Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Spirit Baptism in Galatians 3:26-27

by

Several years ago I posted a brief study about whether the baptism in Galatians 3:26-27 was Spirit baptism or water baptism. I concluded in favor of the former.

The key paragraph in that post is as follows:

Spirit baptism makes good sense in [Galatians 3:26]. In this context baptism is the proof that “Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female” are one in Christ through faith. Water baptism cannot serve as such a proof because, as Hunn notes, “it proves only that the baptizer found [these distinctions] irrelevant.” It does not provide a window into the mind of God. Spirit baptism, on the other hand, does provide such a proof. Indeed, this is Peter’s argument for accepting the Gentiles into the church. The Spirit baptized them just as he had baptized the Jews (Acts 11:15-17). Hunn also observes that Galatians 3:23-29 and 4:3-7 follow parallel lines of argumentation. In 3:27-28 the proof of sonship is baptism into Christ. In 4:6 the proof of sonship is the reception of the Spirit. This parallel indicates that Spirit baptism is in view in 3:27. Finally, 1 Corinthians 12:13 forms a close parallel to Galatians 3:27. In both passages there is baptism into Christ. In both there is the indication that this the case whether the person is Jew or Gentile, slave or free. In 1 Corinthians 12:13 the baptism is clearly Spirit baptism: “For [in] one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” This confirms that the baptism in view in Galatians 3:27 is Spirit baptism.

See the full post here.

Moo on Justification in Galatians

by

Moo Douglas J. “Justification in Galatians.” In Understanding the Times: Essays in Honor of D. A. Carson. Edited by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Robert W. Yarbrough. Crossway, 2011.

In this essay Moo examines the δικ– language of Galatians, concluding that all but one instance refers to forensic justification. Moo recognizes as he undertakes this study that the theological concept of justification is larger than the δικ– word-group and that the δικ– word-group contains senses other than the theological concept of justification. This linguistic and theological awareness helps Moo avoid missteps. For instance, Moo pushes back against those, like Michael Gorman, who wish to move the doctrine of justification away from a purely forensic concept to one that focuses on participation in Christ. Moo does not downplay union with Christ; indeed, he indicates that that concept is more central to Paul’s theology than justification (though Moo also rejects Schweitzer’s claim that justification is merely a subsidiary crater in Paul’s thought). In his interaction with the New Perspective, Moo also handles well the reality that Paul sets justification by faith alone in distinction with the works of the law while also recognizing that the justified Christian must produce good works. One area in which Moo has adjusted his view of justification in light of his work in Galatians is an acceptance now of an already-not yet structure so that there is both a past and a future justification. There are orthodox and unorthodox ways to think of future justification, and Moo’s approach (like that of Richard Gaffin) harmonizes with Reformation orthodoxy. But I’m still not convinced. For instance, I think that the subjective genitive makes sense in Galatians 5:5, removing the need for seeing a future justification in that passage. The theological reasons that Moo notes in favor of the subjective genitive seem more weighty to me than the linguistic reasons that he gives in favor of the objective genitive. Moo’s other argument is that the timing of justification seems undetermined in much of the rest of the letter. But I wonder if that is because Paul is dealing with people who are trying to be justified rather than due to the fact that Paul is viewing justification as something future.

S. M. Baugh on Galatians 3:20 and the Covenant of Redemption

by

S. M. Baugh, “Galatians 3:20 and the Covenant of Redemption,” Westminster Theological Journal 66, no. 1 (2004): 49-70.

Baugh’s own summary:

The interpretation of Gal 3:20 offered here flows particularly out of an analysis of v. 15 running through v. 22. I view v. 15 as Paul invoking an analogy from testamentary practices of the day, which prohibited any party who was not the testator from emending or annulling a last will and testament. This would have been understood across the broad spectrum of ancient legal situations in antiquity—as indeed it is so understood today—without any special legal training or involving a legal practice restricted to some particular region.

What makes understanding v. 15 correctly so important is that it clarifies the purpose of Paul’s analogy. It shows us that the law, represented by Moses its mediator, is incompatible with the promissory Abrahamic covenant when put to the wrong use. In v. 17, Paul applies this analogy to this effect by saying the law could not annul the inheritance by changing the principial basis of inheritance from a gracious grant “from faith” to a basis of personal law-keeping. The new covenant represents direct continuity with the Abrahamic covenant on this score, and Paul emphasizes this point by declaring us heirs alongside Abraham repeatedly in this chapter (vv. 6–9, 14, and 29). In covenant theology, this continuity and development is expressed when we confess that Christ represents the substance of the one covenant of grace inaugurated immediately after the fall and yet administered in different ways in the course of redemptive history.

However, Paul moves briefly but most profoundly behind the historical development of the covenant of grace into the eternal realm in vv. 19–20. What started him in this direction was when he mentioned that the terminus ad quem of the Mosaic administration of law—which served in part as a “ministry of condemnation” for transgressions (v. 19; 2 Cor 3:9)—was the arrival of the Seed to whom the promises given to Abraham were ultimately oriented. The clear assumption here is that the Seed existed before he came, for the promises were spoken to him when Abraham heard them. This, incidentally, is why Paul has to comment that the Son of God was “born of a woman” when he did finally come in the fullness of time (Gal 4:4), for the Son did not come in his divine glory, but in servile guise as a true man (Phil 2:6–8). This was not a “hyiophany” but a genuine incarnation.

So then, once Paul has reflected on the Son’s pre-incarnate existence in Gal 3:19, it was quite natural for him to clinch his argument about the impossibility of changing the basis of inheritance from grace, faith, and promise to that of personal obligation and law-keeping by invoking the intratrinitarian life of God as the foundation of the covenant with Abraham. He was already dwelling on the eternal existence of the Son as Seed-to-come.

When Paul does clinch his argument, he does so in the most profound way, a way which has puzzled interpreters who were unable or unwilling to follow Paul into the heavens. The mediation of the law through angels by the hand of Moses was not an “eternal ordinance ordained and written in the heavenly tablets” and thereby representing an intractable principle of inheritance of God’s promises overthrowing faith in Christ. Rather, the promises of God to a fallen world are rooted in his sovereign, intratrinitarian counsel, traditionally called the pactum salutis, which Moses did not and could not mediate, for God is one (69-70).

My evaluation:

There is much I learned from this article, and much I agree with. I’m tempted to agree with Baugh’s interpretation of vv. 19-20, as it would be an elegant interpretation of those difficult verses to say that the point is that no mediator is necessary for the promise because the promise is made within the one Godhead. What prevents me from embracing Baugh’s position on those verses, however, is that Paul in this passage is clearly connecting the promises with the Abrahamic covenant rather than to the covenant of redemption. Though I think the covenant of redemption is a legitimate theological category, I have difficulty seeing a clear indication that Paul is making use of it here.

Galatians 2:11-14: The Identity of the Men from James

by

Proposed solutions

1.They were unconverted Jews from the Jerusalem area. Ambrosiaster identifies them as men who “were zealous for the law and venerated both Christ and the law on equal footing, which,” Ambrosiaster observes, “goes against the teaching of the faith” (12). Augustine accepts this view, but he distances them from James by interpreting “from James” as “from Judea, since James presided over the church of Jerusalem” (145; cf. 144, n. 48). Aquinas also takes these men to be unconverted Jews (47).

2. They were men who wrongly presented themselves as being from James. Alford notes this as the position of Winer and Ellicot (Alford, 3:18). Olshausen takes the position that the men were “from James’s church in Jerusalem” but that their claim to his authority was false, noting that if they were truly from James ὑπό or παρά would have been used rather than ἀπό (4:532). Also in support of this position, he notes that in Acts 15:1, “where the kindred words ‘certain—from us’ (τινὲς ἐξ ἡμῶν, xv. 24), are compared with this phrase, and it is shown that the apostles in their epistle yet disavow those very τινές” (Olshausen, 4:532; also George, NAC, 175-76; noted as a possibility in Moo, BECNT, 142, 147).

3. They were men associated with James in the Jerusalem church; their purpose in coming is unknown. “Perhaps all that we can surmise is that these men had stood in some way closer to James than did the generality of the Jerusalem Church. But what their connection with him was, and whether they had any kind of commission from him at all when they went to Antioch—these questions can probably never be answered” (Machen, 134-35). Ridderbos also takes this position, noting, “Presumably the ἀπό Ἰακώβου goes with the τινες and not with the ἐλθεῖν” (96, n. 7).

4. They were members of circumcision party the Jerusalem church sent by James. Calvin equates the men from James with the circumcision party, and he indicates that they were actually sent by James, noting that Peter had a “dread of offending James, or those sent by him” (61).To allow for this view, Calvin holds that this event happened prior to the decision made in Acts 15. Lightfoot also holds to this view, but he holds that the visit occurred after Acts 15. He equates the sentiments of James and the men he sent with those stated in Acts 21:20ff. He also specifies that the circumcision party are “not ‘Jews’ but ‘converts from Judaism,’ for this seems to be the force of the preposition [ἐκ]L Acts x. 45, xi. 2, Col. Iv. 11, Tit. i. 10: (Lightfoot, 112).

5. They were men sent by James to enforce the decision made in Acts 15. “And this mission may have been for the very of admonishing the Jewish converts of their obligations, from which the Gentiles were free…. And my view seems to me to be confirmed by his [that is James’s] own words, Acts xv. 19, where the emphatic τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐπιστρέφουσιν tacitly implies, that the Jews would be bound as before” (Alford, 3:18). Eadie notes similarly that Acts 15:19 refers to the fact that Jews were to observe “the customs,” which he understands to entail that they not “mix freely with the Gentiles.” What Peter was doing was “relaxing” the decree beyond that which was thought permissible (Eadie, 151). Burton: “eating with the Gentiles was not only not required by the Jerusalem agreement, but was in fact contrary to it, since it involved disregard for the law by Jewish Christians (ICC, 101, 104-7). Bruce notes that D. W. B. Robertson actually holds that τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου should be understood as “certain things from James,” and refers to the decision of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 (NIGTC, 129).

6. The men sent from James asked Peter, in harmony with the Acts 15 decision regarding circumcision, to observe the food laws in the interest of advancing the gospel among the Jews. Martyn’s view is similar at points to view 5. Though he does not reference the decision made in Acts 15, he does indicate that what had been settled in Acts 15 related to circumcision and not to food laws; he sends a message regarding Jews and Gentiles eating together (however, in Martyn’s reading, Paul links the “the food-laws party” with “the circumcision party,” though the “food-laws party” saw themselves as distinct from the circumcision party) (AB, 233-34, 239). Martyn also hypothesizes that unrest in Jerusalem caused by zealots led the church in Jerusalem (see also Bruce, NIGTC, 130), led by James, to be more zealous in its observance of the Law. James’s message to Peter may have been that Peter’s table fellowship with Gentiles was hindering evangelistic work among the Jews in Jerusalem (AB, 241-42).

7. The men sent from James asked Peter to observe the food laws in the interest of advancing the gospel among the Jews. Bruce similarly thinks that knowledge of what Peter is doing is troubling conservative Jewish believers and is hindering evangelism among the Jews, though, unlike Martyn, he places these events before Acts 15 (NIGTC, 130; cf. Fung, NICNT, 108; Longenecker, WBC, 73, 78-79; Schreiner, ZECNT, 140; Moo, BECNT, 148-49). In further support of this position, Longenecker argues, based on usage earlier in the chapter, that τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς in v. 12 refers, not to Judaizing Christians or to “Jewish Christians in a nonpartisan sense” but to “non-Christian Jews” (WBC, 75-76; cf. Moo, BECNT, 148; Schreiner, ZECNT, 143-44, who surveys several possible options without firmly attaching to one). Schreiner notes that James may not have told Peter to stop eating with the Gentiles; he may have simply had then men relay the effects of his eating on the church in Jerusalem (ZECNT, 140).

Rejected Solutions

1. They were unconverted Jews from the Jerusalem area. James need not be named if the location is what is being referred to (Eadie, 150). It seems unlikely to say that the men came from James if what is really meant is that they came from Jerusalem. As unconverted Jews, they would have had no real connection with James.

4. They were members of the circumcision party in the Jerusalem church sent by James. “It would be unwise to identify the ‘certain people’ who came down from James with the ‘certain people’ (τινες) of Acts 15:1 who came down to Antioch from Judaea and insisted that circumcision was necessary for salvation. These men are disowned by the authors of the apostolic letter (Acts 15:24)” (Bruce, NIGTC, 130). In other words, the circumcision party was unorthodox, and it is wise not to infer that James was of that party, even prior to Acts 15.

5. They were men sent by James to enforce the decision made in Acts 15. Against this, Bruce notes that Peter helped formulate that decision and that the decision “appears to have been promulgated in order to facilitate social fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians” (NIGTC, 129). Further, I hold Galatians to have been written prior to Acts 15.

6. The men sent from James asked Peter, in harmony with the Acts 15 decision regarding circumcision, to observe the food laws in the interest of advancing the gospel among the Jews. This view is similar to view 7, except it ties the view to the Acts 15 decision. Since I think that Acts 15 happened subsequent to the writing of Galatians, I don’t think view 6 is feasible.

2. They were men who wrongly presented themselves as being from James. This is an intriguing possibility, given the correspondence between “certain men from James” and the statement of the apostles and elders in Acts 15:24 that “certain persons have gone out from us and troubled you”—even though they had received no instructions from the apostles or elders. Against this view, however, there is no indication in Galatians that then men wrongly presented themselves as being from James. Further, how likely is it that Peter himself would have been deceived by such imposters?

Possible Solutions

3. They were men associated with James in the Jerusalem church; their purpose in coming is unknown. This position has the virtue of being true and modest. But it also doesn’t say much.

7. The men sent from James asked Peter to observe the food laws in the interest of advancing the gospel among the Jews. This view has the disadvantage of being speculative. However, it accounts for the following. (1) The men were indeed from James. (2) Peter did not change his belief that it was permissible for him to eat with Gentiles and to not conform to the food laws (Paul indicates that Peter’s actions differed from his actual beliefs). (3) It provides a plausible reason for why Peter would act contrary to the liberty that he believed he and the other Jews had.

Bibliography: Alford, The Greek Testament, (Lee and Shepard, 1877); Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Galatians-Philemon, ACT; Aquinas, Commentary on Galatians, trans. Larcher (Magi, 1966); Bruce, Commentary on Galatians, NIGTC (Eerdmans, 1982); Burton, Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (T.&T. Clark, 1921); Calvin, Commentaries on Galatians and Ephesians, trans. Pringle (Calvin Translation Society, 1854); Eadie, Galatians (1869; repr., Baker, 1979); Fung, Epistle to the Galatians, NICNT (Eerdmans, 1988); George, Galatians, NAC (B&H, 1994); Longenecker, Galatians, WBC (Nelson, 1990); Machen, Notes on Galatians (1972; repr., Solid Ground, 2006); Martyn, AYB (Yale, 1974); McWilliams, Galatians (Mentor, 2009), Moo, Galatians, BECNT (Baker, 2013); Olshausen, Biblical Commentary on the New Testament (Sheldon, 1861); Plumer, Augustine’s Commentary on Galatians (OUP, 2003); Ridderbos, Epistle to the Galatians, NLC/NICNT (Marshall, Morgan, Scott/Eerdmans, 1961); Schreiner, Galatians, ZECNT (Zondervan, 2010).

Silva: “Faith Versus Works of the Law in Galatians”

by

Silva, Moisés. “Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians.” In Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 2—The Paradoxes of Paul. Edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004.

Silva summarizes his own article:

In this essay I have sought to demonstrate the following points: (1) Because of the inherent ambiguity of genitival constructions, the phrase πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ must be understood in the light of unambiguous constructions appearing in the context. (2) Neither Paul nor other NT authors ever use unambiguous constructions where the name Jesus Christ is the subject of faith (e.g., Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ πστεύει or πιστός ἐστιν), but Paul does use the name as the object of the verb, especialy in the immediate context of the genitival construction (Gal 2:16), and both Paul and the other NT authors routinely and explicitly speak of faith in God or in Christ as the human response of Christian believers. (3) There are thus no linguistic-contextual indications that the genitival construction should be understood as a reference to the faith or faithfulness of Christ. (4) Even if such an understanding were possible, the believer’s response of faith over against law-works indisputably plays a fundamental role in the argument of Galatians 2-3 from beginning to end. (5) The concept of law-works includes but cannot be restricted to national customs that function as ‘identity badges.’ (6) The expression ‘as many as are of works of law,’ being explicitly contrasted with ‘the ones of faith,’ functions negatively, thus indicates the absence of (true) faith and refers primarily to Paul’s Judaizing opponents who seek to live, that is, be justified, buy works. (7) Paul’s arguments in Galatians 3 is essentially eschatological in character, flowing from the concept that the Spirit-promise has been fulfilled. (8) The Sinaitic law preceded the time of fulfillment, and so its role in soteriology was preparatory and temporary. (9) The Judaizing claim that the law could give life confuses these eschatological epochs, introduces an improper opposition between law and inheritance/promise, sets aside the grace of God, and makes Christ’s death of no account. (10) If these assertions are defensible, it follows that the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone—and not by works of obedience to the law—reflects a fundamentally important and exegetically valid understanding of Paul’s teaching in Galatians. [247-48]

The only thing I would add is that in the course of making his argument Silva also instructs readers on a linguistically sound approach to exegesis, especially with reference to the genitive.

Wiarda, “Plot and Character in Galatians 1-2”

by

Wiarda, Timothy. “Plot and Character in Galatians 1-2.” Tyndale Bulletin 55, no. 2 (January 1, 2004): 231-52.

“The preceding analysis of plot and characterisation leads to these principal results. (1) It supports the traditional view that the Galatians 1-2 narrative serves primarily to establish the credentials of Paul and his gospel. (2) It shows that these chapters also serve a strong paradigmatic purpose, however, thus lending partial support to the proposals of those recent scholars who argue that Paul’s autobiography functions as an example. The paradigmatic function nevertheless appears to be secondary. (3) Analysis of plot and characterisation helps to refine both the traditional view (by clarifying each episode’s distinct contribution to the defence of Paul’s gospel and authority) and the example view (by identifying the precise aspects of Paul’s life that are presented for imitation). (4) Analysis of plot structure and character portrayal offers little support to the view that Paul wishes to illustrate the gospel’s tradition-transcending or life-transforming nature.”

Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels

by

Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016.

This book is an examination of the Gospels’ use of the Old Testament. In each chapter Hays looks at how the four Gospels make a distinctive use of the Old Testament. My method of note-taking for this book was to record with each gospel passage mentioned the Old Testament passages that Hays saw connected with it along with the pages on which he discussed them.

Though not every link between OT and the Gospels was convincing, most of them were, and most of Hays’s discussions were illuminating. There were a few points at which Hays’s critical background came through, such as casually identifying what he took to be an error in Mark or asserting that though a text meant one thing in its Old Testament context the Gospel writer understood it to mean something else. But for the most part this was a valuable study that I expect to revisit again and again as I study the Gospels. One of the most rewarding features of this book is the way Hays demonstrated that each of the Gospel writers, through the careful use of the Old Testament, reveals that Jesus is God.

Review of Alan Thompson, The Acts of the Risen Lord Jesus

by

Thompson, Alan J. The Acts of the Risen Lord Jesus: Luke’s Account of God’s Unfolding Plan. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Edited by D. A. Carson. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2011.

This is a superb theology of the book of Acts. Thompson’s identifiers the reign of Christ as the main theme of Acts, and he does an excellent job demonstrating the present reign of Christ while also showing that the suffering of Christ’s marks Christ’s reign in the present with triumph to follow. Related to this central theme are the themes of resurrection, the preaching of the gospel, the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God, the gift of the Spirit, and the end of the temple system and the Mosaic law.

These are massive topics, but Thompson works through them with good sense and with clearness and brevity. As an example of how Thompson works through these themes, the following is my summary of Thompson’s chapter about the law in Acts.

Thompson’s view of the law in Acts can be summed up in chapter 6’s subtitle: “the law is no longer the direct authority for God’s people” (175). Thompson observes that there are those, like Jervell, who hold that for Luke “the law is not invalidated, abridged or outmoded” (176, quoting Jervell), and there are those who align Luke with the Pauline teaching that Christians are under “the law of Christ” rather than the law of Moses. That is, the observance of the Mosaic law is not required for salvation, but, because it is now a matter of “indifference,” the Mosaic law can be observed for other reasons (e.g., “to win those under the law”) (176-77). Thompson argues that Acts presents the locus of authority having shifted from the Mosaic law to the apostles (1:2, 8, 21-23, 25-26; 2:37, 42; 5:17-42) (178-89). In some places in Acts the emphasis is on the law being fulfilled, such as when Acts 4:34 indicates that Deuteronomy 15:4 is being fulfilled because there are no poor among them. Note also Acts 6:2-4 in which widows are cared for in fulfillment of Deuteronomy (180-81). However, in other instances the emphasis is on the abrogation of the law. Thompson argues that the dietary laws are shown to be abrogated in the Cornelius account (“In the narrative of Acts, Peter has clearly made the connection between the vision concerning the abrogation of food laws (Acts 10:15) and the association with and acceptance of Cornelius (10:28; 11:12; 15:9)”; 182). Likewise in Acts 15 circumcision is clearly not required for salvation (184). Regarding the “requirements” of Acts 15:20; 15:29; 21:25, Thompson rejects the idea that this is requiring Gentiles to “keep that part of the Law required for them to live together with Jews” (184, quoting Jervell) and the view that these “are essentially ad hoc requirements just for this situation out of concern for the sensitivities of Jews” (185). Instead, he adopts Witherington’s view that these four items were connected to “pagan practices associated with temple idolatry.” In other words, keeping the Mosaic law is not necessary for Gentiles, but turning away from idolatry is (186-87). Paul’s circumcision of Timothy does not tell against this view of the law because Timothy was not circumcised out of necessary obedience to the Mosaic law. His circumcision was voluntarily and was for the purpose of enabling ministry to the Jews without hindrance. Likewise with Paul’s fulfillment of the temple vow. Paul is willing to keep the law out of concern for “Jewish sensibilities,” even though his message remains “the proclamation of Jesus as the one who fulfils and replaces the temple” (190-91).

Review of Pennington, The Sermon on the Mount and Human Flourishing

by

Pennington, Jonathan. The Sermon on the Mount and Human Flourishing: A Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017.

Pennington’s commentary on the Sermon on the Mount comes in the three parts. The first, which he terms “Orientation” provides a discussions of the Sermon’s structure as well as of key terms and concepts: makarios (typically translated “blessed”), teleios (typically translated “perfect”), righteousness, hypocrisy, heart, Gentiles, the Father in heaven, the kingdom, and reward. In this section Pennington also argues that the larger context for the Sermon is the Hebrew wisdom tradition and the Greek virtue ethics tradition.

The second part of Pennington’s book is the commentary proper. This is a brief section, by section commentary of the entire sermon.

The third part of the commentary is a concluding chapter which summarizes the book’s argument in six theses:
Thesis 1: The Bible Is about Human Flourishing
Thesis 2: The Bible’s Vision of Human Flourishing Is God Centered and Eschatological
Thesis 3: The Moral View of the Bible Is a Revelatory Virtue Ethic
Thesis 4: The Sermon Teaches That Salvation Is Inextricably Entailed with Discipleship/Virtuous Transformation
Thesis 5: Virtue and Grace Are Compatible, Not Opposites
Thesis 6: Biblical Human Flourishing Provides Crucial Insight into the Meaning and Shape of God’s Saving Work

This commentary intersected with several areas that I’ve been studying recently:

  • I taught the Beatitudes in Sunday School this winter and spring
  • I wrote a paper for this summer’s Bible Faculty Summit on how beatitude/human flourishing and God’s glory work together as man’s chief end
  • John Frame’s comment in Doctrine of the Christian Life that the normative, situational, and existential perspectives on ethics that he argues Christians should have correspond to the deontological, teleological, and virtue approaches ethics, has led me to study virtue ethics.

I found convincing Pennington’s argument that makarois corresponds to the Hebrew ashre and that both refer to a state of flourishing that comes from being blessed. I also found persuasive his argument that teleios refers to wholeness of person (i.e., it affirms the need to obey the law as a whole person rather than just outwardly as the scribes and Pharisees) rather than to perfection as modern English-speakers understand the term. Pennington’s discussion of the Sermon’s structure was also well done.

As interested as I was in the possible connection between the Sermon and virtue ethics, I found that part of Pennington’s argument less convincing. That the Sermon and Greco-Roman virtue ethics cover an overlapping area is clear. But that Jesus was actually interacting with Greco-Roman philosophers seems a bit of stretch to me. It was also interesting to be reading this book while also reading Kavin Rowe’s book on Stoicism. Rowe argues against an encyclopedic approach to connecting philosophy with Christian throught. Pennington argues for a connection between the Sermon and Greco-Roman virtue ethics by virtue of its “encyclopedic context.” I wasn’t entirely sure if Pennington and Rowe were talking about the same thing by “encyclopedic,” but insofar as they were, I found Rowe more persuasive.

Another weakness is Pennington’s tendency at points to pit Reformation and Roman Catholic readings against each other. Pennington tended to favor the Catholic readings without any further comment on how those readings fit into larger systems of theology. More troubling, when I looked at Reformation and Post-Reformation writers like Thomas Watson, William Perkins, and even Martin Luther, I didn’t always see the opposition that Pennington is claiming existed. Since he tended to footnote the Catholic interpreters but not the Reformation ones, I wonder if there may have been a caricature of Reformation and Puritan authors at this point.

These criticisms aside, this is a helpful and largely correct approach to the Sermon on the Mount that I’ve benefited from reading.

Review of Bock, Jesus According to Scripture

by

Bock, Darrell L. Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.

One of the challenges in writing a study of the Gospels is how to arrange one’s approach. On the one hand, maintaining the narrative integrity of each Gospel is important for understanding that Gospel. On the other hand, understanding the parallels among the Gospels is also important. Bock addresses this issue by designing the core of this book as a unique harmony of the Gospels. Unlike a traditional harmony that seeks to arrange the Gospels in some sort of chronological order with the parallels displayed, Bock tries to keep “the basic narrative lines [of each Gospel] intact” in the way he moves through the material. This means that some parallels are covered more than once as they occur in different contexts in different Gospels.

I used this book as a guide for reading through the Gospels. At the head of each section, Bock lists the references of Gospel passage(s) being considered. I would read these and then read Bock’s summary of the passage.

The final part of this book is a well-written theology of the Four Gospels.

I worked through this book slowly over the course of several years, and in that time a second edition came out. In addition, the theology in the back of the first edition was expanded into a separate book.