The Blog of Brian Collins
Proverbs 16:12: “It is an abomination to kings to do evil, for the throne is established by righteousness.”
Proverbs 17:7: “Fine speech is not becoming to a fool; still less is false speech to a prince.”
Proverbs 29:12: “If a ruler listens to falsehood, all his officials will be wicked.”
Proverbs 17:15: “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.”
These were the Scripture passages that were on my Bible reading schedule for today.
“It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife, but every fool will be quarreling” (Prov. 20:3).
Psalm 15
A Psalm of David.
O Lord, who shall sojourn in your tent?
Who shall dwell on your holy hill?
He who walks blamelessly and does what is right
and speaks truth in his heart;
who does not slander with his tongue
and does no evil to his neighbor,
nor takes up a reproach against his friend;
in whose eyes a vile person is despised,
but who honors those who fear the Lord;
who swears to his own hurt and does not change;
who does not put out his money at interest
and does not take a bribe against the innocent.
He who does these things shall never be moved.
Ezekiel 20 was also part of my Bible reading schedule this morning. That chapter recounts God’s blessing on Israel, Israel’s rebellion, and God’s judgment upon Israel. While the United States ought not be equated with Israel, we do know from other Scriptures that God also blesses and judges Gentile nations.
The two best articles that I’ve read this election season about voting are:
Jonathan Leeman, “What Makes a Vote Moral or Immoral? The Ethics of Voting.”
and
John Piper, “Policies, Persons, and Paths to Ruin.”
Instead of addressing the particulars of this election, both articles provide Christian readers with Scriptural considerations by which to reach those conclusions. Because they deal with issues on a broadly Scriptural and principial level, I think both these articles will stand the test of time and remain useful for Christians seeking to fear God and honor him as they vote in future elections as well.
Leeman offers nine principles to guide Christians as they vote:
Can one issue disqualify a candidate? Hopefully every Christian would say that a pro-stealing, or pro-pedophilia, or pro-slavery candidate is disqualified, no matter how good he or she is on other issues. I wish everyone would arrive at this conclusion on abortion.
Also, can bad character disqualify a candidate, potentially outweighing the other rocks on the scale? If what we said above is true—that bad [character] authorizes and creates moral space for immoral activity—it’s hard to see how bad character cannot disqualify someone.
Imagine how radically the political landscape would change if every Christian in the United States embraced the last two paragraphs. Some will call this idealism, which might be a fair critique if “idealism” means acting on principles, not outcomes. That, too, is something you must weigh: pure principles vs. realistic outcomes. My recommendation is to weigh these things preparing yourself for the Lord’s final judgment.
Each of these principles requires unpacking, which Leeman does in his article. Tolle lege.
While Leeman’s article is broad, trying to capture a holistic ethic for voting, Piper’s article is narrowly focused on the issue of a candidate’s character. This article is compelling because it is Scripture saturated. Here’s one excerpt:
There is a character connection between rulers and subjects. When the Bible describes a king by saying, “He sinned and made Israel to sin” (1 Kings 14:16), it does not mean he twisted their arm. It means his influence shaped the people. That’s the calling of a leader. Take the lead in giving shape to the character of your people. So it happens. For good or for ill.
Some evangelicals have dissented to Piper’s article, but those which I’ve encountered have not engaged the Scriptures that Piper raised. There is one main objection to the article: If their favored candidate, whom they concede has poor character, loses the election, policies that are contrary to Scripture will be enacted. This argument rests on a consequentialist ethic, which is not a biblical ethic. To be sure, Christians need to be sure that the consequences of their actions are pleasing to God. But they must also be sure that their motives are pleasing to God and that their actions themselves do not violate God’s revealed will. In other words, it is never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right. (As to how to assess right in wrong when voting, see Leeman’s excellent article.)
In the end, these are the factors that weigh most with me:
Logos 9 released today. I’ve been using a review copy for the past several weeks, and the following are my favorite new features (along with some ideas for future improvement).
Faithlife, the makers of Logos Bible Software, said that dark mode was their top requested feature. It was certainly at the top of my wish list. I often split the screen on my Surface, with Logos on one side and OneNote on the other. Using OneNote in dark mode and Logos without was less than ideal.
Logos did a good job with dark mode. Though the addition of this mode may seem like a small change, I’m sure that’s not how the programmers felt! They had to take into account, for instance, all the highlights that users have applied to their Bible’s and other books. I’ve found that these transitioned well.
I was also pleased to see that Logos lets users set the mode to match their operating system mode. (In future, I’d like the Logos mobile app to include this feature).
Switching modes does require a program restart. Feature idea for Logos 10: When the program is in dark mode, allow users to toggle the background of the panels between light and dark, as OneNote does.
The Factbook is the major new feature for Logos 9. The larger your Logos library is, the more benefit you get from various Logos features. On the other hand, the larger a Logos library gets, the more difficult it becomes to find certain information. Searches can generate a mountain of results, and it can take hours to sort the wheat from the chaff.
For years, Logos has included dynamic guides that help address this challenge: the Bible Word Study Guide, Exegetical Guide, the Passage Guide, the Theology Guide, etc. The new Factbook doesn’t replace these guides, but it is designed to be the new starting place for searches about any topic. I’ve found that if I type a term in the Go Box and hit enter, my search will open in the new Factbook. And given the way the new Factbook works, that’s precisely what I want it to do.
The Factbook will handle searches for a wide variety of searches: Greek or Hebrew words, biblical passages, theological topics, names of Biblical people or significant Christian leaders, and much more. The results returned will vary based on the content searched for, but the entries follow a similar pattern: brief definition, key article, key passages (if relevant), related historical events (if relevant), key books on the topic or by the person, dictionary articles, journal articles, links to launch related guides or searches.
A listing of commentaries will often appear within various guides and, now, within Factbook entries. These now helpfully list the authors alongside the titles (very helpful, since many commentaries share the same titles). Logos 9 also now provides different ways to sort the commentaries: by user priority, series, author, type, or era. This is a small change that translates into a large advance in useability.
Logos 9 has refined or introduced a number of helpful new visuals. Charts are more easily generated and viewed from searches. They now open in a separate charts tab.
The Bible Books Explorer offers a variety of visuals. For instance, it will display date ranges for when the books of the Bible were written. No longer will I need to flip through a NT Introduction or an OT Introduction to remind myself when a book was thought to be written. Of course, different scholars differ about the dates for some of the biblical books. Helpfully, the user can choose the source that generates the chart.
The Intertext tab in the Bible Books Explorer shows how different books of the Bible relate to one another via quotation, citations, allusion, or echo. This is visually helpful in a general way, but I was also left wishing I had access to the underlying data (and that I had the ability to edit it according to my own studies).
Logos 9 has a slew of other new features that I’ll list here but won’t cover in any detail below since they are not features that I personally use.
While these are not features I use, the sermon manager looks like a very helpful addition for pastors.
I use Logos on a Surface Pro 6, and, in general, Logos 9 works well with touch. I’m glad to be able to use the full-featured program on a tablet form factor.
However, while the main resources respond to touch, the interactives do not. Worse, the new Logos 9 Factbook does not respond to touch. (Oddly, visually similar Guides do respond to touch.) This is frankly unacceptable. Windows devices have had touch for the past decade, and a Windows program in which touch works only selectively is broken. Logos would not release an iPad app in which some features could only be accessed via keyboard and mouse, and the same should be true of their Windows app.
Logos 8 was a substantial update from Logos 7. Logos 9 builds on the changes that Logos 8 introduced. The keynote features of Logos 9 bring significant refinements to the program that increase its value and usefulness.
If you are interested in upgrading, doing so via this link will give you a 15% discount on base packages and five free additional books from a pre-selected list.
Question: Whether the “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 refers to all believing Jews and Gentiles, to Jewish Christians only, or to elect Israelites who will be saved?
NA28: καὶ ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, εἰρήνη ἐπʼ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ.
NRSV: “As for those who will follow this rule—peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”
NIV84: “Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.”
NIV2011: “Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.”
NKJV: “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.”
ESV: “And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.”
CSB: “May peace come to all those who follow this standard, and mercy even to the Israel of God!”
Johnson (reflecting Burton): “And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy also upon the Israel of God.”
Bibliography: Galatians Commentaries: Bruce NIGTC (1982); Burton, ICC (1920); Calvin, (2010); Eadie (1979); George, NAC (1994); Lightfoot (1974);Longenecker, WBC, (1990); Luther, Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Luther’s Works, vol. 27 (1999); Moo BECNT (2013); Ngewa, ABCS (2010); Perkins, The Works of William Perkins, vol. 2 (2015); Schreiner, ZECNT (2010) Articles: G. K. Beale, “Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background of Galatians 6,16b,” Biblica 80 (1999): 204-23; J. L. Burns, “Israel and the Church of a Progressive Dispensationalist,” in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism (1999); W. S. Campbell, “Israel,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (1993); C. W. Cowan, “Context is Everything: ‘The Israel of God’ in Galatians 6:16; SBJT 14, no. 3 (2010): 78-82; S. L. Johnson, Jr., “Paul and the ‘Israel of God’: An Exegetical Case Study,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost (1986); A. Köstenberger, “The Identity of the ᾿Ισραηλ Του Θεου (Israel of God) in Galatians 6:16,” Faith and Mission 19, no. 1 (2001): 3-18; O. P. Robertson, “The Israel of God: It’s People,” in The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (2000); R. L. Saucy, “Israel and the Church: A Case for Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (1988); Woudstra, “Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (1988); Other: G. R. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church (2012); C. A. Blaising and D. L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (1993); M. Bockmuehl, The Epistle to the Philippians, BNTC (1997); C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC (1975); D. E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (2003); R. L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (1993); T. R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT, 2nd ed. (2018); M. A. Taylor, 1 Corinthians, NAC (2014); A. C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (2000); M. J. Vlach, Has the Church Replaced Israel? (2010).
It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man. It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in princes.
Ps 118:8–9 (ESV)
G. K. Beale, who holds an idealist position claims that the term “soon” “appears to denote fulfillment in the near future, which perhaps has already begun in the present” (Beale 1999: 153). Peter Leithart, who holds a preterist position, insists that “soon” should be read in a straightforward manner and not trimmed or reinterpreted (Leithart 2018: 70-71).
However, there are good reasons for understanding the things which “must soon take place” to be the events of the Second Coming.
a. Revelation 1:1, 3 are paralleled in 22:6-7, 10, 12, 20. The ambiguous expressions “soon take place” and “the time is near” are clarified by the words of Jesus in 22:7, 12, 20: “I am coming soon.”
b. Other Scriptures speak of the Second Coming or its accompanying events as coming “soon,” “near,” “at hand,” etc. (Charles 1920: 6; Ladd 1972: 22; Osborne 2002: 55; Schreiner 2018: 549-50; Fanning 2020: 75).
Deuteronomy 32:35: “for the day of their calamity is at hand, And their doom comes swiftly.’” If this “doom” refers to an eschatological judgment (Jonathan Edwards 2006: 390-10; Jamison, Faussett, and Brown, 1:706; cf. Block 2012: 764.), the swiftness would have to be reckoned from God’s point of view.
Obadiah 15: “For the day of Yhwh is near upon all the nations.” Though Obadiah is focused on the judgment of Edom, this verse, encompassing as it does all the nations, is eschatological in scope (Raabe 1996: 191; Busenitz 2003: 270; Block 2013: 81; Rogland 2018: 383). There are two possible scriptural explanations for the use of this terminology. First, “what human beings consider ‘near’ need not be the same for God, for whom a ‘thousand years’ are ‘as a watch in the night’ (Ps. 90:4; cf. 2 Pet. 3:8–9)” (Rogland 2018: 383). Second, the Hebrew term translated “near” often “often expresses physical rather than temporal proximity” (Rogland 2018: 383). Thus the image would be of a threat that is always close by (See Raabe 1996: 192; Block 2013: 84).
Joel 3:14: “For the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision.” Joel 1:15 and 2:1 also refer to the day of the Lord as “near,” but those verses likely refer to a historical day of the Lord (Finley 1990: 35, 40-42; Seitz 2016: 149-50; cf. Garret 1997: 328). This verse refers to the eschatological day of the Lord, but the statement of nearness should be considered as interior to the prophecy, not as measured from Joel’s time. Thus, this verse is not relevant to the question at hand.
Isaiah 13:6: “Wail, for the day of the Lord is near.” The day of the Lord in this chapter likely refers both to a historical judgment against Babylon and to the ultimate eschatological day of the Lord (Young, 1:419; Grogan, EBC, 101; Webb 1996: 81; Raabe 2002: 652-74; Adams 2007: 43-44; cf. Wolf 1985: 110; Oswalt 1986: 299.). It may be that the statement about nearness is “not from the standpoint of Isaiah’s own day,” but from the standpoint of those who experience the fulfillment of the prophecy (Young, 1:419). Or it may speak to “the total preparedness of that day to dawn whenever the Lord declares that the time has come” (Motyer, 138).
Zephaniah 1:7, 14: “Be silent before the Lord GOD! For the day of the LORD is near…. The great day of the LORD is near, near and hastening fast.” While verse 7 could refer to a historical day of the Lord, verse 14 clearly refers to the eschatological day (Motyer 1998: 922). Motyer notes, “”Imminence is part of the prophetic definition of the day of the Lord (Ezek. 7:2, 10; 30:2-3; Joel 1:15; Hag. 2:6), as it is in the New Testament, which expects the imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Motyer 1998: 917). It is challenging, however, to see how the eschatological day of the Lord could be imminent prior to the first advent. Patterson suggests a linkage between the historical and eschatological days: “However much the events detailed here may have full reference only to the final phase of the Day of the Lord, they were an integral part of the prophecy and could occur anywhere along the series” (Patterson 1991: 320). Robertson notes that this idea of the nearness of the day of the Lord is picked up by the New Testament (Robertson 1990: 281).
Luke 18:7-8: “And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily [ἐν τάχει]. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” Bock notes that though Luke recognizes that there is “a concern about the return’s delay,” he can still affirm the speedy return to give justice (Bock 1996: 1453; Bock does note that this may be partially explained by the inaugurated last days). Marshall observes, “To the elect it may seem to be a long time until he answers, but afterwards they will realise that it was in fact short” (Marshall 1978: 676; cf. Plummer 1922: 414; Stein 1992: 446.).
Romans 13:11-12: “For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone; the day is at hand.” The use of night and day imagery references the day of the Lord concept, with the night representing “the present evil age” and the day the day of the Lord (Moo 1996: 820-21; cf. Murray 1965: 167, 169; Schreiner 2017: 677-78). The “salvation” that has drawn near is culmination of God’s saving work at the return of Christ (Murray 1965: 165-66; Moo 1996: 822; Schreiner 2018: 677). Cranfield explains, “the primitive Church was convinced that the ministry of Jesus had ushered in the last days, the End-time…. As the interval provided by God’s patience in order to give men time to hear the gospel and to make the decision of faith, it could hardly be properly characterized otherwise than as ‘short time’” (Cranfield 1979: 683; cf. esp. Moo 1996: 822; Schreiner 2018: 678).
Romans 16:20: “The God of peace will soon [ἐν τάχει] crush Satan under your feet.” Cranfield observes, “That the promise refers to the eschatological consummation, and not to some special divine deliverance in the course of their lives, seems to us virtually certain” (Cranfield 1979: 803). Cranfield holds that verse 20 speaks of eschatological victory without reference to the opponents of 16:17-19 (Cranfield 1979: 803). Schreiner grants that a connection to the false teachers mentioned in 16:17-19 exists, but he believes the victory over those opponents is eschatological (Schreiner 2018: 799). Murray and Moo teach that the ultimate victory is eschatological, though they think there may be realizations of the victory throughout the history of the church (Murray 1965: 237; Moo 1996: 933). All three views are possible. Moo notes, “Paul’s prediction that the victory over Satan will come ‘quickly (ἐν τάχει) is no problem for the eschatological view once we appreciate rightly the NT concept of imminence” (Moo 1996: 933, n. 41; cf. Schreiner 2018: 799).
1 Corinthians 7:29, 31: “This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short…. For the present form of this world is passing away.” The form of this world is expressed by Paul in 7:30: “marriage, sadness, joy, possessing, and making use of the things of the world” (Taylor 2014: 191; cf. Ciampa and Rosner 2010: 348-49; Schreiner 2018: 157). At the day of the Lord, these will be replaced by life in the new creation (Lockwood 2000: 257). Fee and Garland claim that the present tense of παράγω (“is passing away”) indicates that that the process has already begun (Fee 1987: 342; Garland 2003: 331). Thus, the present time “has grown very short.” Christians live in the last days expecting the coming of Christ (See esp. Lockwood 200: 255-56 and Schreiner 2018: 156; cf. Ciampa and Rosner 2010: 344).
Philippians 4:5: “The Lord is at hand.” While some understand the nearness of the Lord to be spatial (Bockmuehl 1997: 245-46 is ambivalent), it is best to understand this in reference to the temporal nearness of the coming of the Lord (O’Brien 1991: 489; Fee 1995: 408; Silva 2005: 198; Hansen 2009: 289). On this understanding, “the eschatological dimension of this text may reflect Old Testament texts that speak of the coming ‘day of the Lord’ as ‘near’ (engus): these include Isa. 13:6; Ezek. 30:3; Joel 1:15; 3:14” (Bockmuehl 1997: 246).
Hebrews 10:25: “… all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” Philip Edgcumbe Hughes observes, “When spoken of in this absolute manner, ‘the Day’ can mean only the last day, that ultimate eschatological day, which is the day of reckoning and judgment, known as the Day of the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 3:13; Acts 2:20; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:10, 12; Mt. 7:22; 10:15; 11:22, 24; 24:36; Mk. 13:32; Lk. 10:12; 17:26, 30, 31; 21:34; Jn. 6:39; Phil. 1:6, 10; 2:16; 1 Cor. 1:8; 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:14; Jude 6; Rev. 6:17)” (Hughes 1977: 416; cf. Attridge 1989: 291; Lane 1991: 290; Guthrie 1998: 346; Koester 2008: 446; O’Brien 2010: 371; Cockerill 2012: 481; Johnson 2018: 147, 150). Though some have suggested that the reference was to AD 70 (Owen 1991: 526), there is nothing contextually that connects to AD 70 and the unqualified usage best links this verse with the eschatological day of the Lord passages (Hughes 1977: 416; Cockerill 2012: 481, n. 70).
James 5:8, 9: “For the coming of the Lord is at hand… the Judge is standing at the door.” Scot McKnight argues that the term “at hand” cannot simply refer to the imminence of the Second Coming. He claims it must be “understood as referring to something about to happen,” namely the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70 (McKnight 2011: 411-12). However this requires McKnight to conclude that the Olivet Discourse should be read in a preterist manner and that Paul, in allusions to the Olivet Discourse, understood Parousia differently from Jesus (and James) (McKnight 2011: 406-7). Not only are these positions unlikely, it is also unlikely that James is warning Christian Jews in the dispersion (see McKnight 2011: 67-68) about their being judged by the Lord in the AD 70 judgment on Jerusalem. More likely is the view that Christians are in the last days and that the return of Christ is imminent; the Judge could pass through the doors at any moment (Hiebert 1992: 272-74; Moo 2000: 223-24; Blomberg and Kamell 2008: 227-28; McCartney 2009: 241-42). As McCartney notes, “Three other NT authors use this verb (ἐγγίζω, engizo) to speak of the day of judgment or the arrival of the Lord (Rom. 10 13:12; Heb. 10:25; 1 Pet. 4:7)” (McCartney 2009: 241).
First Peter 4:7: “The end of all things is at hand.” When Peter exhorts his readers to live righteously because “the end of all things is at hand,” je is reminding them that they live in the last days. The next major event of redemptive history is the Second Coming (Lille 1868: 274-75; Grudem 1988: 180; Hiebert 1992: 269; Schreiner 2003: 210; Storms 2018: 347; cf. Achtemeier 1996: 293-94). Though some have argued that this is a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, Sam Storms observes, “it seems strange to speak of it as ‘the end of all things.’” In addition, he questions the relevance of that event as a motivating factor for Christians living in Asia Minor (Storms 2018: 347).
c. A common explanation for this language with reference to events yet future is that “soon” should be understood from God’s perspective: “[T]o the eyes of the eternal and endless God all ages are regarded as nothing, for, as the prophet says, ‘A thousand years in your sight, O Lord, are as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night’” (Oecumenius 2011: 3; cf. Perkins 2017: 313? 314?; Thomas 1992: 55-56; Hamilton 2012: 32; Schreiner 2018: 549-50; Fanning 2020: 75). See 1 Cor. 10:11; 1 Pet. 4:7; 1 John 2:18; James 5:8; Rev. 22:10 (Andrew of Caesarea 2011: 114; Gerhard, 11).
d. Another explanation: “These events could happen at any moment” (Hamilton 2012: 32; cf. Mounce 1998:41). Schreiner notes, “the last days have arrived with the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:16–17; Heb. 1:2). The last hour has now come (1 John 2:18), and thus the end is imminent, and has been for two thousand years. Every generation has rightly said Jesus is coming soon, because all the great redemptive events needed for him to return have been accomplished” (Schreiner 2018: 549-50; cf. Fanning 2020: 75; cf. Osborne 2002: 55).
The words “the things that must soon take place” (ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει) (Rev. 1:1) are probably an allusion to Daniel 2:28-29, 45 in Greek translation: the Lord “made known to King Nebuchadnezzar things that must take place at the end of days [ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐπʼ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν], and he who reveals mysteries showed to you things that are necessary to take place [ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι.] (Dan. 2:28-29, LES) (Ladd 1972: 21; Thomas 1992: 53; Beale 1999: 137, 153; Osborne 2002: 54; Smalley 2005: 27; Boxall 2006: 24; Leithart 2018: 71; Fanning 2020: 74-75).
G. K. Beale and Peter Leithart argue that the allusion to Daniel 2:28-29, 45 indicates that John’s visions refer to events that began in John’s own time (Beale 1999: 137, 153; Leithart 2018: 71).
However, there are good reasons for understanding the allusion to support yet future referents (generally speaking) to John’s visions.
a. The earliest commentator on Daniel distinguished between the legs of iron, symbolizing ancient Rome, and the ten toes of iron mixed with clay, which he related to future entities (Hippolytus 2017: 78; cf. Hippolytus 1886: 186). The basic correctness of his interpretation is confirmed by the parallel with the ten horns on the fourth beast in Daniel 7:24-27. These horns relate to the fourth beast but represent a distinct eschatological stage of his activity (see below).
b. The stone, representing Christ’s kingdom, smashed the image, not upon the iron legs of the fourth kingdom (Rome), but upon the iron and clay mixture that represented the divisions that followed the Rome of Jesus’s day (Miller 1994: 100).
c. The stone destroyed not only the feet but all the previous parts of the image as well. The utter destruction of the image symbolized the complete replacement of human kingdoms with the Messianic kingdom (Miller 1994: 101; Greidanus 2012: 76, n. 51). The destruction of “every rule and every authority and power” comes at “the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father” (1 Cor. 15:24). Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Theodore of Cyrus all connected the crushing of the statue with the second advent. Irenaeus taught that the ten toes referred to kings existing in “the last times,” that is in the time of Antichrist. He concluded, “they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord” (Irenaeus, AH 5.26.1-2). Theodoret wrote, “Clearly, this teaches about that which will occur at the end, that is, the coming of the kingdom of heaven that is without end.” And, “The stone that was cut without hands and grew into a great mountain and fills the whole earth is the second advent” (Stevenson and Gluerup 2008: 171). Hippolytus taught that the stone crushes “the kingdoms of this world” when Christ “comes from the heavens” that he “might set up the heavenly kingdom of the saints which shall never be destroyed” (Hippolytus 2017: 78 [2.12.7, 2.13.2]; Hippolytus 1886: 209-10 [§27]).
d. Psalm 110 provides a paradigm for understanding the two stages of the coming of Christ’s kingdom. At present the kingdom is coming in salvation, and Christ reigns in the midst of his enemies. In the future, the kingdom will come in judgment, and Christ will scatter kings in the day of his wrath. This vision clearly displays the latter.
e. This eschatological reading finds confirmation in Daniel 7. Interpreters of diverse perspectives recognize that the vision in Daniel 7 elaborates on the vision of chapter 2 (Steinmann 2008: 328; Tanner 2020: 396-97). The same four kingdoms found in Daniel 2 reappear in Daniel 7, symbolized as beasts (cf. Dan. 7:17, 23). Notably, even commentators who denied an eschatological referent to the feet of the statue in Daniel 2 see an eschatological culmination in Daniel 7. Young, along with interpreters from the church fathers onward, identifies the little horn with the Antichrist (7:8, 20, 24) (Young 1949: 150; cf. Hippolytus 136-37 (4.5.3; 4.7.1); Jermone 1958: 77; Wood 1973: 188; Miller 1994: 202-3; Steinmann 2008: 348-49; Tanner 2020: 413; note, however, that these interpreters have different views on Antichrist and his appearing). Young concludes, “Thus, in one remarkable picture, the entire course of history is given from the appearance of the historical Roman Empire until the end of human government” (Young 1949: 150). Steinmann similarly says, “It seems that the vision given Daniel in 7:9–14, which is interpreted in 7:15–28, pictures in one scene the entire sweep of salvation history that includes Christ’s first advent, the church age, and Christ’s second advent” (Steinmann 2008: 329-30).
f. The opposition of the little horn to the saints will only end when the Ancient of Days comes to put an end to it (Dan. 7:22) and when the Son of Man comes to the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7:13-14).
h. Since Daniel 2 is a prophecy about the establishment of the kingdom of God coming in eschatological judgment, the things that must soon take place which John will see in his visions are about the future coming of the kingdom in judgment.
Tom Parr’s Backdrop for a Glorious Gospel: The Covenant of Works According to William Strong marries in its title two things that God has joined together that man should never rend asunder: deep theology and doxalogical application. Backdrop for a Glorious Gospel summarizes and explains a section of Puritan William Strong’s A Discourse of the Two Covenants.
Though I had not heard of Strong until Parr introduced him to me, his work of recovery is valuable. Strong’s covenant theology is exegetically deeper than any recent writing on the covenant of works that I’ve read. In addition to exegetical depth, Parr also brings out the rich applicational and devotional aspects of Strong’s work.
The extensive footnotes are a bonus feature. They compare and contrast Strong’s teaching with that of other Puritans. Thus, the reader is educated on the continuities and discontinuities of Puritan thought on the various topics under discussion. In this way the book is a broader entry into Puritan thought on the covenant of works.
Those holding dispensational or progressive covenantal positions may wonder if it is worth their while to read this treatise on the covenant of works. The answer is a clear, “yes.” First, though some dispensationalists reject the idea of a covenant of works, not all do. There is no systemic need for them to do so, and there are important theological reasons for them to affirm a covenant of works. Progressive covenantalists already hold to a creation covenant, and there are good theological reasons for them to view the creation covenant as a covenant of works. People from both systems will benefit from reading Strong’s case that the covenant of works is truly a necessary backdrop for the glorious gospel.
This is not to say that dispensationalists, progressive covenantalists, and even certain Baptist covenant theologians won’t find areas of disagreement, especially in the discussion of how the Mosaic law relates to the covenants of works and grace. However, Strong, as summarized by Parr, gives the best and most nuanced argument for the view that the Mosaic law is an administration of the covenant of grace that I’ve read. Though this is not my position, I think Strong’s argument is one that readers of every persuasion ought to reckon with.
when there is a general contagious disease (the plague, or the like), every man will look to his health and safety with reference to other occasions, but will be most careful in regard to the general contagion. Now, if forsaking this spring of life be the plague of the age, and the plague of the place where we live, and the plague of Christians, we ought to be very careful lest this general contagion should reach us, more or less, one way or other. It is evident to me,—who have some advantage to consider things, as much as ordinary men,—that the apostasy, the cursed apostasy, that spreads itself over this nation, and whose fruits are in all ungodliness and uncleanness, consists in an apostasy from and forsaking the person of Christ. Some write of how little use the person of Christ is in religion;—none, but to declare the doctrine of the gospel to us. Consider the preaching and talk of men. You have much preaching and discourse about virtue and vice; so it was among the philosophers of old: but Jesus Christ is laid aside, quite as a thing forgotten; as if he was of no use, no consideration, in religion; as if men knew not at all how to make any use of him, as to living to God.
This being the general plague, as is evident, of the apostasy of the day wherein we live, if we are wise, we shall consider very carefully whether we ourselves are not influenced more or less with it; as where there is a general temptation, it doth more or less try all men, the best of believers, and prevail more or less upon their spirits. I am afraid we have not, some of us, that love for Christ, that delight in him, nor do make that constant abode with him, as we have done
John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 9 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 369.