classes form the backbone of the curriculum, where you would not only learn the texts, but also learn theological interpretation, historical exegesis, and background. For example in the class on the gospels, you would cover not just the gospels, but also 2nd temple Judaism and you would learn exegetical tools to help you understand narratives. Yes, you would learn exegesis piecemeal this way, but I don't think many pastors do hardcore Greek or Hebrew exegesis. Students going on for a PhD could take an advanced exegesis course to shore up any deficiencies.

Religion (22 credits)
World Religions: 3 credits

Church History (2 semesters): 2x3 credits
American Church History: 1 credit

Western Theology: 4 credits
Non-Western Theology: 3 credits
Development of a Doctrine (say atonement) Through History: 2 credits
Ethics: 3 credits

I think that there's a lot of 'fat' in most ST programs. The typical three semester course can be trimmed to one covering the truly major topics (creation, sin, atonement, eschatology, ecclesiology, sacraments, scripture, trinity, christology, and pneumatology). Also, every seminary needs a required course on world religions and non-western theology. Period.

Counseling/Psychology (4 credits)
Introduction to Psychology: 2 credits
Introduction to Counseling: 2 credits

Whether you're a pastor or a professor you'll be involved in counseling. Many pastors enter ministry under-prepared, often not knowing when they don't know enough.

Spiritual Formation (1 credit)
Spiritual Formation Groups: (0 credits - every semester enrolled if traditional student)
Holiness: 1 credit

Electives (6 credits)

The core curriculum ends here. Below I'll outline two possible paths for ministry focus. The first will be the pastoral ministry focus. The second will be for someone going on for academic ministry in Systematic Theology.

Ministry Focus (9 credits)

Pastoral Track
Counseling Elective (perhaps marriage counseling): 1 credit
Sociology: 2 credits
Worship: 2 credits
Denominational History: 1 credit
Field Education: 4 credits

A note on the field eds. You would have three of them, and two would also have seminars associated with them to try to integrate theory and praxis. One would be a preaching field ed. You'd have seminars on preaching, but you would also have to work with your local pastor and preach in your church. The second would be on church administration. A very significant amount of nearly every pastor's week is spent on administrative tasks, but seminaries often provide no training. You would learn the basics in a few seminars meanwhile working with a local pastor gaining an appreciation for all that goes on unseen to make everything run smoothly. The last field ed would be a traditional internship.

Systematic Theology
A Great Theologian (say Barth, Aquinas, Augustine): 3 credits
Philosophy Topic (say Language, Mind, Society): 3 credits
Field Education: 3 credits

Here I'm not exactly sure how to structure the field eds, but 3 of them have to be done says ATS. Perhaps one could be on pedagogy, with the student teaching a class session in the Western Theology course.

Is this proposal perfect? I'm sure it's not, but I think (and hope) that it still meets the goals of reducing credit hours and improving the curriculum. What do you think?

Galatians: Augustine on Fornication and Love

2011-09-07T07:30:00.000-05:00

Augustine, commenting on the vice and virtue lists of Galatians 5:

He put fornication at the head of the carnal vices and love at the head of the spiritual virtues. Anyone who takes pains in the study of divine Scripture will be prompted will be prompted to inquire attentively to the rest. Fornication is love divorced from legitimate wedlock. It roves everywhere in search of an opportunity to fulfill its lust.Yet nothing is so rightly suited for spiritual procreation as the union of the Soul with God. The more firmly it adheres, the more blameless it is. Love is what enables it to cleave. Rightly then the opposite of fornication is love. It is he sole means by which chastity is observed (Galatians 85).

I haven't come across any other commentators so far (I've only looked at Longenecker, Dunn, and Martyn) discussing if there's a possible link between the heads of each of Paul's lists in Galatians 5, and I'm curious if there is. I've been wondering why the early church chose agape as the word to use to describe love when the verb form, prior to the New Testament, was used to describe sex. Is there any sense in which Paul is depending on that meaning here? Did the word simply change meanings and the old meaning disappear? Does any sexual overtone survive in other NT uses? I have no idea, but Augustine's quote is interesting to think about.

Paul's Argument in Galatians 5:1-12

2011-08-29T07:30:00.000-05:00

¹ It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
² Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. ³ Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. ⁴ You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. ⁵ For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. ⁶ For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
⁷ You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth? ⁸ That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. ⁹ “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” ¹⁰ I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. ¹¹ Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. ¹² As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! (NIV)

In many ways this section presents the whole letter in a nutshell. He begins by reiterating what he has said in several different ways in chapter four. If you think that anything other than faith in Jesus is necessary to be a full member of the people of God then you're mistaken. Any attempt to conform to Jewish identity in order to ensure full acceptance undoes the work of Christ on the cross and makes it worthless for you. For Paul both non-Christian Jews and pagan Gentiles are in the same boat, on the outside of God's new creation and looking in.

The issue for Paul here is one of identity. Where is your identity found? The teachers were telling there converts that they needed to add Jewish identity onto their identity as followers of the Messiah (this isn't as ridiculous as it sounds - the Messiah, and Paul, and the 12, and Abraham were all Jewish). In verse three Paul warns the Galatians that you only get one identity. It's all or nothing. The status we hope for isn't manifest here and now by practices of the Torah (or any other cultural standard of morality), rather it's in an active faith. Verse 6 is probably a quick mini response to the claim that not requiring works of Torah would lead to sinful behavior. No, because faith in the Messiah expresses or manifests itself in actions that mirror the way of life of the Messiah.

Verses 7-10 have the function of softening some of the blow that he has periodically laid on the Galatians. He's called them foolish among other things. Here he places the blame squarely on the Teachers for this debacle. He encourages them to resist and even tells them that he knows that they'll make the right decision. One of the toughest verses to crack in the entire letter is verse 11. The most likely interpretation (Dunn provides a nice overview pp. 278-80) is that the Teachers told the Galatians that he did not preach circumcision to the Gentiles (this interpretation implies that the congregation is largely Gentile - which makes sense overall) but that he did to the Jews. This may be based on his circumcision of Timothy reported in Acts 16:3. Still it's hard to know what they thought this, and Paul is shocked by the suggestion too.

Paul closes the section with a rather ribald joke. It's important to understand, additionally, that eunuchs and those with deformed penises were excluded from the Jewish assembly. Dunn summarizes this verse well, 'It has the force of a reductio ad absurdum argument: one slice of the knife = acceptability to God; another slice of the knife = total unacceptability to God' (284).

More Thoughts on the Relationship Between Theology and History

2011-08-24T07:30:00.001-05:00

In my last post I asked what the relationship between history and theology should look like. I have two brief points to further that discussion, and neither of them novel (sorry). First, our theology needs to be informed by historical exegesis as NT Wright among others has reminded us. In particular, the church has repeatedly fallen through the trap door of de-Judaizing the Bible. The story of the Bible is a thoroughly Jewish story (and even that's imprecise as it's several Jewish stories from across centuries) and is only understandable as a Jewish story. It also is the story of Israel. If we don't wrestle with those realities then our theology will be (at best) tangential to, rather than reflective upon the revelation of the speaking God we find in the Scriptures.

At the same time, I feel as if historians want to put everybody in a straight jacket. Theology (as Dale Allison points out) has to deal with far more than history or even historical exegesis. History plays a role in illuminating the original intentions of the writers of the New Testament. The role of theology is then to construct from that basis and to use many other tools at its disposal. Theology must be allowed to go beyond the text. It must use Scripture creatively and demonstrate faithful improvisation. Our gaping distance from the world of the Bible doesn't make it irrelevant, it simply reinforces that history and original meaning ain't even close to enough.

Dale Allison on the Relationship Between History and Theology

2011-08-22T07:30:00.001-05:00

I have just finished Dale Allison's latest book, Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History. It is a great book and I'll hopefully write two or three posts reflecting on elements of it. First, I'd like to briefly discuss parts of the last three paragraphs of the book, as for me they were the most significant.

We should be grateful, then, that the so-called historical Jesus is only one of numerous theological resources, and far from the most important. Consider the present volume, which, if the author is any good at introspection, is much more the product of historical curiosity and professional habits of mind than of theological aspirations. Even if, let us say, a Christian reader is cheered by my case that Jesus had an exalted self-conception, christological reflection is much more than what the first-century Jesus is likely to have thought or said about himself. Would that it were so easy. Christology must wrestle with Paul, study the Cappadocians, engage modern philosophy, and do much else besides...To do history is not to do theology.

Although I have no desire to contract the circle of my readers, it seems to me both vain and inane that a book such as this can contribute to our knowledge of God, or that it should draw much attention from the theologians. Even though the quest has served many of us a s a wake-up call from our dogmatic slumbers, it is no substitute for constructive theology. It can be, at best, only prologue.

While it may be an "emotional necessity to exalt the problem to which one wants to devote a lifetime," and while I am proudly a historian, I must confess that history is not what matters most. If my deathbed finds me alert and not overly racked with pain, I will then be preoccupied with how I have witnessed and embodied faith, hope, and charity. I will not be fretting over the historicity of this or that part of the Bible (462).

I won't comment much on this quote except to say that I think it's largely right. To borrow a metaphor from NT Wright, I want to do theology with all of the pieces of the puzzle on the table. That assuredly includes the pieces that result from historical study, even if they're a minority of the pieces. However that does not get us all (or even most) of the way there. We need to remember (as I've written before) that ultimately the Jesus of the church is the Jesus of the canonical gospels, not the Jesus of modern historical reconstructions. So what role does history play in the task of theology? I'll discuss that next time. But for now I'd like to express my appreciation for the work of Dale Allison. I've always found his historical work to be a helpful aid for theological reflection.

Who is opposed by God? 1 Cor. 15:32 and Isaiah 22

2011-08-15T07:30:00.004-05:00

Sorry for my lack of posting these days. Numerous factors (including laziness) derailed my blogging. Hopefully I'll be back on the ball for a while.

A few weeks back I as reading Isaiah on the train in the morning and I read the source of Paul's quotation in 1 Corinthians 15:32, in Isaiah 22. The traditional interpretation that I've heard preached is that if there is no resurrection then we may as well party up because there's no hope for anything beyond this life. This is all we have. I'm not so sure that this is an adequate interpretation and reading the context of Isaiah 22 gave me a little different picture.

⁸ The Lord stripped away the defenses of Judah,
and you looked in that day
to the weapons in the Palace of the Forest.
⁹ You saw that the walls of the City of David
were broken through in many places;
you stored up water
in the Lower Pool.
¹⁰ You counted the buildings in Jerusalem
and tore down houses to strengthen the wall.
¹¹ You built a reservoir between the two walls
for the water of the Old Pool,
but you did not look to the One who made it,
or have regard for the One who planned it long ago.
¹² The Lord, the LORD Almighty,
called you on that day
to weep and to wail,
to tear out your hair and put on sackcloth.
¹³ But see, there is joy and revelry,
slaughtering of cattle and killing of sheep,
eating of meat and drinking of wine!
“Let us eat and drink,” you say,
“for tomorrow we die!”
¹⁴ The LORD Almighty has revealed this in my hearing: “Till your dying day this sin will not be atoned for,” says the Lord, the LORD Almighty. (NIV)

When we situate the quotation in its original context, yes, the residents of Jerusalem are partying up because they have no hope. But that is what they're judged for. In fact I think you could even call it the last straw.

When you read the book of Judges (and elsewhere in the OT) you see the same pattern repeated: the people sin, God sends a foreign nation to judge them, the people cry out in mourning and repentance, and God saves them. In Isaiah, as well, the people sin, God brings them to the brink of destruction, but rather than turn, they party on. Their eating and drinking becomes the last straw, the, 'sin that will not be atoned for' (Is. 22:14).

I want to suggest that perhaps Paul is bringing along with him the entire context of the Isaiah passage when he quotes Is. 22:13. If the dead are not raised then Paul is misrepresenting God. God had not vindicated Jesus and will not vindicate his followers (though from a different period than Isaiah, this would be akin to the Jews trusting in Egypt to save them from Babylon). Under that scenario, Paul should have realized that the opposition he was receiving was opposition from God. God was trying to stop his preaching, but his continual pressing on in his sinful activity meant that judgment was coming and Paul's sin could not be atoned for. I think that this explanation may make it clear why Paul chooses to narrate his own trials immediately preceding the Isaiah citation. If the punishment was from God then Paul has abandoned the God of Abraham by preaching Jesus.

I hope that makes clear that the quoted phrase is not Paul's actual suggestion to the Corinthians. Rather it's used as a catchphrase to bring to mind the wider context of Isaiah 22. In this way Paul also turns the tables on the Corinthians who did not believe in the resurrection. In fact, Paul wasn't mistaken, and his trials were not God's punishment intended to bring him to repentance. Rather it was the Corinthians who didn't believe in the resurrection and had fallen into licentious living (here I'm in line with Hays and Fitzmyer) who were the true enemies of God and were in danger of falling into a state from which their sin could not be atoned for.

Richard Hays on Allegory Today

2011-05-20T07:30:00.000-05:00

Should we emulate Paul's use of allegory?

Paul's method of discerning parallels between the biblical narrative and the crisis facing his readers is invariably employed whenever preachers see the circumstances of their own day illumined or prefigured by the stories of Scripture. Thus all Christian preaching is allegorical in the Pauline sense. The function of preaching is not to give factual historical reports; rather it is to make metaphors, linking the ancient text with the present life of the congregation in fresh imaginative ways so that the text reshapes the congregation's vision of its life before God.

By that criterion, Paul's allegory in Gal 4:21-5:1 is a brilliantly successful piece of preaching...When allegory functions like that, in service of proclaiming the gospel, who can withhold the water for baptizing it? The key question is whether the allegorical reading is governed by the larger shape of the biblical story - as it is here in Galatians - or whether the method is drafted into the service of other conceptualities. Any interpretive method can be abused, including historical criticism. The tests of validity are finally theological rather than methodological (Galatians 309).

Paul's Argument in Galatians 4:21-31

2011-05-17T07:30:00.004-05:00

²¹ Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? ²² For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. ²³ His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.
²⁴ These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. ²⁵ Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. ²⁶ But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. ²⁷ For it is written:
“Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”
²⁸ Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. ²⁹ At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. ³⁰ But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” ³¹ Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman. (NIV)

Yes we are back at Galatians after (yet another) break and we'll take up one of the more fascinating passages in Galatians as Paul allegorically interprets Genesis 21 and its surrounding context. While allegory is looked down upon now, that has not always been the case. Second temple Judaism and Christianity at least up to the Reformation embraced allegory, as Paul clearly does here. Far from being a throw away or small addition to his argument, Paul uses the allegory to drive one of his key exhortations to the Galatians, to have them kick out the false teachers. Some interpreters have claimed that Paul isn't actually resorting to allegorical interpretation here but instead is interpreting typologically. I think that opinion results more from their own uncomfortableness with non-literal methods of interpretation. While Paul isn't going wild in his allegory, it still clearly is allegory.

One of the keys to interpreting this passage is seeing who's who. Paul here contrasts two groups. On the one side is Paul and those who promoted a law-free Gentile mission. On the other side are the Teachers and those who required Gentiles to be law observant. The Teachers are the children of Hagar, the ones who are enslaved and thus continue to beget children in slavery, children who oppress the children born of the promise.

Paul also rips a portion of the Jerusalem church here as well. The Teachers claimed their superiority to Paul because they were backed by part of the Jerusalem church. Paul had no official backing. However, Paul claims backing from a better Jerusalem, the heavenly Jerusalem. Any who require Torah observance to be part of the people of God are going back to the old order before Christ, back into slavery (similar to his argument in 4:8-11). Patrilineage guarantees nothing. Only children of the promise (who's identity was revealed earlier) are free.

The citation in the middle of the passage comes from Isaiah 54:1. To understand Paul's usage here, first we need to notice the wider context in Isaiah. It directly follows Isaiah 53 and the description of the suffering servant. Isaiah 54 is the beginning of a song of praise for the eschatological victory that God's people will experience. By citing the verse at the hinge (remember there were no chapter divisions in Paul's day) Paul here is declaring that it is through union with God's people through Christ's work on the cross that the Gentiles have hope. They know that they will some day enter glory, and it's not because of the Torah, but because of the work of Christ alone. The choice of passage is also brilliant by Paul for the echoes back to the Genesis passage at hand (as well as to the story of Hannah).

As mentioned before, Paul concludes with the command to kick out the Teachers from the congregation. There is no room in the body of Christ for those who seek to marginalize and enslave God's children with any kind of law.

Getting the Short End of the Stick

2011-05-16T07:30:00.001-05:00

Below are three quotes. Who wrote each of the following?

Commenting on Galatians 4:21-31

However, the free woman Sarah, who bore the free son, signifies the grace of the New Testament that begot the Christian people who are liberated in their baptism not only from original and actual sins but from every form of legal servitude. This is the inheritance of Christ, the homeland of Christ that they will inherit.

On the same passage:

This people was born through the promise because God mercifully promised to save them through faith. It was through the promise, therefore, because this people did not serve God out of any desire for fleshly things, which are visible, but rather out of an affection for spiritual things, which are invisible. They trust that they will obtain these things based upon God's promise alone.

Commenting on Galatians 2:16

In short, there is no way that one can be justified except through the faith of Christ Jesus, referring to the faith by which one believes in Christ...The apostle does not say that by faith good works are thereby made meaningless, for God renders to each person according to that person's works. Rather it is because works proceed from grace - not grace from works. Faith working through love does nothing unless the love of God is poured into us through the Holy Spirit. Nor does faith abide in us unless God bestows it. Paul says that we are to be justified by faith because faith comes first. It is from this that the rest of these are to be accomplished.

Again, who wrote each of these?

The first is by Haimo of Auxerre, the second by Bruno the Carthusian, and the last by Peter Lombard. What do they all have in common? They were all Medieval Catholic theologians. Just like the New Perspective on Paul helped bring some corrective to the ways we understood Judaism, I wonder if we need a New Perspective on Medieval Catholicism.

I haven't read a ton of Medieval Catholic Theology but reading the Galatians commentary put together by Ian Christopher Levy in the Bible in Medieval Tradition series makes me wonder if we're really describing them accurately. In particular from New Perspective advocates, you'll hear something along these lines, "the Judaism of Paul's day wasn't a legalistic works righteousness religion where the Jews believed they were earning their acceptance before God. Luther was just projecting the Medieval Catholic church backwards into first century Judaism."

If you just listen to the way Medieval Catholicism is described by some NT scholars you could very easily get the impression that there was little room for grace. Quotes like the above make me think that that's probably not true. Just like we shouldn't unfairly beat up on first century Judaism to elevate our brand of Christianity, we should also avoid the same with Medieval Catholicism. I'm not saying that there weren't legalistic elements in Medieval Catholic teaching (I haven't read enough of it to fairly answer that), but that we need to be fair.

Scot McKnight on the Church

2011-05-13T07:30:00.000-05:00

Differentiating his view of church from common experiences of church:

Please don't mistake what I'm saying. We are not talking about church as many have experienced it. We are not necessarily talking about denominations or church buildings or catechism classes or priests or organs or parking lots or anything like that. Some churches, in fact, are like shopping malls: people park their nice cars, enter the building, get what they want, get back in the car and go out to eat. But that's not community (and it's not really church either). The word we are using is community, and we dare not confuse community-less church or Christianity or religion or Christendom with what the Spirit creates. The Spirit creates community that makes church what the kingdom wants church to be. So, when I say "Church.Life" I mean that kind of community, but it is in a church where that community forms (One.Life p. 101 - emphasis original).

Philippians 2:6-11 and Adam Christology

2011-05-09T07:30:00.000-05:00

When I was preparing for my sermon, the argument I found that raged the strongest was whether or not there is an Adam Christology present in the passage. What thinketh I? Well I'm glad you asked! If you listened to my sermon, you might get the idea that I do subscribe to the Adam Christology theory. To channel my inner Lee Corso, 'not so fast my friend!' At the same time I want to say, 'of course there's an Adam Christology here!'

What gives? If one is doing a historical-critical reading of Philippians 2:6-11, I do not think that there is a tie back to Adam. The alleged parallels (like the alleged form/image parallel) simply are not strong enough to make the claim that Paul was intentionally playing Jesus against Adam (I won't rehash the argument here - see, O'Brien 263-8). However, does that mean that it's illegitimate to contrast Jesus and Adam when discussing this passage? Absolutely not. I'll have my cake and eat it too. It's a perfectly valid inference from the text at the level of biblical theology and it's certainly not in tension with the original meaning of the passage. The Philippians themselves very well may have made the same connections when listening to Paul.

This point is similar to one that Michael Bird makes in The Saving Righteousness of God (a fantastic book, by the way), when discussing imputation. In his opinion, no text of Scripture directly teaches imputation, but that doesn't make it an invalid concept in systematic theology. It's necessary to see more in the text than the human author intended. There's no reason why sensus plenior can't apply to the New Testament as well. Yes there are difficulties in doing this, but if we don't rise above the level of merely describing the original intentions of the author we have a dead text. We need to use and develop the ideas of the biblical author, and do it in conversation with the rest of the cannon. However, we need to be clear that that's what we're doing. I find too often that this work is often mistakenly understood to be unpacking the original meaning of a text, it's not. It's at a level removed.

So is there an Adam Christology in Philippians 2:6-11? Yes! and no. It just depends on what type of interpretation you're doing.

Thoughts on JVG

2011-05-06T07:30:00.000-05:00

For about two weeks straight my friend and I engaged in conversation about Sucker Punch. Every single scene got dissected. We each had our theories on the movie and I tried to think through every aspect through the lens I constructed. At one point I asked my friend, 'am I going too far in my interpretations?' He responded by saying, 'I do think that you want it to box too neatly and consume everything with rational or symbolic relevance. The fact is it's a studio film and therefore given to the biases of the studio, the producer, the director, the whims of actresses who refuse this or that. Budget preventing this song to be chosen and forcing another etc.' I drew a very neat picture of the movie and I felt that I could integrate most every detail into that picture. The problem is that some of the coherence I saw wasn't real and was more easily explained as being caused by other factors (e.g., are the demon-like figures in the first fight scene the hospital orderlies? - probably not - it could more easily be chalked up to Snyder's personal background). The fact that this movie is part of my culture enabled me to have a clear picture of where I read too much into a particular detail.

A while back I finished reading JVG and I have to say that I absolutely loved it. It's an awesome book that provokes a lot of thought. Wright's portrait of Jesus is compelling, it has a lot of explanatory power. I have some reservations about it, though. It explains everything very neatly, and that concerns me. Wright describes his approach as one that tries to keep all of the puzzle pieces on the board. That strikes me as a necessity. However, given our cultural distance from the world of Jesus, coherence can be a bit of a problematic method and it seems like that's Wright's go to argument. When looking at individual episodes, it's hard to know at which points coherence is real and where it's only apparent. Yes a particular interpretation may cohere with the overall picture of Jesus that we're painting (which is continuous with both Judaism and early Christianity), but that doesn't make it the right interpretation. There needs to be room for a Jesus who is outside of every box at times.

Is this a fatal flaw? By no means! Does it temper my enthusiasm for JVG? Perhaps a little, but at the end of the day, coherence is really all we can go on. If we don't have a coherent Jesus who's understandable as a product of Judaism and vitally connected to early Christianity, then we probably don't have the real Jesus. However, we just need to be aware that if we follow Wright there are probably spots where we're forcing things into a grid when they don't really fit. This is where community interpretation is so critical. Perhaps by listening to the critics Wright at the same time we can hopefully at least see a few places where we should go in a different direction than the one he has chosen.

Phew!

2011-05-02T07:30:00.001-05:00

If you've been wondering where I've been the past few weeks, I've been preparing a sermon that I finally delivered yestersday. Once a year all of the interns have to preach. This was my week, and I spoke on 'Creating Unity in Community through Humility.' My text was Philippians 2:1-11. If you'd like to hear it, here's the link.

Book Review: Following Jesus, the Servant King

2011-04-08T07:30:00.001-05:00

Thanks to the folks at Zondervan for providing a review copy and a slot in their blog tour.

Following Jesus, the Servant King: A Biblical Theology of Covenantal Discipleship (Biblical Theology for Life)is a new book out by Jonathan Lunde, Professor at Talbot School of Theology. This is just the second book in Zondervan's Biblical Theology for Life Series, the first being The Mission of God's People: A Biblical Theology of the Church's Mission by Christopher Wright. The goal of the series is to bring serious academic biblical theology to bear in a practical way on contemporary questions. Lunde's work tackles the topic of discipleship. His definition of discipleship is,

...learning to receive and respond to God's grace and demand, which are mediated through Jesus, the Servant King, so as to reflect God's character in relation to him, to others, and to the world, in order that all may come to experience this same grace and respond to this same demand (276).

This definition comes after carefully examining three key questions:

Why: Why should I be concerned to obey all of Jesus' commands if I have been saved by grace?
What: What is it that Jesus demands of his disciples?
How: How can the disciple obey Jesus' high demand, while experiencing his "yoke" as "light" and "easy"?

The bulk of the book is spent unpacking these in order. In the 'why' question we look at the covenants in some detail. This is one of the key distinctives to Lunde's approach to discipleship, it's distinctly covanental. He repeatedly combs through each of the covenants (Edenic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New) looking at how Jesus fulfills them and also the relationship between grace and obedience. One of the strongest points he make is that no matter the covenant type (grant or conditional), grace was always prior to obedience, enabling it. Additionally, Lunde persuasively shows that every single covenant came with a demand of righteous behavior, whether it was a conditional or a royal grant covenant. Failing to strive to live righteously completely misunderstands what it means to live in covenant with God.

The 'what' question is probably the most memorable portion of the book. Here Lunde really zeros in on Jesus, especially focusing in on his relationship to the law, using three metaphors: Jesus the filter, Jesus the lens, and Jesus the prism. When examining Jesus as filter, Lunde looks at the question of continuity and discontinuity between the Mosaic Law and the New Covenant. What is found is that while some laws aren't to be literally observed by us in the New Covenant, often Jesus reinterprets them in a new way that heightens their requirement for obedience (e.g., food laws). The chapter on Jesus as lens explores how, with some laws, Jesus peeled back the tradition so that the original intent of individual laws and the OT as a whole could be seen and recovered (e.g., Jesus recovery of the emphasis on mercy). The lens provides clarity. Finally, Jesus is the prism because law the law travels in a different direction after interpreted by him. Some laws, like the law against adultery, are moved to a higher plane. Their demands are heightened. Because Jesus is the King, it is to him and his demands that we must render our obedience.

The third question, 'how,' is probably the toughest sledding. There's a lot of meaty exegesis and biblical theology going on. The aspect of his argument that I found most helpful was the discussion on the shape of life in covenant with God. Lunde focuses in on three main themes, remembering, receiving, and responding. We are to take time remember what God has done for us in redeeming us (e.g., Sabbath), we are to receive grace from God through the Holy Spirit which enables us to respond by living a life of faithfulness. Often it is through remembering that receiving and then responding happens. Given the emphasis on this covanental pattern, there is a very heavy focus on Jesus and his work of grace extended to us. Lunde, also helpfully takes us through some of the patterns of Jesus ministry, especially his focus on ministry to the marginalized. A strong call issues forth to us to follow in the suffering servant's, Jesus', footsteps in that regard. We are to receive and imitate Jesus' sacrificial inclusiveness.

The final section of the book provided some practical suggestions of how to carry this out, challenging both popular Evangelical methods of evangelism and our general biblical illiteracy. Here Lunde also stresses the necessity of being like Jesus in executing social justice as well as evangelizing. Lunde holds those two emphasis together well and rightly sees them as non-competing.

I have a lot of appreciation for this book. Certainly when one examines the sheer number of texts that Lunde does, you'll have minor disagreements with his exegesis here and there; that's a given. I don't want to focus on those, though, because I don't think that any points of disagreement are truly significant. I found his overall line of argument to be very helpful and persuasive. I've never thought about discipleship within the context of covenant before. It helped me see exactly how grace and the demand of obedience co-exist without one minimizing the other.

My main suggested improvement for the book would be to have more engagement with Acts and the Epistles. Very little attention is given to them, and I don't understand why. This would be particularly helpful, I think, to spend some time seeing what discipleship looked like in a non-Jewish setting, looking at how Christians in Greece and Asia Minor, guided by the apostles, followed Jesus. I don't think this would cause Lunde to change any of the stances he comes to, but I think it would make the book more practical and would add robustness to some of the points he made, especially about Jesus being 'the filter.' There is some material from Acts and the Epistles, but not nearly as much as there should be in my opinion.

Overall I found Following Jesus, the Servant King to be worth engaging. Pastors, especially those in a shepherding role, should get a copy of and read it. It also could be profitably used in adult Sunday school classes or other teaching sessions, if unpacked by the instructor. Lunde has a lot to say to the church. I hope his voice is heard and that it serves as an encouragement to more scholars to follow in his footsteps in applying solid scholarship to matters of first importance in the church.

A Review and Defense of Sucker Punch

2011-03-29T10:55:00.000-05:00

A defense of Sucker Punch? Really? How could anyone defend that movie? Critics have lambasted the movie as being all about sexual provocation and/or having a confusing or incoherent plot. As for the critics who said the former, I have to question their qualifications to be movie critics. If anything the point of the movie is the opposite. As for the charge of incoherence, this is a bit more understandable, but if you're willing to think hard and pull away the layers of the movie, a stunning coherence and plot emerge. Here I have to give credit to my friend Heath, with whom I attended the movie. I initially thought it was incoherent too, until he forced me to think it through.

Before you write me off, let me say this too. I am not a Snyder fanboy. I've never seen one of his movies before. I've never written a move review before and my never again, but the pure injustice of the reviews of this movie force me to write in defense of Snyder and this movie. Not only is this film not bad, from a technical standpoint it's one of the best films I've seen in some time.

Before I spoil the plot, let me urge you to see it, in the theater (preferably in IMAX). The way the scenes are shot is critical to understanding the story, and to get the full effect you have to see it on the big screen. The other key to the movie is seeing parallelism. There are four sets of parallel characters. If you don't see that, you can't understand the plot. As an aside, I think that interpreting this movie is a wonderful, fun exercise of exegesis.

SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!! Please don't read further if you intend to see the movie and haven't yet done so. It will completely ruin your experience. Just take my word that it's worthwhile and go watch it then come back and read.

The title Sucker Punch is a spoiler. The movie is a sucker punch in at least three different ways. First, early on the movie seems to be all about the display of the female anatomy. From about ten minutes on until about the halfway mark of the movie, almost every shot in the movie except the action sequences is framed in a way to showcase a girl in the foreground or background. The early action scenes also showcase the girls, primarily Baby Doll, on several occasions, especially noting the fact that she's wearing high heels in her fights. Thus the movie is setting you up to 'enjoy' the skin. As the movie progresses, however. You begin to understand that these girls are being sexually exploited (one character claims to own them) and treated like objects and you start to feel bad for them. Also, as Baby Doll feels more and more empowered, the sexual nature of the scenes dramatically diminishes. Here's the first Sucker Punch. You're intended to enjoy the eye candy (isn't the movie marketed as being eye candy?), only to be chastised for treating the girls like objects and placing you in the position of the abusers. Next we will see how the storyline en toto provides not one, but two additional sucker punches.

The seeming basic plot of the movie is that there is a young girl, who we know as Baby Doll whose mother dies and was sexually abused by her step-dad, and in her grief attempts to kill her step-dad, but ends up killing her sister. She's put into a mental institution where she has a series of fantasies through which she ends up being able to liberate a friend, named Sweet Pea. The Sucker Punch at this level is that Baby Doll whom you've fallen in love with doesn't get freed, but gets lobotomized, though in the process she exposes the pervasive sexual and physical abuse of the mental institution. Sweet Pea, whom you like the least of the protagonists because she resists the plan to escape, goes free. The movie ends with a black screen and a voice-over talking about our ability and need to create our own reality when reality sucks. This is a sucker punch and makes you leave the movie theater not only rebuked, but jilted. You didn't even get a happy ending.

Everything I wrote above is wrong. That's not the plot at all. Except for the voice-over at the end. You've been Sucker Punched a third time. This review is already quite long so I won't go into the full details, which are difficult to pick apart anyways (and I want to leave some fun for you). Instead I will provide the framework for understanding the movie.

Baby Doll doesn't exist. There was no sexually abusive step-father. In fact, I don't believe that a single scene in the movie accurately represents reality. The closest is the first scene in the 'theater' where Baby Doll's father 'sells' her to the orderly and we learn that Dr. Gorsky uses unusual methods to treat her patients, but tellingly, Baby Doll won't be treated by her. The movie is about her letting go of her painful reality in the mental institution. Baby Doll is an idealized projection of Sweet Pea's self. In that scene Dr. Gorsky is treating Sweet Pea. Part of the treatment is to convince Sweet Pea that the treatment itself isn't happening. The entire fake plot of the movie is a construct of Dr. Gorsky to help Sweet Pea escape her misery and willingly go to her lobotomy. The lobotomy scene and what follows is a projection of Sweet Pea's imagination. Dr. Gorsky did order it, even though Sweet Pea believes otherwise. The sexual abuse is not exposed, but, Sweet Pea is free and happy in her new reality.

While this isn't a totally satisfying message in my opinion, I do think that Snyder was very effective in getting it across if you're willing to stop and think about the movie. When you review any book or work of art you always need to ask, did the author succeed in what they were attempting to accomplish? The answer here is a resounding yes. The direction and cinematography are exquisite. They tell the story more than the plot does. The music, especially the choice of Sweet Dreams in the opening scene (I can't shake the eeriness of the song and scene, now three days removed from seeing the movie) also aids in the comprehension of the story. The point of the movie is the perlocutionary effect, and oh what an effect it has!

Building a Library

2011-03-21T09:00:00.003-05:00

I've been working on putting together a nice base for my theological library for the past few years (I still have a long way to go). I've put a lot of time and thought into its composition (and my wife says a lot of money too). Along the way I've learned a few things so I wanted to put a post together to provide some suggestions on how to build one from scratch or improve an existing library.

1. Preview before you buy

Books, especially commentaries, are expensive. Try to preview them in some way before you buy them. This will save you money and disappointment. There are a few ways you can do this. If you live near a good local theological library, spend a few hours there reading. Even your local public library may have what you're looking for. Also, follow publishers' blogs. They often have previews of a chapter or two of forthcoming books. Another way to get a look inside a book is Google Books, which has previews or the full text of some books available.

2. Think about it

There are so many good books to buy. So many! Often times I've learned about a book and gotten really excited about a book and wanted to buy it only to have my initial excitement wear off a few days later. To combat this, I've instituted a waiting period before I buy anything to guard myself against impulse purchases. When I find the book I like I put it on my amazon wish list, then several days later I go back and compare it to other books on my wish list. If I still want it more than any other book on my wish list (which I keep up to date and use their priority rankings) in the same price range, then I'll pull the trigger.

3. You need more than commentaries

A good theological library should contain commentaries, bible dictionaries, introductory books covering portions of Scripture (NT, OT, Paul, the Gospels, the prophets, etc.) both of the historical critical type and the theological type, systematic theology texts, books of historical theology, lexicons and grammars, books on church history, and some basic references on the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and the Apostolic Fathers. You also should buy important monographs within each of these fields that provide in-depth studies on various matters.

4. Don't buy it just because...

it's cheap or it's by an author you like. I've seen the former mistake made often, especially related to commentaries. You have a lacuna in your library so when you see a book or series on sale that addresses your need you jump on it. Hold your horses, especially if you don't know much about the book/series you're buying. Series in particular tend to be very uneven (thus I don't recommend buying a whole commentary series unless you already have a very deep library and have lots of money) so your great deal may not end up solving your problem. As I mentioned too, not all works by the same author are of equal quality, especially if they're churning books out at record pace.

5. Be diverse

No tradition gets everything right and there's great benefit to seeing Scripture from different angles. Especially when buying commentaries, try to buy books from several different positions. Buy Reformed and Arminiain; Evangelical, Mainline Protestant, and Catholic. Be very, very intentional about this. For example, if you're reformed and you want to buy four commentaries on Romans, avoid the temptation of buying Morris, Moo, Schreiner, and Cranfield. They're great commentaries, but you'll only be looking at Romans from one general perspective. Consider going with Moo, Jewett, Wright, and Fitzmyer; or Cranfield, Dunn, Schreiner, and Keener.

In addition to buying from a variety of theological perspectives, vary the style of commentary that you purchase. You need at least one commentary written within the last twenty years that comments on the original language. I also think that buying a commentary that takes a more theological approach is a necessity as well. Two commentary series, the Two Horizons and the Brazos Theological Commentary series are provide rich theological exegesis. They're new kids on the block, so many books of the Bible aren't covered by either of these series.

Also consider the approach taken to study the text. For example, on the gospels you don't a bunch of commentaries that focus heavily on form and redaction criticism, even if you're a big fan of it. Look at some that do narrative criticism, or that are written by scholars who focus on the oral traditions behind the text.

6. Don't neglect older works

There are a lot of good works out there by dead guys. Read them! IVP and Crossway in particular have been helpful in bringing the resources of the past to today's readers. Crossway has a series of commentaries (Crossway Classic Commentaries) written by the greats of the Reformation tradition. IVP, as of late, has been publishing a lot of texts from the early church, under the label 'Ancient Christian.' These include their Ancient Christian Commentary Series, which cobbles together quotes from various early church commentators, to full single author commentaries and books on various doctrinal topics. Hopefully someone will fill in the gap and produce English translations of Medieval works. There also is a lot of good stuff out there in the area of theology, whether it be Aquinas, Calvin, Barth, Wesley, Augustine, or others. Get your hands on their stuff and read it!

7. Buy more than you think you need because you'll never know when you need it

I know that good reference books are expensive but you need to have enough books on your shelf that when you have a question about a particular passage or a significant topic you have a place or two to start looking for answers. You never know when that question will pop up, so it's best to be prepared in advance. A short story to illustrate. This past Fall, I taught a class in my church on Daniel. I wanted to spend a little time studying the Additions to Daniel in the Apocrypha. It just so happened that six months prior I had purchased Invitation to the Apocrypha. It gave me a helpful resource for my study.

8. It's not just about you

When building your library, try to be other focused. Encourage people to borrow from you. Don't be afraid to give away a book that has been helpful to you. Possessions can lead to covetousness and hoarding, and this certainly includes books. Don't let your library oppress you, but use it to its fullest for God's glory by helping those who aren't so fortunate to have such an awesome library!

My Final Four

2011-03-15T08:34:00.002-05:00

Ohio St.
Duke
Kansas
St. Johns

I like Ohio St. over Kansas 71-68 in the championship. Who do you like?

The Curse and the Rupture Part 2

2011-02-04T07:30:00.001-06:00

In my last post I suggested that a good way to look at the consequences of Adam and Eve's first sin is to see it as 'the rupture,' sketching how the curse of Genesis 3 makes sense when viewed as a frustration of a variety of relationships; that between a person and God, between fellow human beings, and between people and the cosmos. Danny wisely asked me to tease out the theological implications of this line of reasoning, and I will hit some of the major implications below.

The biggest implication is that it slightly refocuses and broadens our understanding of the atonement, because of the change in our understanding of what most needs fixing as a result of the first sin. Cole has aptly titled his book. The divine project is to bring shalom. Thus, I don't think that satisfaction is the chief end of the atonement. I think that often too much stress is paid on Jesus paying the penalty for our sins on the cross (I'm not saying this isn't important or that he didn't - I do, though, think that many, especially amongst the reformed, talk about Jesus work on the cross solely in that mode, and yes I know that there are other groups who don't see any element of satisfaction in the atonement which causes the reaction it does amongst the reformed). The atonement achieved much more than forgiveness (or even justification), it achieved restored relationships. At baptism we are united with Christ in his death and resurrection, which breaks down the barrier between us and God and between us and the rest of God's family.

I also think that there are interesting implications related to environmental ethics, implications which the Bible never works out. If the atonement overcomes the relational rupture of the original sin, then there must be a sense in which it overcomes our conflict with the environment. In other words, environmental ethics become extremely important, as now a part of our job in carrying out the divine project must be to realize those restored relationships now.

Lastly, I think that unity then becomes a much bigger deal. Currently, I believe that evangelicalism in general and conservative reformed groups in particular (for the record, I am reformed so I see the critiques of the reformed movement in this post as gentle criticism by a close cousin), don't want to work at unity nearly enough. They're happy to be united with other similar minded groups, but how many would do ministry together with United Methodists or Presbyterians (USA)? God sent his son to break down all barriers separating us, to restore us to communion with one another. Let us not rebuild what God has destroyed.

The Curse and the Rupture

2011-01-31T07:30:00.000-06:00

Graham Cole, following Jaques Ellul, likes to term the first sin in Genesis 3 'the rupture' in addition to the traditional title of 'the fall.' The strength of this suggestion is that it draws our attention to the 'breaking of a network of relationships' (Cole 2009: 56). In this post I'd like to explore the idea of the fall also as 'the rupture' and how taking that vantage point sheds light on the curse. First, though, we must take a moment to look at the role of man and woman in the Garden.

The first text to look at is Genesis 1:28-29, where God gives man a job to do, to procreate, and to extend God's rule as God's vice regent. He was given plant life for his food. The second text is Genesis 2:15-20. There we see man at his work, specifically tilling the ground and ruling the animals by naming them. The picture portrayed between man and his environment is positive and he is working towards its benefit. All of this is necessary background to keep in mind when we look at the curse (the text of Genesis 3:12-24 is below).

¹² The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” ¹³ Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” ¹⁴ So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
¹⁵ And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
¹⁶ To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
¹⁷ To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
¹⁸ It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
¹⁹ By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”
²⁰ Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.
²¹ The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. ²² And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” ²³ So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. ²⁴ After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. (NIV)

At the rupture, three relationships were broken, the relationship between man and God, man and the cosmos, and man and his fellow man. The first of these is the most obvious. While not part of God's explicit curse, God does, in verse 22-24 banish Adam and Eve from the garden enacting the first exile. Adam and Eve's intimate relationship with God was shattered.
The second, broken interpersonal relationships, is clear from the text, as the relationship between Adam and Eve is fouled up. Also, the very next story is the story of Cain's murder of Abel, illustrating the case in point. The third is also clear: a frustration of Adam and Eve's relationship with their environment. The task of cultivation (their God given task) and their relationship with animals is frustrated. Additionally, the means through which they were to extend their dominion, reproduction also has been made more difficult. Thus we have frustration at every point due to broken relationships caused by sin.

Paul's Argument in Galatians 4:12-20

2011-01-24T07:30:00.002-06:00

¹² I plead with you, brothers and sisters, become like me, for I became like you. You did me no wrong. ¹³ As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you, ¹⁴ and even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself. ¹⁵ Where, then, is your blessing of me now? I can testify that, if you could have done so, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me. ¹⁶ Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?
¹⁷ Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may have zeal for them. ¹⁸ It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always, not just when I am with you. ¹⁹ My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, ²⁰ how I wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about you! (NIV)

Following Longenecker I see this passage as the start of a new section, the request section. Now that Paul has built the Scriptural and experiential foundation of his appeal he now goes ahead and makes it. The appeal starts with a call for the Galatians to become like Paul, meaning, that just as Paul was loyal to the gospel and died to the law for the sake of the Gentile Galatians, they should do the same. They should be loyal to the gospel by not erecting boundaries where none should be. This reminder of how Paul was when he came to them segues into his appeal on the basis of their prior experience together.

When Paul was in Galatia, the Galatians did him no wrong. They received him with joy, as one who spoke the very words of God, as a divine messenger, and this is amazing because Paul was not impressive in appearance. It's not clear what malady Paul had, but it was fairly noticeable. Usually in the ancient world being a promoter of a religion who had a serious illness would prevent your audience from accepting what you had to say. It showed that you were counterfeit. Not only did the Galatians not reject him, but they were willing to give them their right arm for him. A deep affectionate bond had developed between Paul and the Galatians, which is why Paul was so perplexed by their defection from his gospel. The cause of this was the Teachers.

The Teachers had gone into Galatia and undermined Paul's gospel by telling the Galatians that they had to become Jews to be full members of God's people. Thus they excluded the Galatians from the people of God.[1] Paul goes on the offensive here, stating that the motives of the Teachers weren't pure, they excluded the Galatians so that the Galatians might pursue them. The Teachers wanted a following and swept in upon the vulnerable Galatians. The Galatians thought that the Teachers were helping them, but Paul exposes their true motives.

Paul continues that he wasn't saying this motivated by jealousy, rather it is out of deep concern for the Galatians. Paul cares for them deeply, like a mother for her children. Paul had gone through much labor and anguish to see the Galatians come to know Christ. Now he had to go through it again, but this time from afar. Paul would have preferred not to have to deal with this from a distance, but he had to and so he had to be a bit on the harsh side. On top of attempting to drive a wedge between the Galatians and the Teachers, Paul also was trying to appeal emotionally to the sense of solidarity that the Galatians and Paul once had.

------------

[1] Here I disagree with the NIV's addition of 'from us' to 'What they want is to alienate you.' 'From us' is not part of the Greek text and is an unnecessary addition. The NRSV is preferable at this point, 'They make much of you, but for no good purpose; they want to exclude you, so that you may make much of them.'

Why Did Jesus Heal?

2011-01-17T07:30:00.005-06:00

One way in which Jesus' mighty works were evidently understood by some was that they were the signs of the long-awaited fulfillment of prophecy. For a first century Jew, most if not all the works of healing, which form the bulk of Jesus' mighty works, could be seen as a restoration to membership in Israel to those who, through sickness or whatever, had been excluded as ritually unclean. The healings thus function in exact parallel with the welcome of sinners, and this, we may be quite sure, was what Jesus himself intended. (JVG 191).

I think that this is one of the best observations Wright makes in the first third of JVG and I'd like to develop it a little bit. Several months ago, when reading the opening chapters of Mark's gospel, I noticed something striking. Right after the temptation, Jesus is said to go around proclaiming the good news but what Mark writes about is the calling of the disciples and a series of healings and exorcisms. We don't get any teachings of Jesus until the middle of chapter two (the contrast with Matthew - who mentions the healings and gives us the Sermon on the Mount - is striking).

What is Mark's point? I think it's twofold. One, it's very important to make the observation that Wright does above. Jesus didn't heal just for the sake of healing people. He healed with a purpose, the purpose of including the outsider, the marginalized. It symbolized his restoration of the lost sheep of Israel.

There's another important facet, however (and Wright does point out something along these lines later on in JVG). Mark seems to have a particular interest in Jesus' exorcisms. By doing these healing and exorcisms, Jesus was showing that the kingdom of God was breaking in right then, that he was destroying the hold that satan had over these people. By adding in this point we see how in a very full sense Jesus healings are an exact parallel with his welcome of sinners. In their case, and in the case of all who are saved, Jesus had to break the power of sin, death and the devil. Jesus' healings prefigured the healing of the nations that he performed on the cross. By a mighty act he defeated satan and allowed outsiders into the family of God.

The question that this drives me to ask is this: How do we walk in Jesus' footsteps? I think that there are a lot of paths we could take, but I don't think that seeking the physical healing of others is the main one. That is not to say that we shouldn't pray for healings, I just don't think it's a primary way in which we imitate Christ, because in Jesus' ministry inclusion was primary, with breaking satan's power being a necessary condition.

However, I believe that we do have lepers in our day; people who are excluded because of the state of their physical bodies; the handicapped. Our job as the church is to reach out to those whom society has determined to be 'the least,' whether it be through advocacy or through inclusion in our church bodies. If the church could embrace the handicapped it would be a beautiful sign of the kingdom of God breaking in here and now.

Galatians 4:8-11: Does Paul Denigrate Sabbath Keeping?

2011-01-14T07:30:00.003-06:00

⁸ Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. ⁹ But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? ¹⁰ You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! ¹¹ I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you. (NIV)

Christians have long debated whether or not it is appropriate to keep the sabbath. I'm not going to get into all of the intricacies of that debate, but I want to comment on how this passage fits into the wider discussion.

First, we should observe that the Gentile Galatians had already begun observing the sabbath. Why? They thought that they had to observe the Torah in order to be full members of God's people. Paul sees observing Torah, exemplified by, among other things, sabbath observance to be a step not into the people of God, but out of. A movement, not into the new creation, as part of the new covenant community of the faithful, but away from it. It puts them into a situation of slavery, one parallel to the situation that Christ already freed them from.

So, if that's the case, the next question is, should Paul's logic drive us to not keep the sabbath? I think that the answer is no. When we compare this text to Romans 14 we see a different approach by Paul to the question. There, he never flatly condemns sabbath observance. The weak are allowed to remain weak as long as it doesn't lead them to judge those who don't observe the sabbath. However, we do have to consider whether or not this difference in attitude lies in the fact that the weak in Rome were Jewish Christians. I think it does partially, but there's more to it. In Romans it's clear that the issue isn't really sabbath observance. It's all about attitude. Does your stance on the sabbath cause you to judge those you disagree with as lower class Christians? In Galatians I believe the issue is the same, just magnified, hence the heightened rhetoric. Do you believe that sans following the Torah you cannot be a full member of God's people? Sabbath observance is a visible work of the law that sets you apart from others. That is why Paul brings it, specifically, up. It's an easy target.

When it's cast like that I think it's clear that it can be ok to observe the sabbath. In fact I think most of us would be wise to have a regular time of rest and reflection on God. It would be (at least in my circles) a strong counter-cultural statement protesting against the societal god of productivity.

Paul's Argument in Galatians 4:8-11

2011-01-12T07:30:00.000-06:00

⁸ Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. ⁹ But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? ¹⁰ You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! ¹¹ I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you. (NIV)

Paul's main argument comes to a close in this section. It also serves as a bridge to the next section where Paul makes requests of the Galatians. Here Paul addresses the Galatians directly and building off of a shared belief. Prior to becoming Christians, the Galatians were enslaved in their prior religions. The direction Paul goes next, though, is simply shocking. In reiterating his point from the prior section, he claims that if they observe Torah with the aim of becoming full members of God's people then they are actually going back to their pre-Christian state. They already were God's people because God's Spirit, the Spirit of the Son dwelt within them. God's Spirit was in them, hence they were known (i.e., loved) by God as his children. By observing Torah they would be placing themselves back into a state of slavery.

Paul continues this line of reasoning in verse 10. 'Special days, months, seasons, and years' is an allusion back to the creation story of Genesis 1 (specifically Gen. 1:14). If the Galatians start observing the Torah and its sabbaths and festivals they are putting themselves back into the old creation, rather than living in the new creation. Jesus work on the cross was decisive and the turning point in history. Their union with him was the turning point in their history. To intentionally rely on anything else other than the work of Christ puts one decisively outside of the people of God. Thus Paul argues that by observing Torah they will actually achieve the opposite of their aims. They will forfeit their standing. That state of affairs is also the opposite of what Paul wants to see. Paul has expended a lot of effort to ensure that the Gentiles get a seat at the table and are considered full members of the people of God (see chapters 1 and 2). He fears that all of that work may be for naught, at least in the case of the Galatians.

First Principles in Doing Theology

2011-01-10T07:30:00.005-06:00

I'm currently going through First Theology by Kevin Vanhoozer with a friend of mine, so you'll see a few sporadic posts on the book over the next several months. This first post is drawn from the first chapter, which is programmatic for the rest of the book.

When doing theology where do you start as a matter of first principles, do you start with God or with Scripture? Throughout the history of the church we've seen people come down on both sides of this question. Some have said that we must be able to prove God first apart from Scripture, and following that proof we can utilize Scripture, because Scripture's authority is derived from God's authority. Others have argued the other way around, saying that one cannot know God apart from an authoritative Scriptural text and then we develop a picture of God on that basis. We've also seen some who have answered that we need to consider both God and Scripture together, noticing that it's impossible to consider one apart from the other.

While Vanhoozer lies in continuity with this last group he goes beyond them. One key observation that he makes is that one's view of God and Scripture are correlated. How you see one usually impacts how you see the other. This is evidenced in people as opposite as B.B. Warfield and Rudolf Bultmann. Warfield takes the Bible as doctrine and sees God as the revealer of truth. Bultmann sees Scripture as myth and expressing the self-understanding of faith. His understanding of God is not of one who acts in history but as the power behind a new human possibility. The approach Vanhoozer suggests is to see God as a communicative agent and to see Scripture as God's mighty speech acts.

While within the vicinity of Warfield, Vanhoozer's approach has a major advantage. Namely, by seeing Scripture as God's speech act, you avoid the tendency, common in theology, of flattening out Scripture, either by favoring particular portions of the Bible (e.g., Paul's letters or narratives) or turning the entire Bible into one mode of communication (e.g., all propositions or assertions). Vanhoozer claims that we need to understand Scripture as God has spoken it. Each genre needs to be allowed to speak for itself and every voice needs to be heard. This leads to the observation that in fact our duo of Scripture and God needs to become a trio. We must take God, Scripture, and hermeneutics as one problem, and then, at the level of first principles, our starting point should be theological hermeneutics, a hermeneutical method appropriate to the subject studied.

Paul's Argument in Galatians 4:1-7

2011-01-05T07:30:00.003-06:00

¹ What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. ² The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. ³ So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. ⁴ But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, ⁵ to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. ⁶ Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” ⁷ So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir. (NIV)

In this section Paul is reiterating the argument of the last section. This repetition signals that this is a critical portion of his argument (Martyn goes as far as to call it the most important section of the letter). The pressing question throughout Galatians is, 'who are the people of God?' The answer over and over again is the people who possess the Holy Spirit. This passage gives us a clearer picture of why Paul can make that claim.

The opening two verses of the passage provide an example that forms the basis of the analogy of verses 3-7. Martyn (385-6) has a very helpful chart that I will replicate below that is helpful for seeing how Paul's argument works.

Picture	Analogy
the heir in a household	we human beings
(v 1) as a child	(v 3) as children
(v 1) the heir is a virtual slave	(v 3) we were enslaved
(v 2) until the time set by the father	(v 4) but when the fullness of time came
	(v 4) God sent his Son
(vv 1-2) for his transition out of virtual slavery into active lordship.	(v 5) to bring about our transition, by delivering us from slavery.
	Further Development
	(v 5) we receive adoption as sons
(v 1) heir	(v 6) and you, as you are sons, God also sent into our hearts the Spirit of his Son, crying out, "Abba, Father"
	(v 7) Thus, you are a son; and if a son, then also an heir by God's act of redemptive adoption.

Not only does this chart provide us with a clear presentation, I also appreciate how it demonstrates the eschatological underpinnings of Paul's argument. When Jesus came we had a turning of the ages. Gone is the prior age of enslavement, ushered in is the time of blessing. Thus Paul is arguing that to go back to following the law is to go back to a less desirable situation because living in the sphere of the law is enslaving (the opposite of liberating). In fact in the case of the Jews, liberation from the sphere of the law was what they were waiting for. It is this liberation, that then is extended to all of us. [1] When we put the pieces of this passage together we see that we have a two stage act of redemption. Phase one was God's sending of the Son, phase two is the sending of the Spirit to God's redeemed people.

What ties it all together is the recognition that, the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, Jesus' Spirit. The Spirit that enables us to cry out to God in prayer in imitation of Jesus personal prayer. The Spirit in us shows that we are 'in Christ' and hence members of the people of God.

---------
[1] The most difficult exegetical decision that one faces in this passage is the question of the identity of the pronouns. Specifically, who are the we in verses 3 and 5? While it is tempting to see the 'we' as embracing both Jewish and Gentile Christians, the strong parallelism with Galatians 3:13-14 (see my post on those verses) inclines me to restrict the 'we' to Jewish Christians and see Paul's statements as salvation historical. At the same time, though, Paul's pronoun usage here is a bit messy, and it's clear that there's a strong emphasis on the extension of redemption to the Gentile audience of Galatia. So I won't quibble with those who want to take the 'we' wider (as e.g., Dunn does) as long as we notice that, 'Paul does not achieve universality of effect by abandoning historical particularity' (Dunn 216). One might object that the 'we' in vs. 5 is in contrast with 'those,' who are clearly Jewish Christians. The issue here is that if you take that position seriously then you need to hold that 'we' are Gentile Christians only. I think it's best to see the messiness with the pronouns there stemming from that fact that verse four and the first half of verse 5 is part of a creed-esque statement from the early church that Paul is quoting. The second half of verse 5 begins Paul's application of that piece of tradition.

What's On Tap!

2011-01-03T07:30:00.004-06:00

I'm excited about the start of the new year hear at Seeking the Truth... I wanted to give you all a heads up about some of what you can expect here on the blog in the next year.

First, I'll be kicking the series on Galatians into high gear. Hopefully I will finish it in the next couple of months. Even though they don't get as much traffic as some of my other posts, I want to make the study and discussion of Scripture a central element of this blog, so hopefully shortly after Galatians concludes I'll start something else, possibly Luke, John, or Hebrews but I haven't decided yet and am open to suggestions.

Even though I'm not at Trinity this year I still will try to do a monthly book review, though it will be a little tougher to get my hands on something now (there will not be a review in January in all likelihood). I want to try to do another very detailed review of some book this year like I did for Inhabiting the Cruciform God. I don't know what book that will be, though. Any requests?

This year, the historical Jesus will be an area of focus in my reading, so you can probably also expect to see some posts on that topic, especially related to the hermeneutics of historical Jesus studies. Additionally, I am doing an informal seminar with one of my friends in which we'll be going through First Theology: God, Scripture & Hermeneutics by Kevin Vanhoozer, so I'll write some posts based on that book. Beyond that, we'll see what happens. I'm looking forward to another year of blogging and I hope you are looking forward to another year of reading and commenting!

Divine Sovereignty, Human Responsibility, and the Problem of Evil Part 3

2010-12-27T07:30:00.001-06:00

Now that we've briefly canvassed divine sovereignty and human freedom, we will look at the implications of our sketch on the questions of whether or not we humans are responsible for our actions and also the problem of evil.

From my previous sketch of human freedom it should be clear that we are morally responsible for our actions. God works in and through our actions to bring about his desired purposes, but he never violates our will. We have the freedom to choose good or evil, however due to our fallen condition we persist in choosing evil. As an aside, while I do believe that the thrust behind the notion of irresistible grace is right, I don't particularly care for the name. God's electing purposes never fail. All of those whom he chooses come to him, but we do come freely. We don't have any desire to resist his grace.

I also think that my approach sidesteps some of the perennial problems surrounding the problem of evil. As we’ve mentioned above, God never wills evil. Usually there is some evil that attaches itself through our actions to the good that God wills, and in that sense one could say that evil goes back to God’s will. However, it would be unfair for God to be called responsible for that evil. Also, when one notices that God’s sovereignty is more about his power rather than his control (not that the two are always separable), it helps again deflect the unwarranted criticism that some may make that God causes evil.

Granted we are still left with the question of why God doesn’t prevent evil. Based on the conclusions we have drawn so far we can respond by saying that God permits it for a greater good. We may not know what that greater good is, but we must trust that the loving, omniscient, and good God knows better than we do. While God allows evil, we also see in Scripture that God uses his sovereignty to defeat evil and was willing to send his Son to the cross bearing our sin and our shame to free us from Satan’s grasp, defeating him in an act of suffering. God is not idly sitting by watching evil happen. He has actively opposed it at great cost to himself and will one day bring it to an end. Evil is not willed by God, but neither is it outside of his control.

Books of the Year: 2010

2010-12-22T07:30:00.002-06:00

This year was a good year for me. I read lots of good books so picking just 5 is tough, but here are the five books that I liked best and learned the most from:

5. James by Craig Blomberg and Mariam Kamell

I read several good commentaries this year. My favorite was the inaugural volume of the ZECNT series. I'm a big fan of the layout of the series and the quality of the commentary is pretty good too. My understanding of James was greatly enhanced by reading it. (see review here)

4. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God by Christopher Wright

Chris Wright is one of the great synthetic minds among Old Testament scholars. His treatment of ethics was rich, innovative, and Scriptural. I also appreciate that he allows the accents to fall where Scripture lays them. I never felt that he was forcing his argument or that the system overwhelmed specific texts. (see review here)

3. Praying with the Church by Scot McKnight

I read a few books on prayer this year, as it's an area that I need to grow in. What separates this book from other books on prayer is its emphasis on prayer as a means of practicing the communion of the saints both across time and traditions stretching back to the time of Jesus (along the way you get a nice accessible overview of prayer in church history). After reading I was propelled to start using the Book of Common Prayer in my personal devotions which has greatly enriched me.

2. Drama of Doctrine by Kevin Vanhoozer

I cannot even begin to describe the impact that this book has had on the way I approach and teach Scripture. This is the most challenging book on the list but it's well worth the effort. In his suggestion that Scripture is the script that we are to improvise upon, Vanhoozer avoids a lifeless, literalistic approach to applying Scripture without undermining biblical authority because his 'method' maintains deep roots in Scripture. This book should be required reading in every seminary.

1. Inhabiting the Cruciform God by Michael Gorman

I probably spent more time on this book than any other book I read this year, reading it and rereading and wrestling with Gorman's claims. I definitely came out the other side for the better, and I'll never be the same again (I hope). Gorman has a pastoral heart and it shines through in this book. The first chapter on Philippians 2:5-11 is worth the price of the book. (See review here)

------------------

Now for the top 5 books published in 2010 that I hope to read in 2011:

5. 1 Corinthians by Brian Rosner and Roy Ciampa

If you read this blog regularly you know that I love commentaries. Out of all of the commentaries out this year, I am most excited about this one. Thiselton covers the Greco-Roman background of 1 Corinthians beautifully. Rosner and Ciampa should do the same for the Jewish background.

4. On Being a Disciple of the Crucified Nazarene by Ernst Kasemann

I gotta say that a big part of what gets me is the title. I love it. The word on the street is that this book is very good. I am intentional about reading books from outside of my theological tradition. I make sure I at least read a few each year. This will be my top choice for 2011.

3. Practice Resurrection by Eugene Peterson

I have to admit that I've never read a book by Peterson and I've heard a lot of good buzz about this book. Again, I like the title, so I'm hooked.

2. Remythologizing Theology by Kevin Vanhoozer

Vanhoozer is my favorite systematician and this is his first major work of theology (everything else he's written could loosely be logged under 'hermeneutics'). That makes it a must read for me.

1. Constructing Jesus by Dale Allison

This upcoming year I intend to read several books on the historical Jesus, and this will be on the list. His three volume work with W.D. Davies on Matthew is probably my favorite commentary on any book of the Bible and his book on the Sermon on the Mount is largely overlooked but very very good (and more accessible). I think he raised some very important issues in his little book on the historical Jesus from last year. I'm interested to see how he extends those thoughts in a fuller volume.

Divine Sovereignty, Human Responsibility, and the Problem of Evil Part 2

2010-12-20T07:30:00.002-06:00

This is the second post in a series of three looking at the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom which then will propel us to further discussion on human responsibility and the problem of evil. The first post in this series looked at the sovereignty of God. In this post we will discuss human freedom and the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom.

Do human beings have a free will? The chorus of Scripture is univocal, whether it is from the Pentateuch, historical books, wisdom literature, or the prophets in the Old Testament; or the Gospels, Acts, or the Epistles in the New Testament. Free will is rooted in creation. In the fall, Adam and Eve sinned against God in an exercise of their free will. They chose to eat the fruit that God commanded them not to eat (Gen. 3:1-6). Free will does not seem to have been completely lost as a result of the fall, either. Another clear text in the Pentateuch on the freedom of the will is Deut. 30:11-20 where God, speaking through Moses, presented the people with a choice (Deut. 30:19 explicitly uses the word ‘choose’). They could either choose to follow God and keep his commands or they could reject him. The whole system of the Old Testament law with its commands and punishments for disobedience seems to assume human freedom, otherwise it is hard to see how the law could be just. Free will also is a background assumption in many other Old Testament narratives (e.g., Gen. 13:1-18; Josh. 24:1-28; 1 Sam. 15:1-35).

Again, the assumption of the freedom of the will is found throughout the rest of Scripture as well. The book of Proverbs opens in Prov. 1:8 with the call to ‘listen’ and ‘not forsake’ the instruction that follows in the remainder of the book. The prophetic literature in its narrative portions show individuals exercising free will (e.g., Dan. 1:8-16) and prophetic exhortations again often assume the free will of the people receiving the message (e.g., Ezek. 18:1ff). Demands of repentance along with reports of people accepting or rejecting the message of Jesus and the apostles are found throughout the gospels and Acts (e.g., Mt. 4:17, Ac. 2:41). In the epistles, ethical demands and warnings against apostasy abound (e.g., Heb. 3:12-15). Some particularly seem to assume the ability to make decisions, especially passages related to Christian freedom (e.g., 1 Cor. 7:36-38). The presence of options seems to assume some degree of human freedom.

Philosophy has approached the question of free will in different ways. It is considered one of the most important open questions, to which we are nowhere near a solution. Those who are materialists recognize that in our experience we do believe that we have freedom, but that it is an illusion. All of our actions are necessitated and rationality is reducible to brain states or other similar phenomena. Thus for materialists and other determinists, we have no human freedom. There are several reasons for rejecting this approach. One is that, as we showed above, Scripture seems to imply that we do have the real ability to make choices without compulsion. Human experience concurs with Scripture. In our everyday lives all of our interactions presuppose this ability. The notion of justice also operates on the assumption that we have the ability to steal or not steal; murder or not murder. Those who don’t are considered criminally insane. Given what we know about biology it also seems impossible that our free will is an illusion. As philosopher John Searle states, ‘The processes of conscious reality are such an important part of our lives, and above all such a biologically expensive part of our lives, that it would be unlike anything we know about evolution if a phenotype of this magnitude played no functional role at all in the life and survival of the organism’ (Freedom and Neurobiology p. 20) It seems very unlikely that God would create us and have such a central part of our experience be an illusion. Recognizing the validity of this argument, there are others who do think that we have free will, either of the compatibilist or incompatibilist sort. Compatibilism claims that both determinism and free will are compatible, while incompatibilism insists that they are contradictory. We will evaluate these below. First we must take up the question of the extent of human freedom along with the extent of divine sovereignty together.

One passage that relates the two is Is. 44:24-28. The passage opens in vv. 24-27 affirming the sovereign power of God by listing various things he is sovereign over. These verses could be read as affirming a meticulous sovereignty, meaning that Isaiah is saying that God controls everything that happens in the world, and thus since God decreed the result in vs. 28 it will happen because he is meticulously sovereign. That is not the only viable way to read this passage, however. Vv. 24-27 could be affirming the power of God as the sovereign creator king, and thus vs. 28 would be a promise of his future action that he is powerful enough to bring about. Somehow God is working through a means, Cyrus, to accomplish his will. God carries out his plan of redemption using human agents. This is consistent with how God works throughout Scripture and is rooted in his creational intentions. God created us in his image, with the intended function of being God’s representatives, the ones through whom God ruled the earth.

This passage provides support for the concept that in any action there can be primary and secondary causes. Both God and man can cooperate together in any action, though their participation is not identical. This concept has been heavily relied upon in the Calvinist and Thomist traditions. God is the primary cause and man is the secondary cause. Man, as the secondary cause, is unable to thwart God’s will. The way Calvin and Aquinas understand man as the secondary cause does have some differences. Calvin strongly emphasizes God’s sovereignty. He claims that God determines all of our actions and contingency is only from our perspective. However, that does not mean that we have no voluntary participation. You can also detect a dislike of the term ‘free will’ in Calvin, but he never does close the door on its use decisively (Calvin prefers not to use the term ‘free will’ because it could mislead one to believe that the unregenerate are not slaves to sin.). Aquinas is more explicit than Calvin on this question and seems to take a little softer stance. For him, some things are willed by God to happen necessarily and others contingently. Thus, even that which is contingent has God’s will as its source. Our acts fall under God’s providence, because our will comes from God. Our free will is a secondary cause that God uses to carry out his sovereign plan.

Our will, while free, is not completely unfettered, and apart from God’s intervention, his plan would not be carried out. We will look at the question of election as a paradigm, specifically at the the opening blessing of Ephesians 1:3-14, which contains perhaps the strongest statements about God’s sovereignty in all of Scripture. First, we must note in vv. 4, 5, and 11 the strong, repeated emphasis on God’s sovereign election of us, his determining that we would be saved. This is according to God’s plan which is executed without being stopped (vs. 11). God decreed it in eternity past, therefore it is sure. Clearly salvation is an act of God. We would be wise, though to see how God’s action is described. It’s described as an act of redemption or liberation, a forgiveness of sins. The condition that necessitated God’s sovereign act of liberation is enumerated in Eph. 2:1-3. We were enslaved to sin and under the dominion of Satan. Thus, God’s sovereign act is an act that liberates us and brings us under his rule. His exercise of his sovereignty is an exercise of his power to break us away from Satan. Our inability to come to him apart from his sovereign work is not presented as a metaphysical inability, but as a moral inability. God makes us alive (Eph. 2:5), freeing us from our bondage and enabling us to freely choose God, which, Ephesians 1:3-14 tells us, we will do. To sum up, God’s election of his people is a decision made before creation that he will move on our behalf to free us from the bondage that we have put ourselves in through the exercise of our will. God is so powerful that he can do this in a way that guarantees our free choice of him. That the result is guaranteed in no way diminishes our freedom.

Many within the Christian tradition have affirmed that divine foreknowledge does not diminish our freedom. God knows what we will freely do in any and every possible situation. To enact his plan of election all God need do is to arrange the situation so that we will choose him freely.

In conclusion, there seems to be two legitimate options related to the relation of divine sovereignty and human freedom, both of which are compatibilist in nature. One is congruism. God works together with man to bring about God’s ends and everything that happens is ultimately made certain by God’s will. This relies on some of the important distinctions that we discussed above, such as the distinction between primary and secondary causes. I believe, though, that this position does run into some difficulties. How does the congruist account for texts that suggest that God changed his course of action (e.g., Jon. 3:1ff.)? There is no room in the congruist account for God reacting to human action. Thus it seems that a partial compatibilist approach fits better. God is the involved, sovereign king who acts in history to bring about his purposes, and he will infallibly bring them about. While God and we work together to bring about his plan, he does not cause every action, which leaves room for him to react to our actions. God is the king who is actively involved in ruling his realm and is in the process of bringing it into complete submission (cf. 1 Cor. 15:22-28). Some things God renders certain, and others conditional. Graham Cole’s suggestion that it may be best to see God acting by writing a beautiful piece of jazz music that we perform in tandem with him is a helpful way of looking at it. [1] Our actions are generally guided. The piece only allows certain notes to be played, but there is interplay between God and us.

----------------
[1] “The Living God: Anthropomorphic or Anthropopathic” Reformed Theological Review v. 59 (2000) pp. 16-27 - I know most of you don't have access to this article, but the point Cole makes is so significant that I had to cite it. At the foundation of Cole's argument is that there is a huge difference between anthropomorphisms stating that God has a hand and alleged anthropopatisms which state that God has emotions or reactions. Clearly the statement that God has a hand can't be literally true because God doesn't have a body. On the other hand, there is no logical reason why God can't have emotions or reactions. Those don't require a body.

Book Review: James

2010-12-17T07:30:00.003-06:00

Thanks to the folks at Zondervan for providing a review copy and a slot in their blog tour. Make sure to check out the first batch of reviews here.

The Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament is a new series on the market geared towards pastors. I've heard excellent things about each of the volumes so I was looking forward to getting my hands on a Blomberg's and Kamell's work. I won't detail the features of the series in this review (you can see my description at the bottom of my commentary series overview post). I will say, though, that the layout is unique and very helpful. One concern that I had seeing the commentary proper split into so many sections, was that there would be substantial overlap of material. My fear proved to be unfounded. The authors and editors did a stellar job at fully utilizing the format. I also must say that they hit their intended audience dead on. The amount of technical information was just right. They don't bog you down with gobs of detail on minutiae, but there's enough to inform you on important matters, whether they be grammatical, lexical, or of cultural/historical background.

As for the contents of the commentary, again I was quite pleased, though, of course, certain elements of the commentary were better than others. The introduction was brief but helpful. It covered the usual topics, such as authorship, dating, and the circumstances prompting the letter taking traditional stances and giving reasonable defense for their positions. Blomberg and Kamell also spent several pages explaining the overall structure of James. I found this to be the most beneficial section of the introduction as I've always struggled to see an overall cohesiveness to the letter. They argue in the introduction (and defend in the commentary proper) that the entire letter focuses on three themes: trials, wisdom, and riches and poverty. These are introduced initially in 1:2-11, reiterated in the same order in 1:12-27, and then developed at length in reverse order from 2:1-5:18.

Of the three main topics of the letter, I most appreciated Blomberg's and Kamell's discussion of wealth and poverty. Much of what James says on this topic sounds so harsh that it's easy to say that he didn't really mean it that strongly. Blomberg and Kamell don't go down that path. They're not afraid to make the conclusions that many of us don't want to hear like, 'It may well be true that it is impossible to be both rich and a Christian unless one is generous in giving from one's riches' (254 - emphasis mine). This does seem to be the clear emphasis of Jas. 2:14-26. At the same time I liked the balance of their approach. They don't go overboard like some liberation theologians do. James is not advocating salvation by social class, but again, that shouldn't make us wealthy Western Christians any more comfortable in our shoes.

At a broad level, several aspects of the commentary stand out. One is the way in which Blomberg and Kamell colorfully draw out the meanings of the various metaphors and adjectives that are sprinkled throughout James. For a reader familiar with the text it can be easy to gloss over these, but Blomberg and Kamell help you understand how they would have been heard by the first audience. One example is in the sexual and reproductive metaphor in Jas. 1:14-15. Specifically, they point out that James is using the metaphor to show how difficult it is to stop the process of desire, sin, and death once it has started. 'Here James uses a more vivid metaphor, showing the reproductive process as difficult to stop once it begins...One can almost envision three generations here: desire as a "parent," sin as a "child," and death as a "grandchild"' (72). This isn't a mind blowing observation, but it's easy to miss this type of thing and Blomberg and Kamell consistently make the easy to miss, obvious, while presenting it in a fresh way.

I also appreciated the way in which the commentary matched James in tone. James sometimes is very cordial and at other times rebukes his audience. Blomberg and Kamell are not afraid to wear both of those hats. At several spots throughout the commentary they addressed the reader directly (I offered a snippet that I found particularly powerful here). This is often not done in commentaries. Many commentators are willing to write purely at the level of description (and granted this may be a necessity in most academic series). I am very glad that they were willing to confront the reader on several matters, especially in a series geared towards pastors and teachers. If one is going to teach the text, one must first live the text. It's easy to try to get away without applying the text to yourself, but Blomberg and Kamell do their best to keep that from happening.

My only complaint with the commentary is that too much space was allotted to the issue of gender-inclusive translation. I favor gender-inclusive language, and I personally use the TNIV and NRSV as my primary translations, so it's not as if I disagree with their translation. It just seemed like every word that could be translated in a gender-inclusive manner drew substantial comment. In fairness much of this was relegated to the footnotes, but I am a compulsive footnote reader, so I quickly drew tired of the same issue being rehashed.

Overall, I have to say that James is an excellent commentary that will both inform and nourish the reader. Every pastor, seminary student, and serious lay student should have this volume on their shelf. It will provide you with the literary, lexical, and grammatical help that you need while also furthering your thought on the implications of the text in the life and ministry of your church. 5 stars out of 5.

Galatians 3:15-29: The Law, in Canonical Context

2010-12-15T07:30:00.002-06:00

¹⁵ Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. ¹⁶ The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. ¹⁷ What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. ¹⁸ For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
¹⁹ Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. ²⁰ A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.
²¹ Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. ²² But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
²³ Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. ²⁴ So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. ²⁵ Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
²⁶ So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, ²⁷ for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (NIV)

It's been a long time since I've written one of these posts, but we've come to a spot where I think it's critical to do a canonical reading of the text. Particularly from verses 17-20, one could get the impression that Paul had a negative view of the law. From passages like this some Christians also get the idea that the law has no function anymore in the life of the believer. De facto they say that it was the word of God to a people of a past age but it is no longer.

Besides the fact that I think that those stances go far beyond what Paul actually says (see my earlier post on this passage), there are other good reasons to reject that view. First, we should notice the high degree of intertextuality in Galatians 3:7-4:7. Paul constructs his entire argument on the Torah, especially on Abraham. Galatians 3:20 is particularly helpful in that Paul cites a portion of the Mosaic law approvingly.

The second problem for this view is the rest of the NT. Probably the most obvious spot to go to would be Jesus words in the Sermon on the Mount in Mt. 5:17-20. There Jesus gives the law the strongest affirmation that he possibly could. It is eternal and its commands are not to be set aside. So if Jesus and Paul aren't in disagreement, how do we merge their views together.

It's helpful to recall what Paul is trying to do here. His argument is very specific; namely the Law is no longer the boundary marker defining who are 'in' the people of God. The Spirit is now the guide that keeps our behavior within the boundaries fitting for God's people. The law, though, can still have a positive function (and occasionally does for Paul - in addition to Gal. 3:17 also see e.g., Eph. 6:1-3). The Spirit can work through the law in our hearts, but it will be through the law understood as a picture of how God wanted people to live at a particular point in salvation history, a period we no longer are in. It's not a neat process. There's a lot of cultural translation required. However, we do need to have our imaginations inspired by the vision that God had for his people Israel (Christopher J.H. Wright's book Old Testament Ethics for the People of God is indispensable). Thus, there isn't really a disagreement between Jesus and Paul on the law here. In Galatians 3 Paul is simply clarifying that the role doesn't have a constitutive role for the people of God (later Paul will state that the Spirit and the 'law of Christ' are the wellspring of Christian ethics which is in no way inconsistent with what is stated above, but we will look at that when we get to the relevant places in our study of Galatians).

Divine Sovereignty, Human Responsibility, and the Problem of Evil Part 1

2010-12-13T07:30:00.002-06:00

This is the first of a three part series on Divine sovereignty, human responsibility and the problem of evil. The first two posts will function largely to prepare us for the final post where most of the conclusions to the more difficult and controversial issues will come. I want to keep this initial post largely devoid of those matters to give the Scriptural contours the emphasis that they deserve and lot them be overshadowed by the later debates of church history and philosophy.

Divine sovereignty is a linchpin of the entire Bible. God’s sovereignty is rooted in his identity as the creator of everything. The tie between God as creator and king is clearly made in Ps. 145 (the analysis below is largely drawn from Goldingay). Vv. 1-2, 10, and 21 express commitment to worship Yahweh. In vv. 1-2, the psalmist commits to worship ‘the king,’ thereby expressing God’s sovereignty over the whole world. In vv. 10 and 21 all of creation joins in the worship. Taking the two emphases together, this psalm neatly draws out that God’s sovereignty over everything as its king is rooted in the fact that he made everything. Ps. 145 also provides a good basis from which to further investigate the nature of God’s sovereignty. Vv. 3-9 and 11-20 provide the reasons why the king is worshiped. It is because of a coupling of greatness and goodness. His greatness is unfathomable (vs. 3), his acts are mighty (vs. 4), and his kingdom is everlasting (vs. 13). He is no despot, though. Echoing God’s self revelation of Ex. 34:6-7 the psalmist proclaims, ‘The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love’ (Ps. 145:8 NIV). The Lord also is good to all (vs. 9), righteous (vs. 17), and faithful (vs. 17). As we carry forward our study of divine sovereignty, especially as it relates to the problem of evil, it is critical that we remember that God’s rule is good and righteous, and benefits his creatures, and as God is the subject of our study, we must approach him with due reverence.

God’s rule is good and it is also extensive. In the Old Testament God creates the world (e.g., Gen. 1:1ff), rules over the nations (Ps. 22:27, 28), and moves the hearts of kings (e.g., Is. 44:24-28). History is determined by God, but he is not a distant king. God is actively involved in major events in history (e.g., Dan. 5:1ff) and in the lives of individuals (1 Sam. 1:1-20).
The biblical portrayal of God as the king greatly shapes the way it presents God’s sovereignty. He is the God who rules in favor of his loyal subjects (e.g., Rom. 8:28, Rev. 6:9-11) and punishes those who oppose him and his people (e.g., Exod. 6:3-8). Thus God’s judgment proceeds from his sovereignty and God exercises his sovereignty for his glory and our benefit.

The Bible closes in Revelation 20-22 with God’s exercise of his sovereign judgment reaching its apex in the defeat of Satan, the judgment of all of humanity, and new creation. In the moment when God’s sovereignty is most clearly on display, its purposes are to glorify Christ and vindicate God’s people. God’s sovereignty is that which makes sure the missio dei. This underscores what was mentioned earlier, that God’s sovereignty is presented in a positive light, and should draw us to worship. God is the sovereign king who rules and reigns over the whole earth. He is moving history towards the completion of his plan of redemption and reconciliation. The sovereign acts of God are for (at least) the twin goals of his glory and our benefit. Nothing in our lives is outside of his loving care.

How then do we deal with the fact that in the Old Testament it was common for God to bring judgment upon his people? This happened repeatedly during Israel’s wandering in the wilderness (e.g., Num. 11:1ff., 21:4-9), and again frequently in the time of the judges (e.g., Judg. 2:10-15, 6:1). Judgment was even more severe during the monarchy, ultimately leading up to the exile of both the northern and southern kingdoms (cf. 2 King. 17:7-23, 2 Chr. 36:15-21). This led the people of Israel to cry out to God asking how he could bring it to pass, especially through evil nations (e.g., Hab. 1:12-17). As their God, they expected him to be on their side. As we mentioned before, though, God’s sovereignty serves to bring him glory. He is glorified when he is truly revealed. His judgment of his people revealed his holiness. The people’s own actions and sin necessitated his punishment of them in accordance with his promise (cf. Lev. 26:14ff, Deut. 28:15ff). So, while God did judge his people, his judgment was just and he was faithful to his promise as he preserved a remnant. It also is not fair to think of God’s punishment of the people of Israel as being purely for punitive reasons. It was still out of love and was a means to bring them to repentance. This logic seems to lie beneath Ezek. 18.

In Ezek. 18, the people are complaining to God about the injustice of being in exile because of their parent’s sin (Ezek. 18:1-2). God responds with the claims that he is just, that he punishes those who deserve punishment, and that, above all, he desires repentance. It seems legitimate to draw that at the macro level that the text is not only vindicating God but also urging the people to repent. God sent the people into exile to draw them back to himself.

At this point I think it would be helpful to go a little deeper and ask how Israel going into exile related to God’s will. Here we will utilize the tradition to formulate our answer. For Aquinas, God’s will is the source of all things, though he does work through secondary causes. While God’s will is the source of all things, God does not will evil. How can that be? Moral evil happens but there is a sense in which it is not willed by God. What is willed by God is some specific good, but often good cannot happen without having an evil attached to it. God neither wills evil to be nor wills evil not to be. This is necessitated by God being perfectly holy and righteous. He cannot will evil. If Aquinas is correct about God not willing evil, then I believe that we can say that God both willed for his people to return to him and also willed that his holy justice be upheld. The fulfillment of this will necessitated the evil and atrocity of the exile, but God did not will it.

Our portrait of God’s sovereignty is becoming clearer, but we still have some additional issues to work through. We have not yet addressed whether God’s will imposes necessity on all things, and related, the exact nature of human freedom. We will look at the latter in our next post. The key take home for this section is that God's sovereignty stems from the fact that he is the perfect king. His rule is a rule that is good for his subjects and that brings himself glory.

Blomberg and Kamell on Honoring God

2010-12-10T07:30:00.001-06:00

The very people reading this book may be among those most prone to deceive themselves into thinking they are obeying the gospel, precisely because they are studying detailed reference works like this one! They are probably scholars, pastors, teachers, or serious and committed lay people if they go into this much depth in their analysis of Scripture. But countless Christians with access to and interest in such resources often fool themselves into thinking that new insights, proclaiming God's word in their spheres of influence, or the good feelings that come from communing with God and others in the process of studying the Bible can substitute for actual obedience to Scripture's commands. By contrast, those whose devotion to God's word leads to greater obedience to his will not only demonstrate the reality of their faith, but find blessing in the very process of honoring God through their behavior (Blomberg and Kamell: James 98-99).

More Calvinist than Calvin?

2010-12-01T07:30:00.001-06:00

I'm working on a paper on the topic of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Occasionally on this topic (or the subtopic of election) you will hear people through out the barb at strong Calvinists that they're 'being more Calvinist than Calvin.' After having read Calvin carefully on the issue I don't think that there's any validity to that charge. I don't see a material difference here between Calvin and say John Piper. Here are several quotes from the Institutes to prove my point.

'All events are governed by God's secret plan.' I.xvi.2

'Governing heaven and earth by his providence, he also so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.' I.xvi.3

'Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him.' I.xvi.3

Calvin explicitly rejects a limited providence, 'one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifcally direct the action of individual creatures.' I.xvi.4

'It is an absurd folly that miserable men take it upon themselves to act without God, when they cannot even speak except as he wills! Indeed Scripture, to express more plainly that nothing at all in the world is undertaken without his determination, shows that things seemingly most fortuitous are subject to him.' I.xvi.6

Calvin tells us, 'when we are unjustly wounded by men, let us overlook their wickedness...remember to mount up to God, and learn to believe for certain that whatever our enemy has willingly committed against us was permitted and sent by God's just dispensation.' I.xvii.8

I think it's fair to say that there is strong continuity between modern manifestations of Calvinism and Calvin's thought.

Giving Thanks By Giving

2010-11-29T07:30:00.000-06:00

We've just passed Thanksgiving, a time where we remember and give thanks for all that God has done for us. He has blessed us in a multitude of ways, especially in material prosperity - almost embarrassingly so. At the holidays many of us like to express our gratitude to God by giving to those in need. I wanted to alert you to a worthy outlet for your giving. I know that some are suffering from fatigue from being asked to give to Haiti, but there's still an enormous need that we cannot forget or overlook. Let's not grow weary in giving thanks to God by giving.

A friend of mine, named Jenny Bahng has been to Haiti twice on short term mission trips since the earthquake. While there she spent her time ministering to children in some of the worst slums in Haiti. In January she's gong back for six months and she's raising money both for herself and for the children of Haiti. She's started a blog that you should check out. Read more about what she will be doing and if the Lord leads you, you can make a tax deductible donation by PayPal via the sidebar of her blog.

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

2010-11-22T07:30:00.001-06:00

¹⁵ Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. ¹⁶ The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. ¹⁷ What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. ¹⁸ For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
¹⁹ Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. ²⁰ A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.
²¹ Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. ²² But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
²³ Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. ²⁴ So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. ²⁵ Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
²⁶ So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, ²⁷ for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (NIV)

I won't typically take passages this long in our study of Galatians, but it's too easy to chop up this single argument into bits and then get it wrong because you don't see how the whole passage fits together and also because Paul's analogy in verse 15 can get bent severely out of shape if pressed too far and not understood in light of the following paragraphs. In this section of his argument Paul substantiates his earlier claim that the covenant people enter the family of God on the basis of faith by exploring the relationship between the Abrahamic covenant and the law. This is one of the more difficult and dense sections in the letter so there will probably be a couple of posts spun off from here dealing with specific issues. Here we will focus on his main points.

Paul begins in verse 15 by using an example from Greek and Roman law. Wills are unalterable by anyone other than the person who made the will. The same is true in this case. God made a promise to Abraham and to his seed that he would receive an inheritance from God of, among other things, a worldwide family. It's important that we notice here that Christ is the recipient of the promise. It is to him as Abraham's seed that a family is promised. The Gentiles join Abraham's family via Christ, the seed, not via the law which came 430 years later. The problem with the law is not just that it came later and did not alter the already given promise. It's also that the law and promise are antithetical just as works of the law and faith were.

This naturally raises the questions that Paul deals with next; why did God bother giving the law at all? Are verses 19 and 20 suggesting that God wasn't the origin of the law? While Paul is clearly distancing God from the law a bit in those verses, it isn't fair to suggest as some (e.g., Martyn) have that the law didn't have its genesis in God. Paul's distancing God from the law for the purpose of showing that it is of less value than the promise. The law came for a limited time (until Christ - the one to whom the promise was made - came) and a limited purpose. It was never intended to be the means by which one entered the people of God.

The purpose of the law was limited, but it wasn't in opposition to the promise. The law has a 'negative' role, dealing with sin. More specifically the law was given to Israel, cursing them by displaying their inability to live God's way apart from the Spirit. They failed just as Adam failed. By extension it shows the inability of all to live God's way. Additionally, the law didn't free Israel from the power of sin, even though the sacrificial system was in place and did deal with sin in some limited sense. They, like all the rest were still under sin's power. The law also had a positive role that was related to its negative role, and this is where Israel was at an advantage. It was a means to protect Israel from the power of sin until Christ could come. Here it's worth noting that Paul isn't giving a complete theology of the law. Rather he's dealing with a very specific question: what is the role of the law in becoming a member of the people of God (none) and how did the law relate to the covenant (it's subordinate to it and preserved Israel so that the seed could come and show us the way to become true children of Abraham - by faith and to enable that path through his faithfulness). Additionally this will pave the way for Paul's later discussion of the Spirit as that which guides God's people.

Verses 26-29 sum up the argument thus far and also extend it with an argument from the Christian tradition. In verse 26 Paul affirms that Jew and Gentile alike are part of Abraham's family on the basis of faith and faith alone. Through baptism the Galatians came to be completely identified with Christ on the basis of their union with him. "For Paul, it is the participationist soteriology of being 'in Christ' that bridges the expanse between Abraham and the Gentile world, and not Torah observance as the Judaizers argued" (Longenecker 151). The Galatians were united with Christ and clothed with him, meaning that part of their identification with Christ involved a moral transformation - the way they lived looked like Christ, they had entered into the new creation, the new era, and thus, again, the law was unnecessary. He further substantiates that point by citing what in all likelihood was a snippet from an early Christian baptismal liturgy, possibly the one he himself used when baptizing his converts. The Jew/Greek distinction is irrelevant in Paul's eyes. At baptism both have entered the people of God by faith and both are full covenant members. There's no need for Gentiles to follow the law.

A Personal Update

2010-11-17T07:30:00.001-06:00

I don't write many posts of a personal nature, but I think that it might be of interest to some of you, and I would also appreciate any advice and prayers that you may have. For the past three semesters I've been taking classes part time at TEDS while working full time at a marketing research firm. The first year this went splendidly. Life was busy, but I was able to juggle everything. It's been tougher this semester. Having a baby is life altering in many ways. My free time for studying has greatly decreased and it's increasingly difficult to find a way to put in all of the time that I need to for my studies without abdicating my role in the family. When this was compounded with teaching a class at church in September and early October, I was doing too much. To be clear, none of this is a complaint. I am so happy to have my daughter and I loved teaching on Daniel. I love school and at least for now my job is a necessity (and is pretty good as far as jobs go).

Something has to give for me, and it isn't going to be work or family, and my involvement at church will only increase. Thus I've decided to take a leave of absence from TEDS for a year, after which we will reevaluate our path and plan and whether it involves returning part time at that point or, as is more likely, resuming my education when we are in a financial position where I can attend seminary full-time (hopefully in the fall of 2013). This isn't an easy decision to make. I've learned a lot the past three semesters for which I am grateful, but we feel that taking a break is the best thing to do. Please remember to keep us in your prayers as we seek to follow God however he may lead us.

Other Regard and Ethical Kenosis

2010-11-15T07:30:00.002-06:00

It is possible to think of sin as "a compulsion towards attitudes and actions not always of [humans'] own willing or approving" a power which prevents humankind from recognizing its own nature. This may be a compulsion to desire status over against God, the compulsion on which the Genesis 3 account focuses. But it may be a compulsion to gain power over others or to use sex for sex's sake or to satisfy a craving for an excess of alcohol, drugs, food, or sensation of whatever kind. All of these draw us into idolatry; they make of a substance or experience a kind of substitute god. All drain away the freedom that comes from worshipful dependence upon God. Such appetite consumes more of the world's fullness than is our share. The application of this principle of kenosis of appetite is widespread; it applies to deforestation to expand farmland for excess export crops, but also to the high-food-mile demands of the West that fuel so many unsustainable practices, to the taking of spurious long-haul flights as well as the frittering away of carbon-intensive energy in so many human dwellings.

A particular aspect of the kenosis of appetite, which links to the kenosis of aspiration, is the kenosis of acquisitiveness. Just as we humans must be willing to order our ambitions and our experiences in accord with the freedom of the redeemed order, so we must order our acquisition of the material trappings of life, which again are often acquired at the expense of the well-being of other creatures. The Pauline material does not, of course, uniquely or unambiguously generate specific indications as to what it might mean to live more lightly on the Earth, to lessen the impact of our ecological imprint. But it does, crucially, provide a model for placing such patterns of practice at the heart of Christian ethics, as a central part of what following (or, better, imitating) Christ implies (Horrell, Hunt, and Southgate 195-6).

What do you think? Are ecological ethics at the heart of Christian ethics?

Book Review: Colossians and Philemon

2010-11-12T07:30:00.002-06:00

The NCCS series is off to a stellar start. I greatly enjoyed Keener's commentary on Romans (see my review) and I picked up Colossians and Philemon by Michael Bird with some anticipation. I have to say that I was very pleased on the whole.

The introduction of the commentary was very, very good, perhaps even the strength of the commentary. Bird deals with the question of authorship at some length, clearly exposing weaknesses in arguments against Pauline authorship. In particular, he notes that the language in Colossians is different than the undisputed Paulines because Paul quotes a lot of traditional material and the opponents he's facing are a bit different than the Judaizers (6-7). It is not fair to say, though, that Bird believes that Pauline authorship of Colossians is of the same nature as Pauline authorship of Galatians. He sees it as being co-authored by Paul, Timothy, and perhaps others. This accounts for some of the distinctiveness of Colossians when compared to the undisputed Pauline epistles. The most detailed and helpful portion of the introduction is the assessment of the Colossian philosophy (15-26). Bird surveys the scholarly landscape and eventually settles on a calling it a form of Jewish mysticism. Introductory matters related to Philemon are briefly but adequately addressed.

The commentary proper was very strong. Bird is an excellent writer and he presents his viewpoint in a compelling way. The most remarkable aspect of this commentary was its evenness. I never felt like there was a section where Bird didn't have much to say and hadn't thought deeply about the text. The main body of the commentary is a running explanation of the letter. Bird does an admirable job of keeping the big picture of what Paul is doing in the letter in full view, relating each section to the whole. This makes the commentary an enjoyable read and very helpful for someone looking to get a quick grasp on any particular passage or the book as a whole. Technical discussions related to Greek grammar and other matters are relegated to the footnotes (there's more detail on grammatical issues here than one might expect for a commentary of this nature). The sections on 'Fusing the Horizons' were top notch providing pastors with brief but rich ministry-shaping reflections on topics such as The Global Church (see a snippet here), Common Faith, and Ministerial Formation. Bird writes as one who writes for the church, and not just in the 'Fusing the Horizons' sections. Throughout the commentary he draws out ecclesial themes, especially how God's people should function; both at the local church setting and more widely (often by describing Paul's theology - one must have ears to hear).

There were a few sections of the Colossians commentary that I found particularly helpful. I'll highlight a couple. I was greatly aided by his organizing method for the Christ hymn of Col. 1:18-20. Bird claims that

...the coherence and unity of the poem is based around certain key motifs in both strophes that are activated by certain words.

He is... Divine Personhood: The identity of Jesus in relation to God.

Firstborn Divine Preeminence: The supremacy of Jesus over creation and new creation.

Because Divine Perspective: An explanation of how Jesus relates to the prerogatives and presence of God.

In him Divine Agency: What purposes the Father works out through the Son.

Whether... Divine Authority: Signals the extent of the Son's reign over creation and salvation. (50)

Another helpful section was on 3:5-11, which Bird titled, 'Living as the New Humanity of the New Age.' These are the portions of Paul's letters that often become a bit too familiar for me and I end up breezing through them and domesticating Paul's strong metaphors (like 'put to death'). Bird does the opposite. He also shows how Paul's understanding of us as being new creation is the linchpin of the entire section. It controls both ethics and identity.

The best adjective to describe the Philemon commentary is 'solid.' I didn't gain any new insights, but there also wasn't any spot where I really disagreed either.

All in all this is a commentary worth deep engagement. The more time spent dwelling on Bird's attempt to think Paul's thoughts after him, the more one will get out of it, particularly on Colossians. I think that Bird nails his audience right on. It will be a helpful addition to any pastor's or studious lay person's library. If you want a commentary that gets to the point while not being shallow or unsatisfying then you'll love this commentary. Overall, I'd place Colossians and Philemon right next to or just behind NT Wright's fine entry in the Tyndale series and give it 4.5 stars.

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:6-14

2010-11-10T07:30:00.003-06:00

⁶ So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
⁷ Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. ⁸ Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” ⁹ So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
¹⁰ For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” ¹¹ Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” ¹² The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” ¹³ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” ¹⁴ He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. (NIV)

In this section Paul continues his argument that Gentiles are part of the people of God by faith. In the prior section Paul argued from experience. Scripture is the basis of his argument here. Abraham is used as an example of one who was considered righteous on the basis of his faith. However, we need to see that Abraham is more than an example, he's the archetype. Paul selects Abraham because he is the father of the family, the patriarch of the people of God. What's true in his case is normative for his descendants. We can be a bit more specific regarding Paul's argument than that, though. The clearest summary of verses 6-9 comes from Dunn and I will replicate it below:

Abraham's righteousness-->faith-->Abraham's children (iii.6-7)
Abraham's blessing-->faith-->all the nations (iii.8-9) (p. 168)

What Paul's doing in verses 6-9 is showing that Abraham's children contain members of all the nations by arguing that the basis of righteousness and blessing isn't circumcision, it's faith.

In verses 10-14 Paul continues that line of argument (for those keeping score at home, here I am largely following Wright 137-56). The Torah had been in the business of cursing the Jews for some time. The blessings of the Abrahamic covenant weren't coming to pass through it because Israel was failing at its job of being a light to the nations. But all along the plan had been that Abraham's people would be based on faith not ethnicity. Torah had created a problem for the original covenant people, however. As we noted above, it was cursing them. Jesus, the Christ, came to fulfill the role of being the light that they were supposed to be. Not only that but '...the death of Jesus finally exhausts the curse which stood over the covenant people , so that the blessing of Abraham might after all come upon the Gentiles' (Wright 156).

Commentary Review: Daniel

2010-11-08T07:30:00.004-06:00

In my opinion, Daniel is not the best covered Old Testament book as far as commentaries go. This isn't an uncommon phenomenon among Old Testament books. Though I've looked at them, I'm not going to review some of the older Evangelical Daniel commentaries (like e.g., Baldwin). They don't provide much that you can't get in either Longman or Lucas. If you're unfamiliar with the series that one or more of these commentaries are in check out my commentary series overview.

It was a very close call but my favorite commentary on Daniel is Goldingay's. While there were a few places where I disagreed with his interpretation, I found the commentary to be exemplary. If you're going to teach Daniel, especially the apocalyptic portions, you need a commentary that provides you with a lot of background material. Goldingay, while not as broad as Collins, certainly provides you with quite a bit. His exploration of the background to the apocalyptic symbolism is very helpful. You gain a good sense of what is being communicated by the symbols, not just to whom they refer. Questions of genre are discussed in detail; helpful parallel texts are dug up (while avoiding parallelomania). The most helpful aspect of the commentary was his detailed literary analysis. It showed how the passage as a whole fit together, especially pointing out chiasms in the text. His explanations should not be ignored either. These are among the best of any in the Word series and clearly are far from the afterthought that they seem to be in some volumes. Overall, I found this commentary to be detailed but you never feel overloaded at the same time.

Daniel is a bit of a battle ground in Evangelical circles over dating. For those of you interested, Goldingay does hold to a second century date and sees many of the prophetic portions as ex eventu prophecy. This raises theological issues for the doctrine of Scripture for Evangelicals (of which Goldingay is one). I give him credit for dealing with them head on. I personally learned a lot from Goldingay, and even if you disagree with this stance on the dating of Daniel, I think you will too. No pastor should attempt to study Daniel without this commentary in his collection. 5 stars out of 5.

If Goldingay's commentary is choice number 1, John Collins' brilliant effort in the Hermeneia series is number 1a. Collins is an expert in apocalyptic literature, so his analysis of the apocalyptic sections along with the introduction is the strength of the commentary' (that does not suggest that the rest of the commentary isn't good). What makes Collins work so helpful is that it's extremely detailed on background issues (more so than Goldingay). The only annoyance for me is that he doesn't always comment on every single verse. As an additional bonus, you get a commentary on the additions to Daniel that are found in the Apocrypha (I think that spending a little time on the additions to Daniel is a helpful exercise when studying Daniel 1-6). As this volume is in the Hermeneia series there isn't nearly as much theological reflection as there is in Goldingay, and that's why I give this commentary 1a status. With that said I understand why a busy pastor wouldn't want to wade through Goldingay and Collins (they're both pretty long), if you have the time it's worthwhile to engage in both. 5 stars out of 5.

After you leave the woods of the academic commentaries on Daniel, there isn't a lot to recommend in my opinion (granted I have not seen Duguid's commentary). However, for a lay audience, Longman's commentary stands out. Obviously you're not going to get anywhere near the detail of Collins or Goldingay in an NIV Application volume, but the 'Original Meaning' section is beefy for a volume in this series. Longman isn't afraid to discuss ANE background, and he appropriately simplifies it for a lay audience. You don't find much original research here. Rather it serves as a handy, accessible guide drawing upon the best of current studies on Daniel. Longman does opt for a sixth century date, but is sympathetic towards late daters like Goldingay. This commentary was conservative without being polemical. The applications were often helpful and I never found them to be cliched. With that said I often found myself wanting to go in slightly different directions in my own teaching. This is my commentary of choice for lay students and also should be consulted for those teaching in a church setting. 4.5 stars out of 5.

Lucas' commentary is a little difficult to rate. In many respects it felt like Goldingay light. There's a lot of repeated material here. I'd also say that he felt like Goldingay made clearer, as Lucas is a very clear writer. Obviously with that said, Lucas didn't just blindly follow Goldingay on everything, and he does have a fair amount of material of his own. There also were spots where I thought that Lucas had better points than Goldingay. One potential advantage, depending on your circles, is that he spends more time than Goldingay or Collins do interacting with conservative Evangelical scholars. He also is a bit less likely than Goldingay or Collins to accept the critical consensus (again not that either of those scholars always accept it - Goldingay in particular diverges at some key interpretive points). At times, though, it was a bit difficult to determine what his view was on some issues. I'm still not sure when he thinks Daniel was written. I think you could read Lucas either way, perhaps he intended it that way. This is definitely the best mid-level commentary on Daniel. It's not a must have if you already have Goldingay, but even if you do, there's enough unique material to make it worth owning. 4 stars out of 5.

Miller's commentary in the NAC series is a mid-level dispensationalist commentary. I wasn't a big fan. I think that it majors on historical matters while ignoring literary ones. This may be because Miller sees the book as completely historical. With that said, the genre of history still may be written in form of a story and thus I find Miller's approach inadequate. History is so important to Miller that it completely dominates the commentary, not only to the neglect of discussing literary style and genre, but also to theology. A glaring example occurs at the close of chapter 5 and the start of chapter 6. He closes his comments on chapter five with a seven sentence discussion of the theological emphases of the chapter. Chapter 6 opens with a seven page discussion of the identity of Darius the Mede. I think that demonstrates misplaced priorities on Miller's part. I wasn't impressed in his handling of the apocalyptic sections either (and not just because I'm not a dispensationalist). The symbols have both a sense and a reference. He focuses too strongly on the latter while missing out on telling the reader why the historical referant is presented in that particular mode. Thus, for someone teaching the text, I don't think that Miller provides a whole lot of help, certainly any of the above commentaries would be far more helpful. 2.5 stars out of 5.

Commentary Series Overview

2010-11-03T07:30:00.007-05:00

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This is a post that will be expanded regularly and I will post a link to it at the top of all of my commentary reviews, that way you can check it out if you're not familiar with the series a particular commentary is in. I'll also place links within this post to the commentaries in each series that I've reviewed, making it a good place for easy reference for all of my reviews.

AB: The Anchor Bible series is a leading academic commentary series. Most of the contributors could be labeled as moderates, with quite a few volumes have been written by Catholic scholars. This series has been in progress for a long time and thus is probably the most uneven series on the market. The newer volumes are always among the top on their given book. Most of the older volumes have been surpassed by newer volumes in other series. However, some of the older volumes are classics and are still must reads. Not only is the quality of the series uneven, but the feel and focus of commentary varies from volume to volume. Some focus more on rhetoric, others on historical matters, and some on literary criticism. A lot of leeway is given to each individual writer. The commentary begins with lengthy introduction dealing with the full assortment of background issues in good detail. The main body of the commentary proceeds as follows: the author's translation of the text, followed by a notes section and a comment section (though sometimes the comments precede the notes). The notes section goes through the text verse phrase by phrase in a detailed manner. The comment section can be anything that the author wants to make it and varies greatly. (See my review of Galatians and Jude)

ACCS: The ACCS series seeks to introduce the modern reader to Patristic theologians. Brief explanations of the text proceed phrase by phrase (rather than verse by verse) with selections made from sermons, commentaries, and other written sources. Typically, the comments will be drawn from about eight or so different fathers, with comments here and there by other voices when they have a significant insight. The main contributors are selected to try to be representative of the breadth of the era, selecting both Greek and Latin fathers. It certainly shouldn't be the first commentary off the shelf when researching a given passage, but it's too easy to overlook the early insights that Patristic theologians had. It's definitely a series worth consulting. (See my review of Galatians)

AOTC: The Apollos Old Testament Commentary series is a mid-length commentary series aimed at pastors, leaning a little more on the academic side. It's like a more accessible version of the Word Biblical Commentary series. Not too many volumes are out yet so we will see how this series develops and if that generalization remains true. You get a full length introduction that deals with all of the critical issues. Each contributor provides their own translation and provides substantial annotations dealing with text-critical and translation issues. Hebrew and Aramaic are transliterated making these notes more accessible than the equivalent notes in the Word Biblical Commentary series. After those notes you get sections discussing the form, setting, and structure of the text. Here relevant background matters as well as the literary form and structure are discussed, though not to quite the same length as you get in the Word series (at least in the better volumes). After that is a 'Comment' section which is critical assessment of the meaning of the text. It's followed by an explanation section which exposits the text a bit and deals with matters of theology. (See my review of Daniel)

BECNT: The Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament is an advanced commentary series that is aimed at the pastor and graduate student. Thus most volumes are not quite as advanced or thorough as you would find in the WBC series (though some are) but a working knowledge of Greek would benefit you. This is a little bit of a difficult series to describe because the format has not been entirely consistent from volume to volume. However, I can make some general comments. The introductions are of fairly typical length and cover your usual topics. There's nothing unique there. The format of the commentary proper is a bit different, though. Each section begins with a one to three paragraph long summary of the text followed by the author's translation and then exegetical notes. Strangely the notes do not proceed verse by verse but paragraph by paragraph. Since the notes are detailed, the number of pages between headings is far too many making it maddeningly difficult at times to find what you're looking for when cracking the commentary open for quick reference (this is not a problem in the volumes on Luke but it seems to be for the rest of the volumes). Following the exegetical notes are 'Additional Notes' covering text critical matters. My personal opinion of this series varies by volume. Some are fantastic, and some are just ok. (See my review Jude)

BMT: The Bible in Medieval Tradition is a brand new series that meets a serious lacuna in the commentary market, that of Medieval Catholic commentaries. As of the writing of these notes, the only volume out thus far is on Galatians and it is excellent. My complaint with the ACCS series is that the selections are sometimes too brief to get a true feel for a particular father. That's not the case with the BMT. It translates (in Galatians for the first time) either whole commentaries or commentaries on whole chapters. In the Galatians volume six different commentators were selected. The introduction is thorough and provides a nice biography of each contributor so you can place the work in the context of their life and Medieval Catholicism. I think that this is a very important series and I'm very excited to see future volumes. (See my review of Galatians)

BNTC: The Black's New Testament Commentary series is a mid length commentary aimed at students and pastors. Each commentary has a brief introduction and then proceeds section by section. Translations are the authors.' Comments proceed verse by verse and comments on variant readings and grammatical issues are usually relegated to the footnotes. All important interpretive issues are discussed in some detail, but not quite to the same level as some of the more rigorous mid level series like the PNTC or NICNT. The pages are small for a commentary so don't let the page count fool you. Most of the contributors are mainline protestants and overall it seems to be a pretty moderate series. The series took a long time to complete, so some of the earlier volumes, while good are a bit dated. Most of the newer volumes are very solid entries with some being among the top two or three on their book. It's a series that is definitely worth checking out! (See my review of Galatians)

CCC: The Crossway Classic Commentaries series consists of classic commentaries written by luminaries within the Protestant tradition such as Martin Luther or Charles Hodge. No effort was made to cover every book and some books were covered twice. They simply wanted the best of the Lutheran and Puritan tradition. These are some of the finest commentaries of their era, but at times will feel much more preachy than modern commentaries. Each volume will vary some and will take on the characteristics of the era in which it was produced (there's a few centuries in between, e.g., Luther and Ryle). If you have the time, it's worth checking out. (See my review of Galatians)

Hermeneia: The Hermeneia commentary series is one of the leading academic series on the market. It covers both the Old and New Testament and has contributors from a variety of backgrounds, though they are generally liberal. Hermeneia also contains translations of several works by continental European scholars. The strength of these commentaries often is their introductions (e.g., the introductions in the Romans and Daniel commentaries are unparalleled). This isn't surprising given their focus on historical and critical matters. The commentary proper begins with a translation of the text that is footnoted to deal with text critical issues. Then it moves to a discussion of the form and structure of the text, usually comparing the text at hand to various parallel texts and also dealing with background issues. The verse by verse notes offer detailed exegesis. Seminary students and scholars are the primary audience of this series. The value to the pastor varies book by book. Some are very helpful but some can probably be skipped. (See my review of Daniel)

INT: The Interpretation series is directly aimed at helping preachers and teachers preach and teach. Explanations are tackled one paragraph at a time in a running exposition. At the end of each section the authors engage in a discussion of how to preach or teach the given text (or alternatively, pitfalls to avoid). These volumes don't typically forge new trails of cutting edge scholarship (though, some like 1 Corinthians by Hays are an exception), but they definitely are useful to their intended audience when paired with more detailed commentaries. Most of the volumes are pretty good and consistent, but there are a few week entries. Unfortunately some volumes are getting long in the tooth and it may be time for the publisher to consider replacing them. The biggest downside of the series are the God-awful dust jackets. This series has a very strong moderate Mainline Protestant feel. (See my review of Galatians)

NAC: The New American Commentary series is published by Broadman & Holman and thus as one would expect has a distinctively conservative baptist feel. These are fairly typical mid length commentaries geared towards pastors and studious members of the laity. The introductions are fairly meaty and often deal with difficult historical questions. The NIV is the standard translation and comments are based on that. The commentary goes verse by verse providing substantial exegetical help and interacting with a variety of viewpoints, but never getting too technical. (See my review of Daniel)

NCCS: When it came to commentaries, I used to think that length was a virtue. Over the past couple of years I've been changing my mind as I've both encountered some long commentaries that I didn't care for, and encountered many brief commentaries that are top notch. Shorter commentaries tend to be clear and concise, and not bogging you down with too many alternative viewpoints. A good one will do that without being superficial. The New Covenant Commentary Series (NCCS ) seems to seek to be the standard bearer for this style of commentaries on the New Testament. The two series editors, Michael Bird and Craig Keener have assembled an international collection of scholars that are top notch. The commentary usually will have a medium length introduction followed by the commentary proper. There you get the author's translation followed by a short section giving an overview of the section that will come under discussion, after which the text is discussed by paragraph in the form of a running explanation rather than verse by verse. Technical matters are relegated to footnotes. Each volume also has several excurses dealing with background issues in greater depth. Additionally there are several sections titled 'Fusing the Horizons' sprinkled throughout. Here the commentator show the relevance of the ancient text to our current situation. This series is aimed at pastors and serious lay students. (See my review of Romans and Colossians and Philemon)

NIB: The New Interpreter's Bible Commentaries seek to provide pastors and students with a brief commentary by leading moderate Mainline Protestant scholars. The introductions are exceedingly brief and the comments proceed verse by verse. The goal of the commentary is to lay out the author's view and not clutter you with a myriad of interpretive options. Interaction with other scholars is limited to a few leading commentaries which makes the commentary very accessible and easy to read. These factors make this series a nice option for busy pastors or undergraduate students, however it simply can't substitute for more substantial works. Unfortunately, volumes aren't sold separately, but fortunately, the contributors are top notch, so it's one of the few series that isn't too bad to purchase in bulk. (See my review of Galatians)

NIVAC: The NIV Application Commentary series is written by Evangelical scholars with the layperson and the pastor in mind. The introductions are generally brief covering the basics. The text used in the commentary is, of course, the NIV and comments are made based on that translation. Discussion is broken up into three sections: 'original meaning,' 'bridging contexts,' and 'contemporary significance.' In the 'original meaning' section, you get a fairly brief discussion of the original meaning of the text (though some volumes in this series are a bit more detailed). Ideally the 'bridging contexts' portion of the commentary should help prepare the way for the 'contemporary significance' section by dealing with issues related to the cultural location of the text. The 'contemporary significance' section guides the reader in application of the text. I used words like 'ideally' and 'should' because sometimes it seems as if the writers in this series don't stick to the layout and talk about whatever they feel like in each section. Unfortunately, when authors do that, a lot of the utility of the series is lost. Overall I feel this series is a bit uneven, but the better volumes are worth owning for anyone who teaches in a church setting. (See my reviews of Daniel, Galatians,and Philemon)

PC: I can't provide a lot of comment on the Pentecostal Commentary series in general. At the time of writing there were four volumes on the market and only one (Fee's on Galatians) that I've ever even seen in a library, so I'm not sure if the series will get wide circulation or not. As you might guess from the title of the series, it is geared towards Pentecostal Christians and hence is probably conservative on the whole. The Pentecostalism doesn't come through very strongly in Fee's commentary for the most part. It's only in the application portions where Fee opts to address his fellow Pentecostal's directly. Fee's volume is a solid mid length commentary that comments on the text paragraph by paragraph, probably most comparable to the NCCS volumes. As for the series as a whole I can't comment or make a recommendation as I'm not familiar enough with the other scholars who have written in the series. (See my review of Galatians)

PNTC: The Pillar New Testament Commentary series is an intermediate series covering the New Testament and comes from an evangelical perspective. Most of the volumes in this series fall in the more academic half, similar to what you would get in an NICNT. A few of the older volumes are less detailed. The introductions typically are lengthy and deal with all of the standard critical issues as well as some theological matters. In the commentary proper the NIV text is printed and comments proceed verse by verse. Before the verse by verse notes is a section that summarizes the paragraph as a whole and sometimes focuses on structural and rhetorical issues. The notes on individual verses are detailed and usually there is a fair amount of footnoting to deal with matters of Greek grammar, where the author has his choice of using Greek font or transliterating. More space is given to theological issues in this series than many, making that one of its strengths. All of the volumes in this series that I have looked at have been good and some of them are among the two or three best on their book. Whether you are writing an academic paper, preparing a bible study or sermon, or studying for your own enrichment you would be wise to check out the PNTC series. (See my reviews of Philemon and Jude)

THNTC/THOTC: The goal of the Two Horizon's commentary series is to help the student of the Bible fuse the horizons between the biblical world and their own. The commentary proper and introductions probably fall into the middle range in terms of accessibility, however much more attention is paid to theology than one would typically get in a standard commentary. Their goal is to produce a robust theological interpretation of Scripture, and it seems that most of the volumes come from a theologically moderate perspective. Technical matters get a little less attention than in most mid-level commentaries, but there are plenty of other series that cover those matters. After the main body of the commentary you get a plethora of essays dealing with theological matters that arise throughout the commentary. These offer an opportunity for greater synthesis than you typically get in an excursus in a typical commentary. Unfortunately, by being relegated to the back of the commentary, they may go unnoticed by some. This series is most helpful to a pastor or teacher going through a whole book. (See my reviews of Philemon and Jude)

TNTC/TOTC: The Tyndale series is a conservative Evangelical series, but beyond that it's little tough to classify. Many of the volume are more technical in their discussions than one would typically find in a commentary geared towards lay people. But most of the volumes also aren't detailed enough to be a true mid-level commentary. The introductions succinctly cover critical issues and the commentary proper proceeds paragraph by paragraph through the text. This series has been around for a while so some of the volumes are a bit dated. Some of them are really excellent, however, and cannot be ignored. (See my review of Philemon)

WBC: The Word Biblical Commentary is a critical, broadly Evangelical commentary series covering both the Old and New Testament. The format of the series is widely panned, but I personally don't think it's so terrible. The introductions are usually moderately lengthy, though they don't usually compete with what you get in Hermeneia or the ICC. In the main body of the commentary, commentators provide their own translation with notes dealing with text critical issues as necessary, after which the comments are split into three sections, 'Form/Setting/Structure,' 'Comments,' and 'Explanation.' The 'form/setting/structure' section deals with background and parallels as well as a discussion of literary form and structure as well as rhetorical analysis if the author is so inclined. The 'Comments' section deals with the text phrase by phrase commenting on the original language. Theology and contemporary significance tend to be dealt with in the 'Explanation.' This division frustrates some people because they have to look in up to three different spots to find comments on a particular phrase or verse. I think, however, that if you read the commentary straight through (which I know most people don't) that there is some merit in this distinction, especially since it makes it easy for one to consult the commentary at each phase of research into the passage. The biggest problems with this series is the unevenness of it. Some volumes are fantastic while others are very mediocre. There's also a big difference in the degree to which each section is utilized by the commentators. For example, some almost ignore the 'Explanation' section. Additionally, some of the commentaries in the series have been surpassed by newer works in other series. While the WBC is certainly intended for academics, pastors would be wise to pick up some of the stronger volumes (it's intended for them too!), as it is probably the most accessible and inexpensive truly academic series. (See my reviews of Daniel, Galatians, Philemon and Jude)

ZECNT: The Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament is one of the newest commentary series on the market. At the time of writing only four volumes are out and I've only seen Blomberg on James. The series is aimed at pastors and students who have had two years of Greek, though one could work their way through the commentary with less exposure, but it would be difficult. I would probably put it at the bottom of the advanced range due to the use of the original Greek and the lack of transliteration, though some intermediate series will have more detail overall (e.g., the NICNT). The format of the commentary is unique and I think immensely helpful. There is a brief introduction followed by the commentary proper. Each section of text is split into six parts. The first section is the 'Literary Context' which seeks to situate the passage within the larger flow of the book. The second section is a two sentence summary called the 'Main Idea.' This is followed by a translation of the text in diagram form. The diagram seeks to show the relationship between clauses. On the left side of the diagram is a one word description of the function of each clause. Following the translation is an explanation of the 'Structure' which, as expected, deals with matters of structure and rhetoric. Finally we arrive at the 'Explanation of Text' which contains the typical exegetical notes one expects in a commentary and they proceed verse by verse. The last section is 'Theology in Application' which provides some direction for thinking about how to apply the text. The discussion here is at the paragraph level. After the close of the commentary there is a short section on the theology of the book. Major topics are given a page or two, where the author can do some synthesis. The layout is very clean, using line breaks and different font sizes and faces well which makes the format work exceptionally with the end result of an exceedingly clear presentation of the contents of the commentary. If you're a pastor and you haven't picked up a volume in this series yet, try it, you'll love it! (See my review of Galatians and James)

Michael Bird on Unity

2010-11-01T07:30:00.000-05:00

Why is the church so diverse, and is this a good thing? After all, diversity breeds difference, debate, and even division. Would not a uniform, homogeneous, almost clone-like church be better for unity? Yet the body of Christ has an indelible and irreducible plurality built into it. The church is one body with many parts complete with a unity in diversity. Experiencing the power of forgiveness and being made part of the renewed Israel is a saving event that crosses racial, geographical, and cultural boundaries. Christians have a shared identity in Jesus Christ, they are part of a new Adamic race, they have accepted the call to come into Abraham's family of the faithful, they are forgiven of their wicked and godless ways, and they seek to cultivate the virtues of faith, hope, and love as well. That which unites them is infinitely stronger than anything that might divide them from one another (Bird 45).

Numerology and Daniel

2010-10-29T07:30:00.004-05:00

Perhaps the passage that causes the most confusion for modern readers is the 70 7s of Daniel 9. We need to understand two things to understand the 70 7s. First we need to understand how the Bible and non-canonical Jewish sources used numbers symbolically in relation to periods of time. Second we need to understand the full Scriptural background behind the 70 7s.

Whenever we come upon a number in the Bible referring to a number of years our tendency is to assume that those numbers are literal. Most of the time this is probably the case. Once in a while, however, that assumption can lead us down the wrong path. One example is 1 Kgs. 6:1. It claims that 480 years after the exodus Solomon started building the temple. This, in all likelihood, is a nice round twelve generations, (perhaps one generation per tribe of Israel?). Otherwise, one would have to hold to an unlikely 15th century BCE date for the exodus. (a 13th century date is more likely) The book of Judges repeatedly uses, so it seems, the number forty in a non-literal way too. In non-canonical Jewish literature from the second temple period we again run into non-literal periods of years. Interestingly for our study, Jubilees breaks down history into 490 year periods (10 jubilees). I mention these examples to suggest that there is no reason why we must understand the 70 7s as a literal period of 490 years. We have to let the text decide how to take the 70 7s, and I believe that when we look at it, we'll see that the periods are symbolic.

There are two Old Testament texts that stand in the background here. The obvious one is Jeremiah 25:1-14. Here Jeremiah prophesies that the exile will end after 70 years, a good round number probably referring to a lifetime. The exiles would go and they wouldn't be coming back, but the exile wouldn't last forever.

Leviticus 25-26 is probably a second text that gets drawn upon here in Daniel 9. Leviticus 25 begins with the laws about the sabbath year and the year of jubilee. It's clear that the Chronicler uses this text to interpret Jeremiah's prophecy in 1 Chronicles 36:15-23. The land had to lie fallow for the missed sabbath years. When you come to Leviticus 26 you have a series of rewards and curses. Interestingly, the claim that God will punish them seven fold for their sin is repeated four times. Thus here in Daniel, the seventy years of Jeremiah is reinterpreted to a seven fold punishment and is 10 jubilee cycles (10 being a number symbolizing completion).

The 7o 7s are broken into three groups the first is the 7 7s. First, notice that that is the length of one jubilee, a time of release of slaves and captives. It stands for the length of time until the Jews were allowed back in the land. However, things didn't really go that well for them while they were still in the land. The exile was still ongoing in a sense. The next period of time is the 62 7s. The big thing to see here is that the period of 62 ends in the 69th week, one less than 70 weeks and 70 is a 'perfect' number. 'The antithesis of perfection is sometimes represented by one less than the perfect number (e.g., 666 as the number of the beast in Rev. 13:18). Therefore it is appropriate that the climax of devastation comes at the end of the 69th week" (Lucas 248). The last week is a suitable period of time for evil to run its course and end. So I think that we can plausibly understand the 70 weeks of years symbolically and a time period in the very general ballpark of 490 years.

We still have to ask when the 490 year period was to reach its end? Following the suggested way of reading the numbers above, I think it's best to point to the Antiochene crisis in the 2nd century. It's the closest major event to 490 years (a period not meant to be taken literally anyways) from the fall of Jerusalem (the event prompting Jeremiah's prophecy) making that the most natural starting point. Also, I believe that the rest of the visions in Daniel also deal with the same crisis, thus making that identification make sense (at least to me).

The Earth is the Temple of the Lord

2010-10-27T07:30:00.002-05:00

One interesting claim that has been made with increased frequency the past few years in relation to Genesis 1 is that it is a temple text. When God is creating the earth he is creating his temple. His rest at the end of creation is his taking up residence in the temple. We as human beings are his images. Unlike the fake deities of the ancient world, the living God doesn't have dead images of gold and silver and stone, he has living images, human beings. We are God's representatives, or his representation. I believe that this approach to Genesis 1 is very sound (the most thorough defense of this approach is in The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God by Greg Beale).

Last week in our small group we studied Acts 17:16-34. One thing that has always struck me is how different this speech felt from the rest of Paul's speeches in Acts. The difference is that it's not a straightforward exposition of Scripture in the same way Paul's speeches to Jewish audiences were. What I noticed this time around is that Paul is still expositing Scripture. Some commentators have noticed the connections to Genesis in verses 24-26, though none that I looked at dealt with the allusions at any length. Verse 24 makes the temple and creation tie crystal clear. I, though, wouldn't limit the echos of Genesis to verses 24-26. I think that they resume in verse 29. Paul there seems to be connecting creation and temple worship together and seems to understand the imago dei in the same manner as I outlined above. Thus I think that here Paul is affirming that Genesis 1 is about God's creation of his cosmic temple.

Apocalyptic Imagery and Daniel Part 2

2010-10-25T07:30:00.002-05:00

In the last post we spent some time looking at the importance of understanding both aspects of the meaning (sense and referent) of symbolism in apocalyptic literature. In this post we will start by looking at who the holy ones of Daniel 7:18, 21, 22, 25, 27 are.

The identity of the holy ones has been one of the big scholarly battlegrounds in Daniel 7, though we have come to have more consensus in recent years than in the past. There are two main views. Either the holy ones are angels or they are faithful Jews. Lucas (191, 192) lays out the argument clearly for us. The view that they're heavenly beings is the newer view but it has numerous strengths, especially that this particular phrase 'holy ones' usually does not refer to human beings. Only once in the OT does it clearly refer to people (Ps. 34:9). Typically in the literature from Qumran 'holy ones' refers to angels. On the other hand, there are good arguments for seeing the 'holy ones' as being faithful Jews - especially since the little horn (Antiochus Epiphanes) wages war against them. Additionally, how would this chapter provide hope for Jews living in the second century if they're not the holy ones?

Some of the more recent commentaries (e.g., Goldingay and Lucas) both lean towards the angelic viewpoint but don't think that it eliminates an identification with faithful Jews. Apocalyptic symbolism can be multivalent. Part of the point of apocalyptic literature is to show that what is happening on earth is a picture of what is happening in heaven and many of the symbols have both earthly and heavenly counterparts (remember the four beasts - earthly kingdoms under demonic influence). We need not pick.

So now we want to move to the question of theology. What are some guidelines in appropriating apocalyptic for today? Should we even do so? I think that we can and should since Daniel is Scripture. To distance ourselves from it would be to deny its status as holy Scripture. Additionally, we see examples like Revelation and 4 Ezra, reusing and reinterpreting Daniel 7. They both apply (4 Ezra explicitly says that it is reinterpreting the fourth beast - see 2 Esdras 12:11-12) the beast imagery to the Roman empire. I think that this is legitimate and represents the other side of the multivalence of the imagery. It's free to be reapplied in new contexts. At the same time I would want to exercise the utmost caution in appropriation. Perhaps Christians in North Korea or in parts of the Middle East can best lay claim to seeing themselves literally in situations analogous to the Jews of the second century. However, I still think that in a limited sense we can apply passages like this whenever we fight evil social structures that bring oppression. Our God is a big God and he is the judge who not only judges individuals, but also judges the structures of society.

Apocalyptic Imagery and Daniel Part 1

2010-10-22T10:40:00.002-05:00

One of the trickiest parts of studying apocalyptic literature is interpreting the imagery and symbolism used. This will be the first of three parts dealing with apocalyptic imagery and numerology in which we will make some general observations and also deal with a few specific passages.

I think that one of the most important things to consider when reading texts like Daniel 7-12 is that the meaning of the symbols has two components; sense and referent. Referent is the object that the symbol stands for (e.g., the four hybrid/distorted beasts in Daniel 7 stand for four kingdoms). The sense is the interpretation of the referent that the symbol provides (more on this later). Unfortunately, within the Evangelical church I think that the sense has been a bit ignored. Most lay people (and more than a few pastors) come to a text like Daniel and have lots of questions about the historical referents but not many about the sense. Apocalyptic texts get treated as a code that we need to unravel. That, though, runs into two problems. One is that not every symbol has a clear historical referent. Take the wind in 7:2 as an example. The wind symbolizes God's power, that is the sense of the symbol, but I don't see what clear historical referent it has. The second, and the more obvious problem is that by focusing on just the referent you're missing out on what is in my opinion the more important aspect of meaning, the one from which we can draw out theology, the sense, or God's interpretation of history.

How do we know the sense of the symbols? They're very foreign to us because they come from another culture. Thus to understand them we need to understand the culture and the genre of apocalyptic. Here, nothing but hard work will suffice. The vast majority of Jewish apocalyptic literature did not make it into the canon (in fact Daniel is the only OT text that can formally be called an apocalypse, though portions of Zechariah and Isaiah are precursors to the genre that would later develop). Thus we have to do some reading outside of the Bible to get a better sense of how it was used. Probably the most helpful for comparisons with Daniel is 4 Ezra which is found in 2 Esdras 3-14. Fortunately, since it is part of the Apocrypha, you can find it online for free in the NRSV. If you want to read more Jewish apocalyptic, you should probably purchase a copy of the Pseudepigrapha, now thankfully published in softcover for half of the price of the hardcovers! Reading broadly within the genre will help you get a feel for how symbolic imagery is used. A second step would be to get your hands on a good introduction to apocalyptic literature. I personally found The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature by John Collins to be extremely helpful. This will help you get a general lay of the land when it comes to Jewish apocalyptic and does some of the comparative work for you. It's very helpful for getting a macro level look at what's unique or not unique about each apocalypse. Finally when you study the specifics of any passage you must have at least one of (preferably both) the following commentaries: Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel by John Collins and Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 30, Daniel by John Goldingay. They wade through all of the relevant data and lay out clearly the background and meaning of the symbols. As a general comment, while both Jewish sources and other ANE (in particular Canaanite) sources can be the source of the sense of any given symbol, priority must be given to prior biblical usage (which, as one would expect, often is related to its sense in non-Jewish ANE sources).

Earlier I mentioned that the four beasts stand for four kingdoms. That is their referent. What is their sense? First we must consider that crossbreeding animals was outlawed in the Torah so at minimum we can say that they symbolize something unholy. When you look more deeply into the symbolism, though, it seems that to Jews the fact that these beasts are hybrid would suggest demonic control. Thus from the sea (the place of opposition to God) we have four kingdoms that oppose God's people that are demonic, they embody evil. The fourth kingdom in particular is so grotesque and hence evil that it can't even be described.

In our next post we will look at the sometimes multivalent nature of apocalyptic imagery as well as discuss how the literature speaks to us today.

The Unity of Daniel

2010-10-18T06:45:00.001-05:00

Sorry I've been mostly absent from this blog for a little over month now. You can look forward to regular posting from me at least through early January (hopefully even longer) from now on. Over at Boston Bible Geeks, danny mentioned that Daniel was one of the books that was most confusing to him. It was for me too until I studied it. Now that my study and class on Daniel are complete I thought that I could do a short series dealing with a few random aspects of Daniel. Most of the posts will deal with the apocalyptic section as those are the most confusing chapters. The last post in the series will be a wrap up on commentaries (I'll review five of them).

In today's post I'd like to make a couple of comments about how the book as a whole works. First, I think it's important to stress up front that these comments are on the book in its final form. I think that the stories probably circulated orally and possibly somewhat independently of one another for some time (perhaps centuries - yes I am inclined towards a 2nd century date) before being written down, but the stories as they existed independently aren't Scripture. They are Scripture as bound with the apocalyptic visions and thus our understanding of the intent of the stories must include the fact that they are thus bound.

One interesting and very useful fact about the book of Daniel is that 1:1-2:4a and chapters 8-12 are in Hebrew, and 2:4b-7:28 are in Aramaic. If you were to break the book down by genre, 1-6 would be narrative and 7-12 would be apocalyptic. The fact that we have portions of each half in each language tells us that the author of Daniel wanted us to see the book as a unity. The stories aren't separable from the visions. This view is strengthened by the fact that the Aramaic portion is arranged chiastically, with chapters 2 and 7 being A and A' by virtue of both being centrally focused on a symbolic revelation about God's judgment of (the same) four kingdoms.

Additionally, it is clear that both the narrative and apocalyptic section both have the same themes worked out in different ways. Those are: God is the sovereign king and is active in history; related to that, God rules over foreign overlords; and God will vindicate his faithful ones. The main difference between the two sections is how and for what purposes they develop each of those themes. Like much Hebrew narrative and also like Jesus' parables, the stories are stories with intent. The goal is drive the readers to live faithfully under foreign rule and the encroachment of oppressive foreign culture, holding up Daniel and his three friends as exemplary and showing how God consistently vindicated them when they were faithful.

For those living under the rule of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, one could still dismiss these stories because the faithful were dying. It didn't seem like God was still active in the way he was in the stories about Daniel and his friends. Was God still faithful towards Israel? Even though they were in the land, oppression was probably worse than it was under the Babylonians or the Persians. The apocalyptic sections come in to reaffirm the message of the narratives and give a big shot of hope that God would soon act to vindicate his people.

Additionally, we must also notice that the stories serve to set up the apocalyptic sections. Daniel is the recipient of divine revelation; mantic wisdom and is also a man of great piety. He has the right credentials to be the one to whom God gives further divine revelation. In this case, not even he can understand it and hence needs an interpreter. So as we've seen the relation between the narratives and the apocalyptic portions are somewhat complex and they are definitely interrelated. Praise God that in his wisdom he chose to give us both together.

Fantastic Deal on Church Dogmatics

2010-10-12T12:12:00.002-05:00

If you aren't aware, CBD is running a special on the entire set of Church Dogmatics by Karl Barth until Nov. 1. You can purchase the whole 14 volume set for only $100.

A Perspective on Perspectives

2010-09-23T08:43:00.001-05:00

If you've been reading this blog for a while, you may know that I am somewhat sympathetic towards the New Perspective on Paul (or perhaps better put, in agreement with certain elements of certain strands). The point of this post isn't so much to ask about the quality of exegesis of specific passages of Scripture that a NPP approach yields, but to ask some pertinent questions that I think both sides of the Old/New perspective divides should consider, and I know that I'm probably not the first one to ask this set of questions, but I think that we need to do some wrestling with our presuppositions.

Arguably the most important thing that post modernity has bashed into our brains is that we need to constantly examine what presuppositions we bring to the text. What blind spots do we have because of our experiences and the various cultures that we inhabit? Fair enough, let me ask the question to myself. One of the elements of NPP exegesis that resonates with me is the emphasis on horizontal dimensions of salvation, especially unity between Jew and Gentile (Ephesians 2 lays this out so eloquently). This becomes a central focal point through which much of Pauline soteriology is read.

Now for some biography. I grew up in a white suburban neighborhood. I went to a white all-male Catholic high school (162 out of 167 in my graduating class were white). In college I discovered other cultures for the first time, eventually ending up in an Asian-American campus ministry and church, marrying a 1st generation Korean immigrant and I've traveled to Asia three times (and loved every minute of it). If the Lord is willing I'd move to Korea or China in a heartbeat. Being united with believers of a different race has been an eye-opening experience that has helped me to see how God is glorified through the unity of people who otherwise have little or nothing in common (this extends far beyond racial unity). I don't think that my experience is all that unique. In a globalized world, these types of connections are becoming more and more common and in America our culture is increasingly variegated providing opportunities for unity in diversity.

My questions is, since we live in intersection with other cultures in ways we never have in the past, are we predisposed to find the importance of ethnic unity in Scripture or does our cultural situation enable us to see something that may have been invisible to the church in the past?

I think we also need to ask a question about unity in a more general sense. Being tolerant is the meta-norm of our culture. Has our culture rubbed off on us to the extent that we find a stress on tolerance (granted not a total tolerance like some in our culture want) at the heart of Paul's message to Christians (an important specification), or again is it really there?

Barth on God as Our Father

2010-09-02T22:44:00.000-05:00

This is what God is for us. But we must admit that we have no right to call him Father, to be his children, to address him in this manner. He is our Father and we are his children by virtue of the natural relationship existing between him and Jesus Christ, by virtue of this Fatherhood and this Sonship which were made real in the person of Jesus Christ; and for us they are made real in him. We are his children and he is our Father, by virtue of this new birth realized at Christmas, on Good Friday, at Easter, and fulfilled at the moment of our baptism. It is a new birth, that is to say a new existence, really new, a life quite different from the one that can be born of our human possibilities, of our own merits. "God our Father" means "our Father of mercy." We are and always shall be prodigal sons who can claim no other right than that which is given us in the person of Jesus Christ.

This does not weaken what has been said of the divine Fatherhood. The clarity and the certitude, the very greatness and majesty of our Father appear in the fact that we find ourselves before him without power, without merit, without proper faith, and empty-handed. Yet in Christ we are the children of God. The reality of Sonship would not be more certain if there could be added to it anything whatsoever coming from us. The divine reality alone is the fullness of all reality.

Jesus Christ is the donor and the warrant of the divine Fatherhood and of our filiality. It is the reason for which this Fatherhood and this filiality are incomparably superior to any other, to any relationship suggested to us by the words "father," "son," and "children." These human bonds are not the original, of which the other would be the image or symbol. The original, the true fatherhood, the true filiality are in the ties which God has created between himself and us. Everything which exists among us is merely the image of this original filiality. When we call God our Father, we do not fall into symbolism; on the contrary, we are in the full reality of these two words: "father" and "son." (Barth: Prayer 24-25)