Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Thinking about Objections to Corporate Prayer

by

The latest 9Marks journal includes an insightful article about the importance of corporate prayer for the church.

What caught my attention, however, were the objections this pastor received for leading his church to begin this practice:

He felt our prayer times in the morning service were already long. They detract from the music team’s ability to get into a rhythm, and disrupt the worship experience. I’ve had others suggest it may foster legalism, by giving people something else they feel they must do.

What does it say about us when prayer is contrasted with worship? What does it say when worship identified more with the rhythm of the music than it is with prayer? What does it say when prayer is seen as a hindernace to this kind of “worship” rather than integral to worship?

Or what does it say about our comprehension of the gospel when a corporate gathering of prayer is seen as legalism because it implies that prayer is something that we must do? As if it were legalism to recognize that prayer is commanded of God for his people.

Luther, hardly a legalist, wrote:

You should pray and you should know that you are bound to pray by divine command. . . . You have been commanded to give honor to God’s Name, to call upon him, and pray to him, and this is just as much a command as the other commandments, “You shall not kill,” and so on. LW 51:169.

Luther did not see this as debilitating legalism. Rather he saw the command to pray as liberating:

Therefore, since it is commanded that we pray, do not despise prayer and take refuge behind your own unworthiness. Take an example from other commands. A work which I do is a work of obedience. Because my father, master, or prince has commanded it, I must do it, not because of my worthiness, but because it has been commanded. So it is also with prayer. So, when you pray for wife or children or parents or the magistrates, this is what you should think: This work I have been commanded to do and as an obedient person I must do it. On my account it would be nothing, but on account of the commandment it is a precious thing. LW 51:170.

I should conclude by noting that perhaps the people cited by the pastor were young believers. Or perhaps they thought better of what they said afterwards. The point is not to critique those people, as they seem to have an undershepherd who is shepherding them. The point of this post is for myself and those who read it to reflect on these ideas for our own edification and, if need be, correction.

Lucifer in Isaiah 14, Wisdom Literature and Virtue Ethics, Wisdom and Torah

by

Youngblood, Ronald. “The Fall of Lucifer (in More Ways Than One).” In The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke. Edited by J. I. Packer and Sven K. Soderlund. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Youngblood argues that “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14 is not Satan. He insists that a contextual reading points toward a king of Babylon as the person under discussion. I would agree with the claim that the personage in view is not Satan, but I would argue that the context indicates an end-time setting which would lead to an identification with the Antichrist.

Wilson, Jonathan R. “Biblical Wisdom, Spiritual Formation, and the Virtues.” The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Wilson’s essay examines how the wisdom literature of Scripture should shape a Christian approach to virtue ethics and spiritual formation. Wilson did a good job of distinguishing a Christian approach to virtue ethics from other approaches. For instance, he comments:

In much of the virtue tradition, reflection [on teleology] is directed toward the human community and often toward a particular conception of the polis (‘city,’ ‘political community’). In much contemporary spirituality, the concern is narrowed even further, to the individual. Such spirituality is guided not by a thirst for God but by a narcissistic preoccupation with the self turned in. Since the ‘incurved self’ is a classic Christian definition of sin, much contemporary spirituality perpetuates sin. . . . Biblical wisdom begins, continues, and ends with the fear of the Lord (Prov 1:7). Wisdom is deeply concerned with human life and issues of character, but those concerns have a larger setting. That larger setting is God’s redemptive purpose for all creation” (298).

However, he sees value in a Christian virtue ethics:

Too often we have thought that ethics is solely concerned with ‘moral quandaries’ or ‘boundary situations.’ Challenging this, the virtue tradition teaches us that ethics is concerned with the whole of life, with ordinary, everyday living. Too often we have thought that ‘spirituality’ had to do only with Sunday worship, times of prayer, a quiet time of Bible reading. Against this way of thinking, the recent recovery of spiritual formation teaches us that Sunday worship is training us for the rest of the week, that prayer is a way of life, and that ‘quiet times’ are nothing unless we live them out in our everyday relationships. Biblical wisdom provides biblical grounding and guidance for this ‘everydayness’ of our lives. In the book of Proverbs, for example, eating, drinking, laboring are all subject to the guidance of wisdom. . . . This everydayness of life is given theological grounding by the integral relationship between wisdom and creation (Prov 3:19-20; 8:22-31l Job 28, 38-39). Living wisely means living in accordance with God’s intention for the redeemed creation in our everyday lives” (301).

Hassell Bullock, “Wisdom, The ‘Amen’ of Torah,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52, no. 1 (2009): 3-8.

Bullock sees the Wisdom literature as affirming the teaching of the Torah. He highlights the links between their creation theology, monotheism, and the covenantal foundation of the “fear of the Lord.”

Two Commentaries: Cragie on Ezekiel and Miller on Daniel

by

Craigie, Peter C. Ezekiel. Daily Study Bible. Edited by John C. L. Gibson. WJK, 1983.

This is a brief commentary on the book of Ezekiel. The benefit I’ve gained from this commentary over the years is from its brevity. Some of the prophets are large enough, and their organization is opaque enough, that it is difficult to keep the whole book in mind. The solution to this is repeated re-reading. But in these initial readings some interpretive guidance is helpful in making sense of some of the prophecies. This commentary is brief enough to facilitate this kind of initial approach to the book. Cragie is at times not as conservative as could be wished, suggesting that certain parts of prophecies were added to the book by later editors. But in providing a general orientation to the book prior to more in-depth study of the book, I find him suitable.

Miller, Stephen R. Daniel. NAC. B&H, 1994.

This is an excellent commentary on the book of Daniel. It is manageable in its size while still rendering carefully argued positions on the key issues. It’s written from a dispensational perspective. I’d say dispensational interpreters would most certainly want to own a copy, and non-dispensational students of Scripture should own a copy so as to have a careful exposition of Daniel from that perspective.

Sinclair Ferguson’s The Whole Christ

by

Ferguson, Sinclair B. The Whole Christ: Legalism, Antinomianism, and Gospel Assurance—Why the Marrow Controversy Still Matters. Wheaton: Crossway, 2016.

35Sinclair Ferguson uses the Marrow controversy in 18th century Scotland as a historical lens through which to examine the issues of legalism, antinomianism, and assurance. Ferguson’s thesis, as reflected in the title of the book, is that both legalists and antinomians err in separating the benefits of Christ from Christ himself. The solution to both is to not seek the benefits of Christ apart from the person of Christ. In all, this is a helpful book full of interesting history and insightful theology. I think the one improvement could be situating the response of Boston and the Marrow men in the broader context of Reformed theology. Did they respond similarly or differently to these problems than Reformed theologians in other times and places? In the multitude of historical counselors there is oftentimes safety.

The Significance of Our Union with Christ

by

First, we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us. Therefore, to share with us what he had received from the Father, he had to become ours and to dwell within us. For this reason, he is called ‘our Head’ [Eph. 4:15], and ‘the first-born among many brethren’ [Rom. 8:29]. We also, in turn, after said to be ‘engrafted into him’ [Rom 11:17], and to ‘put on Christ’ [Gal. 3:27]; for, as I have said, all that he possess is nothing to us until we grow into one body with him.

Calvin, Institutes, 3.1.1.

Wise Counsel from John Newton

by

Grant, George, ed. Wise Counsel: John Newton’s Letters to John Ryland, Jr. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2009.

51UXb8yEwBL._SY344_BO1204203200_This is a collection of letters, many previously unpublished, from the Anglican minister John Newton to the Baptist minister John Ryland, Jr. The name of John Ryland, Jr. may be unknown to many, but he was one of the rope-holders for William Carey, who is well-known for his pioneer missionary work in India. The letters begin when Ryland is a young man and continue into Newton’s last years of life. The title of the book captures their nature. These are letters of wise counsel from an older minister to a younger. Since they cover such a long span of time, a whole variety of life’s experiences are commented upon. These are well worth reading and meditation.

Thoughts on VanDoodewaard’s Quest for the Historical Adam

by

VanDoodewaard, William. The Quest for the Historical Adam: Genesis, Hermeneutics, and Human Origins. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2015.

VanDoodewaard provides a helpful survey of views about Genesis, Creation, and Adam from the time of the church fathers until the present. He holds to a young earth and a normal day creation, but most of the book is simply a very helpful summarizing of viewpoints.

In reading the book, I concluded that some of the criticisms that I read of this book were off mark. For instance, VanDoodewaard has been critiqued for describing his view as literal, and I did once see him describe a view positively as literalistic. But he notes toward the beginning of the book the various ways the word literal can be used and how he is going to use it.I think since VanDoodewaard expresses awareness of the various ways this term can be used and specifies how he is using it, he should not be critiqued on this point (further, reviewers should provide his working definition if they use the word in the review to describe his position).

I came to a similar conclusion regarding his discussion of racism on the part of evolutionists but not on the part of creationists. If my memory serves me correctly, he alludes to the racism on the part of some creationists, but he does not discuss it because it does not flow from their view of creation as the racism of certain evolutionists did. I think these criticisms are simply asking VanDoodewaard to write a different book than he intended to write.

I do, however, wish that he had provided more information on the motivations of those who were abandoning a literal interpretation of Genesis prior to Darwin. They obviously were not motivated by a desire to accommodate themselves to Darwinism, but they did seem to be influenced by Enlightenment thought. Knowing precisely what it was that motivated these changes in interpretation would have been useful.

Also, VanDoodewaard strongly critiqued Kuyper, Bavinck, and Schilder for acknowledging that the first three days of creation could have been longer or shorter than ordinary days, implying that this set a slippery slope for compromise in the next generation. I didn’t quite follow this argumentation, since these men were not saying (in fact, they explicitly denied) that these first three days were long ages. It seems to me that they were simply saying that since there was no sun until day 4, perhaps the first three days could have been only 18 hours long or 36 hours long. I don’t see a reason to adopt this supposition, but it seems in line enough with an ordinary day view of the creation week that I felt like I was missing the information on how this position led to compromise. Were there other aspects to it?

These quibbles aside, however, I highly commend VanDoodewaard’s work. His historical work is careful and accurate. His understanding of the issues invovled and the significance of the views taken is incisive.

Poythress on “Correlations with Providence in Genesis 1”

by

Poythress, Vern S. “Correlations with Providence in Genesis 1,” WTJ 77 (2015): 71-99.

160px-Westminster_Theological_JournalThis article is the second in a recent trilogy of articles by Poythress on the opening chapters of Genesis. The heart of the article is a step through the creation week with particular attention given to correlations between God’s creation activity and normal providence. For instance, in normal providence heavy rains may cause water to cover dry land. Later the water recedes to show the dry land. This ordinary providence aligns with God’s causing the dry land to appear out of the water in creation. Or, God specially created the animals, but animals are “created” providentially though the normal processes of birth. I thought that Poythress sometimes showed real correlations between creation and providence, but other times I thought he was trying too hard. For instance, he sees a correlation between the original gift of food to eat in Genesis 1:29 and eating of plants today by humans. However, this is a stretch because God’s speech is looking beyond the creation week to the future. It’s not clear that something beyond ordinary providence was ever intended.

Poythress draws two conclusions from his observations regarding correlations between creation and providence. First, he looks at ANE creation myths and their similarities to the Genesis account. After noting that the differences between Genesis and the myths are far greater than the similarities, Poythress posits that many of the existing similarities developed as pagans  shaped their creation myths from observations of a providentially ordered world—a providential ordering that God had correlated with the true creation. This is an intriguing thought, but it would have been nice of Poythress had worked through some specific examples.

In conjunction with this first conclusion, Poythress considers John Walton’s claim that the creation account is concerned with functional rather than material creation. Poythress notes that his emphasis on correlations with providence has a functional bent to it, but he denies that this means that material creation is excluded from the account. The material creation is necessary for there to be functions.

Second, Poythress concludes that the days of creation are functional days rather than a week of six normal days. He says that since God rested from creation on the seventh day, the day of God’s rest is everlasting. This seems to be to be an unwarranted assumption. God’s rest from creation may be everlasting, but it does not follow from this that the seventh day is everlasting. In addition, I’m not sure how to make sense of the claim that the days of the creation week are somehow “God’s days,” days that are only analogous to human days in normal providence. God is eternal and, as I understand eternity, there are no successive God-days for human days to be analogous to. Nor is there anything in the text of Genesis to indicate that the first week is different from succeeding weeks in human history. Just because some things in the creation week are analogous to ordinary providence (e.g., special creation of animals correlates to the birth of animals) does not mean that the water of Genesis 1 is only analogous to water in ordinary providence (as Poythress suggested of Genesis 1:2) or that the days of Genesis 1 are only analogous to ordinary days.

I found Poythress’s first conclusion intriguing but in need of further support. I found his second conclusion less than persuasive.

William Perkins, Two Articles

by

William Perkins could be called the father of Puritanism. His works, now being reprinted by Reformation Heritage Press, are well worth reading.

These two articles look at different aspects of Perkins’s thought:

Barry Waugh, “William Perkins: Augustine’s Protégé and Father of Puritan Theology,” The Confessional Presbyterian 11 (2015): 129-41.WilliamPerkinsPortrait

In this article Waugh provides some background to the Puritan movement and to William Perkins, noting the influence of his Laurence Chaderton as a patristics scholar at Cambridge before examining the use of Augustine in Perkins writings. Waugh’s quantitative analysis showed that Augustine played a significant role in Perkins’s writings, and his qualitative analysis of Perkins’s use of Augustine in one work showed significant influence on Perkins’s thought, though not a slavish following.

Ballitch, Andrew. “‘Not to Behold Faith, But the Object of Faith’: The Effect of William Perkins’s Doctrine of the Atonement on his Preaching of Assurance.” Themelios 40, no. 3 (Dec. 2015): 446-59.

Some, such as R. T. Kendall, have asserted that William Perkins’s belief in particular atonement prevented him from pointing people to the gospel or to Christ for the assurance of salvation since Perkins could only affirm that Christ atoned for the elect. This, it is claimed, led to an introspective approach to assurance. Ballitch surveys Perkins’s belief regarding the atonement and confirms that he did hold to a particular, rather than universal, view. But he looks at Perkins’s statements of how assurance should be preached and at his actual practice and concludes that Perkins points people in need of assurance to the gospel and to Christ and not inward alone.

Lloyd-Jones’s Evangelistic Sermons

by

085151362XLloyd-Jones, D. M. Evangelistic Sermons at Aberavon. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1983.

My pastor recommended these sermons to our church. Lloyd-Jones wrote and preached these messages shortly after his own conversion, and pastor commented that these sermons demonstrate  great insight into how the mind of unconverted people work. In this regard, they serve as a helpful tool to prepare one for evangelism. I found them also to be personally challenging and edifying as well.