Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

An Exegetical Note on Genesis 2:5-7

by

This section of Scripture contains a number of difficulties. Some of these difficulties have to do with the relation of this text to other passages of Scripture or to attempts to correlate the opening chapters of Genesis with evolutionary cosmologies. Critical scholars have claimed that these verses begin a second creation account that conflicts with the first because it teachers that no plants existed at the time that mankind was created in contrast with Genesis 1:11-13, which teaches that the plants were created on the third day.[1] Some Analogical Day theorists argue that these verses teach a functional hydrological cycle was already in place before the creation of man (thus indicating that the creation of humans occurred sometime after the first historical week of the earth’s existence).[2] Other difficulties arise from the text itself. Does אֶרֶץ mean “earth” or “land” in 2:5, what are the “bush of the field” and the “plant of the field” (esv) and most significantly, what is the אֵד of 2:6?

The central conundrum of this passage is why no rain is given as the reason that the bush and small plant of the field have not yet sprung up (2:5) given that the אֵד is “watering the whole face of the ground” (2:6). A number of proposals have been made. Kidner suggests that 2:4 and 6 refer to the period of Genesis 1:2. Verse 5 is a parenthesis that looks forward to the creation of plants and man.[3] אֵד on this reading carries the sense of flood or ocean. This approach alleviates the apparent contradiction between plants not growing because of lack of rain and ground that is well watered both due to the nature of the watering (an ocean that covers all the land) and the its timing (before the emergence of dry land).

Proponents of the Framework Hypothesis and Analogical Day Theory propose another reading. On this reading a particular land was at the end of the dry season (hence the lack of rain in 2:5) but a rain cloud is rising from the earth, and it will water the ground. אֵד on this interpretation carries the sense of mist or water vapor. The takeaway for proponents of this view is that seasons, the water cycle, and “ordinary providence” is already functioning at the creation of man. Thus man was not created in the historical first week of the earth’s existence.[4] This view alleviates the apparent contradiction between 2:5 and 6 by connecting 2:5 to one season and 2:6 to another. It also provides one reason for why “no bush of the field was yet in the land,” namely, no rain and why “no small plant of the field had yet sprung up,” namely, no man to cultivate them. Verses 6 and 7 then provide the solution: rain clouds and the creation of man.

These two approaches suffer from a number of defects. It is not at all apparent that verse 5 is a parenthesis between verses 4 and 6, as Kidner’s view requires. Furthermore, why stress the existence of the primordial ocean in the account of the creation of man? The Framework/Analogical Day approach does a better job at showing how the passage coheres, but it depends heavily on a contested meaning of אֵד.[5] It also fails to present a compelling case for why the author would emphasize that man was created at the end of the dry season.[6]

The best interpretation of this passage recognizes that with Genesis 2:4 Moses shifts from the broad account of Genesis 1 to a more specific account of the creation and placement of man within the world.[7] In this context it makes sense for אֶרֶץ to refer to a particular land rather than to the earth as a whole (see the esv; hcsb).[8] This understanding alleviates the tension between 1:11-13 and 2:5. Moses is not saying in chapter 2 that no plant life existed on earth before the creation of man. He is saying that in a particular land particular kinds of plants had not yet begun to grow. The עֵשֶׂב (“small plant,” esv) probably refers to edible plants that a farmer cultivates.[9] The field (שָׂדֶה) does not always refer to cultivated fields, but it often does. This is seems to be the best sense in this context.[10] שִׂיחַ is a much more difficult term to define. It occurs only four times in Scripture, and in the other occurrences it seems to refer to a desert kind of shrub. It may be that an allusion exists here to Genesis 3:18. In that passage both cultivated plants (עֵ֫שֶׂב) and thorns and thistles appear. Thorns cannot be mentioned here, since they did not exist before the Fall. Perhaps שִׂיחַ is mentioned as the kind of plant that became thorny after the Fall.[11] Two reasons are given for why these plants are not growing in this land. First, God has not made it rain there. This seems to refer to the type of climate that this land has; it is not the kind of land that receives rainfall.[12] Second, there is no man to work the ground. Verse 6 does mention the אֵד which waters the whole face of the land. This probably refers to the river mentioned in 2:10, which is said to water the garden.[13] It rises from the ground and inundates the whole land like the Nile of Egypt. But for this inundation to be beneficial for the plants mentioned in 2:5, the inundation must be managed. Hence 2:7 and God’s creation of man.

This interpretation makes good sense of all the pieces of the passage. The main thrust is that a man is needed to cultivate the land in which God will place him. In fact, God ordered the land in which he will place the man to be of such a nature that it requires human cultivation. Thus the opening of this second major section in Genesis picks up the theme of the climax to the previous section—Genesis 1:26-30.

This is a complex passage. Several of the terms have a wide semantic range that leave them open to other interpretations, and several other terms are rare which means certainty about their senses is not possible and that several competing senses have been proposed. Nonetheless, the above interpretation is grammatically plausible and makes the best literary sense.

[1] S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, 4th ed. (London: Methuen & Co., 1905), 35-36.

[2] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2006), 111; for a framework hypothesis approach to this text, see Mark D. Futato, “Because It Had Rained: A Study of Gen. 2:5-7 with Implications for Gen. 2:4-25 and Gen. 1:1-2:3,” Westminster Theological Journal 60, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 1-21.

[3] Derek Kidner, "Genesis 2:5, 6: Wet or Dry?" Tyndale Bulletin 17, no. 1 (1966): 110.

[4] Collins, 125-27; Futato, 14-15.

[5] The word אֵד occurs only in Genesis 2:6 and Job 36:27. Those who favor the translation “mist” or “rain cloud” appeal to Job (Collins, 104, n. 6): “For he draws up the drops of water; they distill his mist [אֵד] in rain, which the skies pour down and drop on mankind abundantly” (Job 36:27-28, ESV). The idea of mist and rain make sense in the context of the Job passages. However, this is not the only way of translating the Job passage. The NIV translates “He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams [אֵד]; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind.” Kidner notes, “‘Flood’ or ‘sea’ however would suit the context [in Job] equally, as in M. H. Pope’s translation: ‘He draws the waterdrops that distil rain from the flood’ (treating it as a modification of Accadian edû, and the preposition as meaning ‘from’ (cf. RV as in Ugaritic).” Kidner, 110; cf. John Hartley, The Book of Job, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, ed. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 479; Thomas Aquinas, The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 404. Research in other Semitic languages points away from the translation “mist” and toward something like “flood.” Tsumura argues that it is related to the Akkadian edû “flood.” He concludes that “Both ‘ēd and its allomorph ‘ēdô mean “high water” and refer to the water flooding out of the subterranean ocean (1989:115).” David T. Tsumura, "Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood: An Introduction Part II," 9, no. 2 Bible and Spade (Winter 1996): 37; cf. Kinder, 110. The ancient translations also favor understanding אֵד as a river that emerges from the earth and inundates the land. Young notes the following translations: “LXX, πηγή; Aquila, ἐπιβλυσμός; Vulgate, fonts.” The Syriac is also in line with these other ancient translations. E. J. Young, “The Days of Genesis: First Article.” Westminster Theological Journal 25, no. 1 (November 1962): 20, n. 50; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 1:103 (Cassuto does note, however, that the Targums favor “mist”). The context, with its mention in verse 10 of a river that waters the garden, also fits the flood/inundation understanding better than the mist understanding.

[6] Futato says that the passage serves as a polemic against Baal worship for pre-exilic Israel. The point is “Yhwh God of Israel has been the Lord of the rain from the beginning!” Futato, 20. It is not clear, however, that the primary purpose of the opening chapters of Genesis are designed to serve as a polemic against pagan theology. There is certainly nothing explicit in the text that indicates this is the point of these verses. In contrast, the interpretation argued for here connects to the major themes of these chapters that are explicitly found in the text.

[7] Richard Hess, "Genesis 1-2 in Its Literary Context," Tyndale Bulletin 41, no. 1 (1990): 143-53; Collins 110-111; Young, 18-19. Note that the interpretation offered here agrees with the interpretations critiqued above at various points.

[8] Collins, Genesis 1-4, 110-111.

[9] Gordon D. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard (Waco: Word, 1987), 58; Kenneth A. Matthews, Genesis 1-11:26, New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Holman, 1996), 194; Robert V. McCabe, "A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 2 of 2), Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, 11, no. 1 (Fall 2006): 88-89.

[10] BDB, s.v. שָׂדֶה 1a, 2a. It should be noted, however, that the use of this term in 2:19-20 is likely broader.

[11] “We will show, however, that 2:5-6 is best related to the judgment oracles of 3:8-24, indicating what the world was like before and after sin. . . . The purpose of this tōlědōt section is its depiction of human life before and after the garden sin; the condition of the ‘land’ after Adam’s sin is contrasted with its state before the creation of man. Genesis 2:5-7 is best understood in light of 38-24, which describes the consequences of sin. This is shown by the language of 2:5-6, which anticipates what happens to the land because of Adam’s sin (3:8-24). When viewed this way, we find that the ‘shrub’ and ‘plant’ of 2:5 are not the same vegetation of 1:11-12. ‘Plant (‘ēśeb) of the field’ describes the diet of man which he eats only after the sweat of his labor (3:18-19) after his garden sin, whereas ‘seed-bearing plants’ (‘ēśeb mazŕia’ zera‘), as they are found in the creation narrative, were provided by God for human and animal consumption (1:11-12, 29-30; 9:3). . . . The ‘shrub [śiaḥ] of the field’ is a desert shrub large enough to shield Hagar’s teenage son (Gen 21:15) and those seeking its protection (Job 30:4,7). Since ‘plant’ is best defined by its recurrence in the judgment oracle (Gen 3:18), shrub probably parallels Adam’s ‘thorns and thistles,’ which are the by-product of God’s curse on the ground (3:17-18).” Matthews, 1:193-94; cf. Cassuto, 1:101-2; Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, ed. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 1:154; McCabe, 88-89.

[12] Harris, R. Laird. "The Mist, the Canopy, and the Rivers of Eden," Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 11, no. 4 (Fall 1968): 178. Similar, but somewhat different interpretations, found in Cassuto, 103-4 and John H. Walton, Genesis, NIV Application Commentary, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 165, 180.

[13] Harris, 178; Cassuto, 104.

Critique of Paul Seely’s Hermeneutical Approach to Genesis 1:10

by

Seely, Paul H. "The Geographical Meaning of ‘Earth’ and ‘Seas’ in Genesis 1:10," Westminster Theological Journal 59, no. 2 (Fall 1997): 231-55.

The upshot of this article is that truly grammatical-historical exegesis of Genesis 1:10 must recognize that the earth spoken of there is a flat disc that floats on the single sea that surrounds the land since this is the view of all ancient peoples.

In a very brief postscript Seely raises the question of whether interpreting these verses "according to their historico-grammatical meaning impinge negatively on the biblical doctrine of inspiration?" (155). He appeals to Warfield to argue that it does not: "A presumption may be held to lie also that [Paul] shared the ordinary opinions of his day in certain matters lying outside the scope of his teachings, as, for example, with reference to the form of the earth, or its relation to the sun; and it is not inconceivable that the form of his language, when incidentally adverting to such matters, might occasionally play into the hands of such a presumption" (Warfield, "The Real Problem of Inspiration," in Works, 1:197).

It is important to note that Warfield makes two points in this quotation. Before the semi-colon Warfield is referring to what Paul thought apart from what he wrote in Scripture. Warfield is clear in the preceding context that Paul can err in his thinking in any number of ways , including his view of "the form of the earth, or its relation to the sun." After the semi-colon Warfield is referring to what Paul wrote in Scripture. Here he makes the more limited claim that Paul’s erroneous views could affect the wording of Scripture. Warfield does not say that Paul introduces error into Scripture on this account (since that is precisely what he is arguing against). Rather Warfield is saying the wording could be understood in harmony with the error while not actually being in error itself (this is the import of the phrase "play into the hands of such a presumption"). In other words Warfield is teaching that God did not correct all the popularly-held (but erroneous) opinions of the day held by the biblical writers and that some of the wording of Scripture could fit some of those views, while not affirming those views and thus remaining free from error. (It is important in this regard to remember that the Bible teaches that the text of Scripture is inspired and not that the authors were inspired.)

This reading is substantiated by Warfield’s earlier discussion of accommodation in the same article. There he notes, "It is one thing to adapt the teaching of truth to the stage of receptivity of the learner; it is another to adopt the errors of the time as the very matter to be taught. It is one thing to refrain from unnecessarily arousing the prejudices of the learner, that more ready entrance may be found for the truth; it is another thing to adopt those prejudices as our own, and to inculcate them as the very truths of God" (ibid., 1:194).

In this article Seely argues for the latter: he argues that the errors of the time are taught by the text when interpreted in a grammatical-historical manner. For this reason alone Seely’s interpretation must be rejected as inconsistent with the Bible’s own teaching regarding its inspiration. Seely’s interpretation should also be rejected for limiting grammatical historical interpretation to the human plane. The words of Genesis 1:9-10 are not merely the words of Moses written within his own cultural milieu. These are also the words of God. This is an especially relevant factor in interpreting Genesis 1 since the events of this chapter lie beyond human observation; God alone could reveal these truths to Moses. There is little reason therefore to insist that these words can only be rightly interpreted when understood strictly as someone of Moses’s time would have understood them. If the prophets did not always understand the spiritual import of what they wrote (1 Peter 1:10-12), must we insist that they always understood the physical import? Their words may "play into the hands" of an erroneous understanding from their time (though I think that would be an overstatement in this case), but they do not demand of the reader to be read in light of such an understanding.

Importantly, Seely’s argument is not that Genesis 1:10 necessitates this reading on the textual level, but rather that given that all ancient cultures held to belief that the earth was a flat disc surrounded by an ocean, modern interpreters must read the Bible through this ancient lens. To the contrary, historical background must play an ancillary role to the Scripture; it is the servant of the text rather than its master. Otherwise the sufficiency of Scripture is undermined just as surely as when tradition moves from an ancillary role to that of master. The historical background that Seely introduces provides a helpful window into the worldview of ancient peoples, but it does not determine the meaning the divine Author intended for Genesis 1:10. To say otherwise undermines both the doctrines of the inerrancy and the sufficiency of Scripture.

The Theological Significance of Genesis 2:10-14

by

I recently spent some time studying Genesis 2:10-14, looking at all my commentaries from Origen, Theodoret, and Augustine all the way up through 21st century commentators. Almost every commentator spent his time discussing the possible location of Eden.

(In my opinion Luther [along with Leupold] was the most sensible of any; he argues Eden was obliterated by the Flood. This explanation didn’t seem to occur to ancient commentators, and modern commentators shy away from this explanation because it seems to support young-earth creationism–though it would seem even a flood confined to the region of the Middle East that did the half of what Genesis said it did would have destroyed Eden and reshaped the rivers. Calvin was a bit disappointing on this matter. He grants the global Flood, but he says that he doesn’t think it changed the earth and that in any event, Moses was locating Eden according to post-Flood geography.)

But aside from patristic and medieval allegorists, almost no one addressed the issue of why the passage is included in Genesis 2. Liberal scholars claim the passage doesn’t fit the chapter and was therefore a later addition to the J source. While this is nonsensical on one level, it does raise the issue of why Moses included the text. Only two of the commentators I consulted attempted at an answer.

Oecolampadius says: “There are some who try to bring in different allegories for these rivers. Some bring forth the four evangelists, others the four doctors of the church [Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory the Great]. Avoid such trifles. It is much safer just to know that God wished humankind well, and that he gave all the resources of this world in order that we might enjoy them to his glory.” Johannes Oecolampadius, In Genesim, 34r-v cited in John L. Thompson, ed., Genesis 1-11, Reformation Commentary on Scripture, ed. Timothy George (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2012), 86.

And Kidner says, “There is a hint of the cultural development intended for man when the narrative momentarily (10-14) breaks out of Eden to open up a vista into a world of diverse countries and resources. The digression, overstepping the bare details that locate the garden, discloses that there is more than primitive simplicity in store for the race: a complexity of unequally distributed skills and peoples, even if the reader knows the irony of it in the tragic connotations of the words ‘gold,’ ‘Assyria,’ ‘Euphrates.’” Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1982), 61.

Kidner’s explanation fits well in the overall context of the passage. This passage links the Creation Blessing of chapter 1 to the more specific task given to Adam of keeping and tending the garden (2:15). Alan Jacobs notes, “Gardening marks, as clearly as any activity, the joining of nature and culture. The gardener makes nothing, but rather gathers what God has made and shapes it into new and pleasing forms. The well-designed garden shows nature more clearly and beautifully than nature can show itself” (“Gardening and Governing,” Books and Culture [March/April 2009]: 18.) A garden is a plot of earth over which someone has exercised dominion. God starts man off in a garden. He is told to tend it, but the Creation Blessing reveals that he is to extend it as well. The geography lesson about the location and topography of Eden reveals that the building blocks of society are already close at hand. The four rivers are highways into the world. And these rivers lead to lands in which important natural resources can be found.

The Gospels More Reliable than Historical Reconstructions

by

All the Gospels are talking about events that actually happened; they are not “making it up. ” But they are telling about the events in ways that help us to grasp their significance and their theological implications. We do not need to feel as if we have to “roll back” the significance and the implications in order to get to “bare” events. The Gospels, since they are written with God’s authority, deserve our ultimate allegiance and trust. They are therefore more ultimate and more reliable accounts of the events of the life of Christ than is any humanly constructed harmonization, which would try to figure out “what really happened. ” It is legitimate for us to try to see how the various Gospel accounts fit together into a larger picture. But this larger picture should include everything that the Gospels give us, rather than only a minimum core in the form of our modern human reconstruction of what happened. Human reconstructions can help, but when reconstructions of the events go into all the details, they often contain a certain amount of guesswork. The guesswork means that our own fallibility and the incompleteness of our information come into play. If we are honest, we have to admit that we cannot be sure about everything in our reconstruction. By contrast, we can be sure about the Gospels themselves.

Vern Poythress, Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God-Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization, 32.

Book Report for September 2012

by

Books

Hall, David D. A Reforming People: Puritanism and the Transformation of Public Life in New England. New York: Knopf, 2011.

Hall carefully debunks the idea that the Puritans were religious authoritarians who opposed liberty in the new world and oppressed those who differed from their theology. In doing so, Hall demonstrates that the liberal idea of freedom that dominates contemporary culture is not the only possible conception of freedom. The Puritans did not understand authority and liberty as opposites. Rather, they are interrelated and mutually checked by recognized "obligation and limits."

Kruger, Michael J. Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.

The canon is an inherently difficult topic because it reaches down to the foundations of Christian authority. To ask the Christian to justify his belief that the 27 books and only the 27 books of his New Testament are God’s new covenant revelation is akin to asking the rationalist to justify his rationalism or the empiricist to justify his empiricism. Canonicity has become even more complicated today with claims that a New Testament canon was not conceived until centuries after Christ and with assertions that various Gnostic or otherwise unorthodox texts have just as much a claim to represent authentic Christianity as the books of the New Testament.

Michael Kruger enters this discussion with a specific aim. This book is not an apologetic designed to win over the skeptic. He is instead seeking to provide the Christian with a model that can show his embrace of the New Testament canon is epistemically justified.

Kruger begins by surveying and evaluating three broad approaches to determining the canon: (1) "community determined," (2) "historically determined," and (3) "self-authenticating."

Within these broad categories are found several diverse models. For instance, the Roman Catholic model, the historical-critical model, and Childs’s canon-criticism are all "community determined" despite the great differences between them. Historically, orthodox Protestants from the Reformation onward have eschewed the "community determined" approach, though Craig Allert has recently attempted to popularize it among evangelicals. Many of the current challenges to the traditional cannon come from models in this category. In this chapter Kruger evaluates each model individually, but his basic overall critique is that "these models are left with a canon that is derived from and established by the church, and thus is unable to rule over the church" (66).

The second broad approach, "historically determined," is more familiar to evangelicals. Contained under this category is the "criteria-of-canonicity" model advocated by the Princetonians and many modern evangelicals. In this model religiously neutral historical investigation seeks to establish that the books of the canon match such criteria as apostolicity, antiquity, and orthodoxy. Kruger doubts, however, that Christians should approach theological questions with studied historical neutrality. He notes, "to authenticate the canon on the basis of a supposedly independent, neutral standard ultimately subjects the canon to an authority outside itself. It allows autonomous human assessment of historical evidence to become an external authority over God’s Word" (79-80). Kruger also notes three problems with the criteria themselves. First, there is no evidence that the early Christians did any choosing of which books were and were not canonical based on the proposed criteria. They received, rather than chose, the canonical books. Second, even if the early church did use the various proposed criteria, one must establish that they used the correct criteria. Third, it is not clear that criteria such as apostolicity can be established by neutral historical work.

Kruger argues that the canon is self-authenticating. He is not arguing for a subjective, fideistic approach to the canon. He will, in fact, incorporate the strengths of both the community and historically-determined models into his own. Rather Kruger is advocating an approach that is already found in Calvin, Turretin, and the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Reformers and their heirs argued for canonicity on the basis of divine qualities found in the canonical books themselves. Kruger makes this one plank of his model. However, he also says that that the canon itself gives other criteria. Because the testimony of the Spirit to the voice of the Lord is corporate and not merely individual, the reception of books by the church is another plank in Kruger’s model. Also, since the New Testament gives a foundational role to the apostles and their teaching, apostolicity forms the third plank. In Kruger’s model the Holy Spirit testifies to the authenticity of the canon by enabling the church to see its divine qualities, its apostolic origins, and the confirming reception by the church throughout history.

In the remainder of the book, Kruger explains and defends these three planks. For instance, he includes a chapter in which he defines and defends the internal divine qualities of the Scriptural books. He has a chapter on apostolicity in which, among other things, he demonstrates from Scripture that the apostolic writers knew they were writing Scripture. He spends most of his time (three chapters) on the third plank, community reception, since this is where most of the current debate takes place. Kruger effectively challenges the late canon views of men such as Lee Martin McDonald. He also helpfully discusses what may be termed "problem books"—books whose canonicity was not immediately and universally recognized.

Kruger has done an excellent job updating and extending the classic Protestant approach to canonicity in light of present day challenges. This is now the best book on the canon available.

Wright, N. T. How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels. New York: HarperOne, 2012.

In this book N. T. Wright explores the purpose of Jesus’s earthly ministry as presented in the Gospels. He is concerned that historically, the church has focused on the incarnation and passion of Christ and ignored his ministry (apart from appeals to its proving his deity or making possible his active obedience). Wright realizes that major problems ensue when the middle of the Gospel story is divorced from the ends (incarnation and cross), and he highlights the Social Gospel as the primary example of that problematic approach. His goal in this volume is to integrate the whole.

Before preceding with his positive argument Wright first surveys six inadequate (though not entirely wrong) answers:

  • "To teach people how to go to heaven" (42)—Wright focuses on the fact that heaven is not the biblical goal but a renewed earth. Eternal life is not about disembodied souls in a timeless state but about life on earth in the age to come. He is correct about this. But if going to heaven is translated "to enjoying eternal life in the age to come," this is a question that Jesus addresses at key points in his ministry, Nicodemus and the Rich Young Ruler being key examples.
  • To provide people with an ethic for life—Wright is rightly concerned that Jesus not be reduced to another Buddha or Muhammad who taught religious truths to people. However, when contextualized in the larger picture of Jesus’s ministry, Wright correctly embraces the idea that Jesus was teaching people how they ought to live.
  • To provide a moral example—Wright grants that Jesus is an example to be followed in some particular ways (e.g.,, 1 Cor. 11:1 or Mark 8:34). But he rejects this answer for two reasons. First, Jesus is not an example that we are able to copy. We just can’t live up to his standard. Second, Jesus is doing unique things in his life that no one is supposed to try to imitate.
  • "His perfect life means that he can be the perfect sacrifice" (50)—Wright is willing to grant the Bible does present Jesus as the sinless sacrifice and that his sinless life is part of this. He notes John 8:46 (cf. Mark 10:18); 2 Cor. 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5; Luke 23:14-15, 22, 31, 41, 47 (p. 50). Wright rejects, however, the Reformed teaching that Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law and its teaching about Jesus’s active obedience (Romans 5:19) (p. 51). Overall, Wright concludes, "But, beyond these passages [noted above], the gospels show no interest whatever in making the link that much traditional teaching has employed. If that was what they were trying to say, you’d think they would have made it a bit clearer" (51). But Wright himself has assembled an impressive array of passages that make this point. He could add to this the Old Testament background that stands behind Mark 10:45, and he could factor in the significance of the temptation accounts which stand at the beginning of the Synoptic Gospels’ presentation of Jesus. This seems to be an important element that should play a role in whatever answer is given the question of the significance of Jesus’s ministry.
  • To provide us with stories "so we can identify with the characters in the story and find our own way by seeing what happened to them" (52)—Wright again acknowledges that this is a possible and legitimate use, but he doesn’t believe it is reason the Gospels were written.
  • "To demonstrate the divinity of Jesus" (and his humanity) (53)—Wright believes the Gospel writers would have affirmed Jesus these points, but he says even John who opens with this theme does not make it the major theme of his gospel. Rather, John, and all the gospels are "to tell us what this embodied God is now up to" (54). Wright’s affirmation is correct, but his denial is too sharp. My study of Mark has led me to conclude that demonstrating the deity of Jesus is a major theme of the Gospel from its opening verses.

Wright responds that the gospels are actually "trying to say that this is how God became king" (57). This is a good summary of the message of the four Gospels (and despite Wright’s rather annoying rhetoric of having discovered a lost theme that has been missing from the church until he wrote this book, this theme can be found in Herman Ridderbos’s The Coming of the Kingdom and in the writing of dispensationalists such as Craig Blaising).

In turning toward making a positive argument, Wright highlights four themes found in all the gospels. He thinks some of these themes are over-emphasized and some are under-emphasized. Getting these four themes correctly balanced is, in Wright’s view, essential to understanding the Gospel message about Jesus’s life. The themes are:

(1) "the story of Israel"—Wright laments that the Gospels have been read as the solution to the sin problem of Genesis 3, skipping over the story of Israel entirely, or looking at it as a "plan A" that went wrong with the gospel as a "plan B" that allows people to be saved by faith without having "to keep that silly old law" (84-85). In Wright’s view Jesus is "the climax of the story of Israel"; he is "Israel’s supreme representative" who finally does bring about God’s purposes for Israel (183). Wright’s emphasis on the importance of the story of Israel is commendable. Israel is the national focal point of the Old Testament for significant reasons, and the New Testament must not be cut loose from the Old. But Israel’s story is set within the larger human story that begins to go wrong in Genesis 3. Wright is wrong to minimize the Gospels as presenting the solution to the problem that begins there. Wright’s comments about not having to keep the "silly old law" are over the top. No serious scholar argues for that. Furthermore, he should not so lightly dismiss the plot of God giving Israel a law that the could not keep and then replacing that law covenant with a new covenant. That is the story that Deut. 28-30 plots explicitly from the beginning (and he ends up summarizing Israel’s story similarly less than a hundred pages later, compare 84-85 with 178-79).

(2) "the story of Jesus as the story of Israel’s God"—Wright thinks that the emphasis of Jesus as God has been overemphasized. In his view, it obscures the more subtle ways that that the Synoptics identify Jesus as Israel’s God. It is this that causes people to think John has a high Christology and the Synoptics have a low one. Wright has a point. Jesus is not a generic god incarnate. A tight connection to the Old Testament history and prophecies is important. Nonetheless, Wright seems to write as though conservatives, who have staunchly defended the deity and humanity of Christ in the gospels, and the liberals, who in his view misread the Gospels in different ways, are equivalently in error and in need of his setting things right. This is not fair or accurate.

(3) the "launching of God’s renewed people"—Wright laments the tendency in critical circles to read the gospels simply "as the projection of early Christian faith, reflecting the controversies and crises of the early church" (105). Wright doesn’t think it proper to say the Gospels are about "founding the church," since "there already was a ‘people of God.’" Nonetheless, Wright does think "the gospels are telling the story of the launching of God’s renewed people" (112). In other words, Jesus accomplished Israel’s vocation and enabled God’s plan to move forward in new ways. Wright’s critique of the old community-produced Gospels approach is on target. But the story he sees about "God’s renewed people" seems all too similar to what is often called replacement theology. To be sure, Wright takes pains to emphasize that he does not believe Israel has been "replaced" or "abandoned." He argues Israel has been "fulfilled" and "transformed." But in terms of position, rather than labels, Wright view is that of "replacement theology," which I believe to be a problematic position for a number of reasons (see Michael Vlach’s Has the Church Replaced Israel). (I’m inclined to treat opposing viewpoints according to the golden rule; for instance I can sympathize with the discomfort of some with the label "limited atonement" and am happy to use "particular redemption" as a more felicitous label; likewise, I’d be willing to use terms other than replacement theology or supersessionism if those who hold those positions had a term that they thought reflected their viewpoint more accurately. At present, however, I know of no alternate terminology.)

(4) the "clash of the kingdoms" of God and Caesar—Wright insists there is not mere a generic kingdom of God versus kingdom of the devil conflict in the gospels (and in the rest of the NT, for that matter), but a specific kingdom of God versus kingdom of Caesar conflict. I believe this is Wright’s weakest point. It seems to me that Scripture emphasizes the clash between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. Often Caesar is aligned with Satan against God’s kingdom, but Caesar can also be called God’s servant. I think Wright has done too much reading between the lines on this score. Furthermore, Wright’s commendable tendency to ground Scripture in its historical context sometimes causes him to emphasize historical particularities when those are actually instances of broader, universal points. This appears in his handling of justification, and I think this is another instance of it.

When these four themes are rightly understood, it becomes evident, Wright says, that the Gospels are about "how God became king." But this raises the question of how Jesus’s message of kingdom proclamation and the cross integrate. Wright devotes part 3 of this book to answering that question. But before he delves into this topic, Wright takes a brief detour to argue against the Enlightenment idea that religion is a private matter about how individuals can be "spiritual." In order to understand how kingdom and cross fit together, Wright argues that the privatization of Enlightenment religion must be rejected. Christianity is a public religion that speaks to all of life rather than a private spirituality. Wright’s critique of the Enlightenment is right on target.

But the question remains: how do kingdom and cross come together? Wright says that Jesus climaxes the story of Israel by suffering as Israel’s representative. His suffering now means the story of Israel can move forward. But it is not just Israel, through its representative that suffers, but God himself who suffers. "God himself will come to the place of pain and horror, of suffering and even of death, so that somehow he can take it upon himself and thereby set up his new style theocracy at last" (196). Jesus’s suffering renewed God’s people, and they follow him by sharing in his suffering which "somehow has the more positive effect of carrying forward the redemptive effect of Jesus’s own death" (201). It is through their suffering that the church advances Jesus’s kingdom. Then end result is that through the cross the kingdom of Christ triumphs over the kingdom of Caesar. Wright’s primary weakness in this section is his dismissal of historic views of the atonement (a secondary weakness is his preterism). He speaks of "distortions that result when people construct an ‘atonement theology’ that bypasses the gospels" (196). But when he describes the atonement, he says, "God himself will come to the place of pain and horror, of suffering and even of death, so that somehow he can take it upon himself" (196, emphasis added). Throughout this section, the atonement is described with the vagueness of "somehow." This vagueness makes Wright’s attempt to connect kingdom and cross less than satisfying.

Wright closes by engaging with those who are part of the theological interpretation of Scripture project. He affirms their critique of historical critical scholarship, but he critiques their abandonment of history and their dependence on the creeds. He is not convinced that the creeds alone will guide believers to faithful interpretations of Scripture. Wright argues that the creeds need to continue to be refined by (historically grounded) approaches to Scripture. He does not want to abandon the creeds, but he does want to enrich them by expanding and recontextualizing (with Scripture) their phrases. This critique of theological interpretation does strike at a particular weakness among many theological interpreters. They should reckon with the arguments he makes here. However, Wright too often has precisely the opposite weaknesses: lack of familiarity with historical theology, a tendency to over-historicize Scripture, and a quickness to abandon traditional theology in favor of new perspectives.

Blaising, Craig A. and Darrell L. Bock. Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

The most helpful chapter in this book was Blaising’s chapter on the history of Dispensationalism. As a freshman I recall being confused by Ryrie’s insistence on literal interpretation when Scofield obviously did not always follow that method. Blaising cleared up that confusion by documenting, among other things, changes in dispensational hermeneutics. Bock’s chapters on hermeneutics and Blaising’s closing practical chapter were mildly helpful. The core of the book on the covenants and the kingdom contained helpful material.

Kauflin, Bob. Worship Matters: Leading Others to Encounter the Greatness of God. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.

The heart of the book unpacks Kauflin’s thesis concerning the task of a worship leader: "A faithful worship leader magnifies the greatness of God in Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit skillfully combining God’s Word with music thereby motivating the gathered church to proclaim the gospel, to cherish God’s presence, and to live for God’s glory." This is an excellent statement that would serve well in any good church music ministry. Overall, Kauflin does a good job in expounding each aspect of this thesis.

Other positives abound in the book. Kauflin has a high view of the Scriptures and of the importance of sound doctrine in Christian worship. He rightly includes preaching as part of worship; he does not limit worship to the musical part of the service alone. He wants musicians to be proficient but not to show off. Music ministry should not be emotionally manipulative. Their proficiency should undergird the worship; it should not contribute to a concert mentality. He calls on worship leaders and band members to avoid sensuality in both their dress and "vocal inflections" (48).

Even in the section on musical styles Kauflin rightly argues that the "music should serve the lyrics" (100). But he is weakest in his arguments in favor of using all styles of music in worship. His primarily argument is that the unity of the church should be centered on the gospel and not on musical styles. He grounds this unity in diversity in the nature of God: "Musical diversity reflects the varying aspects of God’s nature. He is transcendent and immanent. He splits mountains and clothes the lilies. We worship him as our Creator and Redeemer, King and Father. How can anyone think that a single kind of music could adequately express the fullness of God’s glory?" (104). Kauflin has stated a number of truths. But it does not follow that every musical style glorifies God. Al Wolters argues that fundamental to a Christian worldview is that all of God’s creation is essentially good, that the Fall affects every aspect of God’s good creation, and that redemption will extend as far as the Fall. It is the middle point that Kauflin is not reckoning with. It is true that various cultures have differing styles of music that may and even should be used. But it does not follow that all styles in every culture are acceptable. To assert this would be to assert that the Fall has affected every aspect of creation except musical styles. Finally, it is strange to assert that musical diversity should be employed to demonstrate the unity of the church when, in practice, introducing pop music into the church has been divisive for many congregations. Our unity is in the gospel and not in musical styles, but insofar as musical styles connect to our sanctification, they impinge on the gospel. Thus those who resist bringing Fall-distorted styles into the church are right in their resistance and those who introduce them bring division to the church that is, by their own standard, unnecessary.

The penultimate section of Worship Matters deals with tensions (e.g., between emphasizing God’s immanence and his transcendence). Overall Kauflin does a good job of handling these tensions. A few times, however, his balancing seemed less thoughtful than it ought to have been. For instance, on inward and outward worship, Kauflin says that clapping, and other outward expressions of worship, must not be ignored in modern American worship because they appear in Scripture. But he fails to ask important questions that are necessary for careful application. For instance, what was the clapping? Was it applause? Was it to keep rhythm, as is still the practice in some cultures? Was it something else or some of both? Without asking these questions, one may assume that applauding a musical performance is more in keeping with Scripture than not applauding special music–but the assumption would be ill-considered. But for the most part Kauflin’s handling of tensions is well done. He recognizes that in some of these pairings, one element is more important than the other. For instance, in dealing with whether worship service should be targeted to believers or unbelievers, Kauflin rightly says, "Let’s not ignore non-Christians when we gather to worship God. But let’s not allow them to dictate our direction, methods, and values either. Those have all been determined and modeled by the risen Savior" (204).

How should those who disagree with Kauflin’s approach to musical style view this book? First, most of the book is not about musical style. Furthermore, Kauflin does seek to ground what he writes in Scripture. So much of this book is quite helpful. Second, we should be willing to be self-critical regarding our music. Traditional is not a sufficient standard for a church’s music ministry. Kauflin is careful enough with the content of the music in the worship services he leads that it is possible that the content of his worship music may be more substantial than the gospel songs that many musical conservatives employ. This could lead to an uncomfortable situation in which some people feel as though they must choose between a worship service of theologically rich but stylistically objectionable music or a service of theologically shallow but stylistically traditional music. Those of us who object to contemporary worship music should must ensure that this is not a choice that people feel themselves faced with. Third, the section on musical styles should be recognized as one of the weakest parts of the book. The attempted Scriptural argumentation is thin and theologically flawed. In sum, this book is overall quite helpful while being flawed in a few significant areas.

Hugo, Victor. Les Miserables. Translated by Charles Wilbour. 1862; Repr., Modern Library, 1992.

Articles

Philips, Robin. "Scripture in the Age of Google: The Digital Bible and How We Can Read It," Touchstone (July/August 2012): 40-44.

Argues that the medium by which we read affects the way in which we read. He notes that writing without word separations led to oral rather than silent reading (though I understand this is now debated). Until producing and disseminating text became affordable (the printing press being one but not the only factor), people would read a few texts, but they would read them deeply and repeatedly. Later, when newspapers and periodicals came into being, people read widely and less deeply. The internet continues this trend. With hyperlinks and other distractions, digital reading is not conducive to concentration in reading. I think Philips is right to consider the influence of the medium on the way we read. However, I’m not convinced by all the applications he drew. I was able to read a scan of his article on my iPad without loosing my concentration. I will, however, probably not read his periodical article more than once.

Wood, Gordon S. "Is There a ‘James Madison’ Problem." In Liberty and American Experience in the Eighteenth Century. Edited by David Womersley. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2006.

Wood argues against attempts to say there were two Madisons: the Federalist Madison of the 1780s and the Republican Madison of the Federalist 1790s. He also argues against Banning’s proposal unifies Madison at the expense of his nationalism in the 1780s. Instead Wood argues that Madison in the 1780s saw the dangers of democracy leading up to the constitutional convention. He wanted a strong national government to serve as a disinterested umpire between the conflicting interests in the states. This goal lies behind his advocacy of a strong national government. However, he never wanted a strong European-style military state. When he saw that was the government that Hamilton was seeking to create, Madison staunchly opposed him. Wood proposes that Madison’s vision of government remained consistent, though the opponents he faced in these differing decades resulted in differing responses.

Goldingay, John. "How Should We Think about Same-Sex Relationships?" In Key Questions about Christian Faith: Old Testament Answers. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010.

Goldingay, an Episcopalian OT scholar, though this issue by looking at First Testament (his term for Old Testament) and New Testament teaching on the matter and then at the present cultural context. He notes that if the stories of Noah and Ham and the stories of Sodom are rejected as not being analogous to same-sex marriage (because of the rape elements), so also Ruth and Naomi or David and Jonathan cannot be appealed to as analogous same-sex relationships since there is no physical relationship in these cases. Goldingay also discusses Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. He grants that these prohibitions are tied in with prohibitions that no longer directly apply to Christians. In their First Testament context however, Israel is prohibited from things that don’t "fit into creation" (with some animals serving as examples of this). Goldingay notes that "Humanity should fit into creation. Homosexual acts do not do that" (321). He does not wish to place the weight of his argument on these passages, however. He places much more weight on the First Testament’s vision of what marriage should be. He notes that our culture assumes that marriage is all about romance and choice. But while the First Testament gives romance its place, it is a subordinate place. Goldingay says, "In Genesis, God instituted the sexual relationship as a means of implementing the divine purpose to subdue the earth and serve the garden. To that end this relationship involves a mutual commitment to forming a new context in which children may be born, nurtured, and taught the faith and may share in the work" (321).

In turning to the New Testament, Goldingay notes that we find confirmation that same-sex relationships are not in the same category as food laws or clothing laws. This is evident in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:10. Romans 1:24-27 continues to indicate that same-sex relationships go against nature, which means it is contrary to the way God made human bodies and the creational purposes for which he made sexuality. Goldingay recognizes that there is another way in which our culture speaks of same-sex attraction as natural for those who have them. Goldingay counters, "But then, for a heterosexual person, heterosexual relations are natural, but we do not reckon that this means we can simply do what comes naturally irrespective of moral considerations" (323). It is important to note that Goldingay also warns that much heterosexual sexual activity also falls outside of God’s creational purposes. He suggests as possibilities: adultery, polygamy, incest, prostitution, divorce, remarriage, masturbation, living together before or without marriage, and the deliberate lifelong avoidance of conception" (323).

Goldingay was much more fuzzy on the place that those in same-sex relationships or with same-sex attractions should have within the church. He clearly things that overseers and deacons should be held to a higher standard in this matter (1 Tim. 3:2, 12). He does not think he ought to leave the Episcopal Church over the issue. His primary counsel is to show love to those with same-sex attractions while maintaining that they have not made "an equally-valid lifestyle choice."

This raises the justice issue. Goldingay notes, "The freedom of people of differnet races to marry is a justice issue on the basis of a certain understanding of humanity. Same-sex marriage is a justice issue only if one first presupposes that marriage does not integrally involve two people of the opposite sex" (325). Goldingay also notes that our cultural understanding of justice differs from the biblical understanding. We tend to equate equality and justice whereas the Bible indicates that justice is acting "in a way that does right by the people to whom one has commitments, and in in particular that implements a concern for the needy."

Goldingay, John. "What Is the People of God? (A Narrative Answer)." In Key Questions about Christian Faith: Old Testament Answers. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010.

Goldingay outlines his narrative answer in the opening pages of this essay: "These epochs [in Israel’s history] brings a change in the mode of being of god’s people. It begins as a family (mishpakhah), one of the families of the sons of Shem (Gen 10:31-32), The fulfillment of God’s promise makes it more than a family, a people (‘am; e.g., Exod 1:9; 3:7), and indeed a nation (goy) alongside other nations, a political entity (e.g., gen 12:2; Judg 2:20). The monarchy turns it into a state, a kingdom (mamlakah and // related words; e.g., 1 Sam 24:20; 1 Chr 28:5). The exile reduces it to a remnant (she’erit and other expressions; e.g., Jer 42:2; Ezek 5:10). It is restored, to its land and to its relationship with Yahweh, as something more like a religious community (qahal; e.g., Ezra 2:64; Neh 13:1)" (76-77). The rest of the essay unpacks these categories and discusses their present day relevance. Goldingay does not find them universally relevant to the church, since they are historically conditioned.

Goldingay, John. "What Is Israel’s Place in God’s Purpose?" In Key Questions about Christian Faith: Old Testament Answers. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010.

Goldingay answers this question with "four polemical theses": (1) "The Jewish people is still God’s people but is destined to come to recognize Jesus (190); (2) "The Jewish people still has a claim to a homeland in Palestine" (196); (3) "Commitment to the Jewish people does not imply commitment to the state of Israel (202); (4) "Israel’s destiny is secure, but its present is dependent on its decisions (206).

Under the first thesis Goldingay argues that God still has a place for Israel as a distinct people. He finds Romans 9-11 clear on this point. He nowhere finds the New Testament affirming that the church has become the New Israel (he understands Gal. 6:16 as Paul "seeking god’s mercy on Israel as well as on believers in Christ; p. 192, n. 7). He also reject two covenant theology, in which Israel relates to God apart from Christ.

Goldingay argues in the second thesis that the New Testament does not say the land promise was fulfilled in Jesus or that it was a symbol that has now been supplanted. He takes the New Testament’s silence on this issue to mean that the promise still stands.

Goldingay argues in the explication of his third thesis that the first two theses do not imply that the State of Israel is the fulfillment of God’s promises. He does not believe that the land promise necessarily includes a state, for Abraham did not live in the land in a state, nor did the returned exiles. He notes further, that God recognized the rights of previous inhabitants to the land in Abraham’s day. Israel had to wait four centuries before God gave the land to them because it would not have been right to drive out the other inhabitants until their iniquity was full. Finally, Goldingay says that Israel was supposed to be a blessing to the nations, and Israel is not now a blessing to the Palestinian people. Goldingay recognizes that Israel has a legal right to the land, and he also grants that Israel’s expansion came though defensive wars. But it seems that he would prefer a combined state of Jewish and Palestinian peoples living together peacefully than even a two-state solution.

In his fourth thesis Goldingay argues that the State of Israel is not guaranteed the land by God. Though God’s promises stand, neither God nor the church can accept uncritically the actions of Israel. Sometimes words of judgment need to be spoken and not words of comfort alone. He concludes with an appeal for peace for Jerusalem for both Jew and Arab.

Goldingay, John. "Is Election Fair?" In Key Questions about Christian Faith: Old Testament Answers. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010.

Goldingay asks this question in light of the conquest of Canaan. His ability to answer this question is marred by a willingness to evaluate God’s actions by a standard other than Scripture. He does not help himself by leaving the historicity of Joshua an open question.

Hamilton, James M. "Was Joseph a Type of the Messiah? Tracing the Typological Identification between Joseph, David, and Jesus," Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 12.4 (2008): 52-77.

Hamilton, Jr. James M. "The Typology of David’s Rise to Power: Messianic Patterns in the Book of Samuel," Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 16.2 (2012): 4-25.

In the final footnote for the article on Joseph, Hamilton thanks Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum "for insisting on textual warrant for typological interpretations." My sense was that this was too often missing in these articles. I recall a reviewer of Peter Leithart’s commentary on Kings saying it was worth working through all the implausible typological connections for the 1/3 which were right. I have the same sense with these two articles by Hamilton.

Poythress, Vern S. "Gender Neutral Issues in the New International Version of 2011," Westminster Theological Journal 73 (2011): 79-96.

After noting improvements in the NIV 2011 over the TNIV, Poythress documents verses in which he thinks gender neutral translations have obscured the text. Poythress also offers an evaluation of the Collins report on gender neutral language and potential problems in the statistical analysis which was done.

Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. "Jesus’ Mission According to His Own Testimony." In The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield. 2:255-324. 1932; Reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.

Warfield begins this three-part article by critiquing a similar project by Harnack that proceeded on critical grounds. In the second part of the article Warfiled expounds a series of passages in which Jesus says why he came to earth (these passages and their synoptic parallels):

Mark 1:38—He said to them, “Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for.” (NASB); cf. Lk. 4:43.

Matthew 5:17-18—"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

Matthew 9:12-13—But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Luke 12:49-53—“I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! 50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! 51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. 52 For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

Matthew 10:34-36—“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.

Luke 19:10—For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

Matthew 20:28—even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

When put together, it is clear that Jesus came to preach of the kingdom that arrived in his person, to fulfill the law, and to rescue sinners from their sin so they can be a new called out people opposed by the world, and that he achieves this through his sacrificial death.

In the third part of this article, Warfield draws some broader theological conclusions. He notes first that Jesus had a clear messianic consciousness. Second, he notes that the "I have come" passages imply pre-existence.

Zaspel, Fred G. The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010. [Read sections on historical context, apologetics, prolegomena, and bibliology, pp. 15-175]

Zaspel does an excellent job of comprehensively systematizing and summarizing Warfield’s thought. This volume is valuable as a reference work for those who are interested in tracking down what Warfield wrote on various topics and where he wrote it. But Zaspel’s summaries are valuable in their own right. I remain unconvinced of Warfield’s apologetic approach, in which he finds it necessary to establish Scripture as authoritative prior to any theologizing. But his doctrine of Scripture itself is masterful. It fully takes into account the complexity of Scripture’s teaching regarding itself as a divine and human book. Peter Enns, Kenton Sparks, and others who challenge the doctrine of inerrancy need to more fully reckon with Warfield’s arguments for their dismissal of the historic doctrine of Scripture to have credibility.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The First and Second Letters to Timothy. Anchor Bible. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 2001. [Read introductions and commentary on 1 Timothy 1-3]

Johnson is a critical scholar who is unconvinced of the arguments against Pauline authorship of the letters to Timothy and Titus. His critique of the reigning critical view and his arguments for Pauline authorship are careful and insightful. His critical proclivities emerge however in his comments about the role of women in the church.

Large Numbers in Numbers

by

The large numbers in the census’s in the book of Numbers have troubled critics and evangelicals alike for some time. The numbers, for various reasons, seem too large to be realistic. These are the issues raised:

1. Israel’s army seems much too large in comparison to other armies of the time. Egypt and Assyria were the great military powers, but their armies consisted of only tens of thousands of men. The censuses in Numbers places Israel’s military at around 600,000 (ZEPB, 4:465; cf. Allen, EBC, 709; Harrison, WEC, 45-48).

2. Joshua seems to present an Israelite army with numbers more comparable to other militaries of the day. Joshua 8:3, 11, 12 places the size of Joshua’s army at 30-40,000, depending on how the numbers are understood (ZPEB, 4:465).

3. Most commentators estimate that if an army of males over the age of 20 numbers 600,000, then the total population would be between two to three million people. They note that providing sanitation, food, and even room for setting up camp would provide major difficulties. In such a situation morale would be a problem (Gray, ICC, 12; ZPEB, 4:465; ISBE2, 3:565; cf. Harrison, WEC, 45-48).

4. Archaeologists estimate that the population of the entire area of Canaan did not reach 3 million people at this time. Yet Numbers 13:27-29 presents Israel as afraid to attempt to conquer the land, a strange fear if it possessed such numerical superiority. Also the large numbers in Numbers make it difficult to explain how, after the conquest, less numerous Canaanites were able to keep the Israelites pent up in the hill country (ZPEB, 4:465; ISBE2, 3:565). Related to this, Exodus 23:29-30 says that the Canaanites would not be driven out by Israel all at once due to the smallness of Israel.

5. Some numbers seem internally inconsistent. Numbers 3 includes legislation on the redemption of the first born, and 3:43 provides the number of firstborn. The comparison of numbers between chapters 1 and 3 leads to the conclusion that "the ratio of firstborn males to adult males is 1:27." Thus "each family would need to have on average 27 males and possibly as many daughters" (ISBE2, 3:565; cf. Gray, ICC, 13).

These issues have generated a number of proposed solutions. One popular solution is to understand אלף as a military group rather than as a thousand. There is clear evidence elsewhere in Scripture that אלף can indicate a captain over troops (אלוף; Gen. 36:15; Ex. 15:15) or a troop of men (Judg. 6:15; 1 Sam. 10:19). In this view, Numbers 1:21, "six and forty ‘elep and five hundreds" is interpreted as "forty-six clans/troops and (comprising) five hundred men." (DTOP, 408). This interpretation runs into some serious problems, however. Numbers 1:46; 2:32 clearly take אלף as thousand (Harrison, WEC, 46).

Another common solution is to propose that the numbers are symbolic. Some say they are purposely inflated to underscore the theological truth that God has multiplied Abraham’s seed (Allen, EBC, 688; ZPEB, 4:465; ISBE2, 3:565). But this raises the question of the value of a theological point based on invented numbers. Furthermore, the large numbers of the Numbers’ censuses are consistent with Exodus 12:37-38, which indicates that the Israelites who left Egypt numbered around 600,000 men besides women and children, and with Judges 20:2, which indicates that shortly after the conquest a voluntary army of 400,000 was quickly gathered (Gane, Leviticus/Numbers, NIVAC, 497; DOTP, 408). Unless the symbolism proposed in Numbers is extended to these other passages, a contextually unlikely proposition since both are separate historical reports, it is best not to treat the numbers in the Numbers’ censuses as inflated or symbolic.

Some have suggested that the numbers were corrupted in transmission (ISBE2, 3:565). But this would require the same corruptions to have occurred at Exodus 12:37-38 and at Judges 20:2 as well. Others say there is not enough information for a solution (ISBE2, 3:565-66).

Since the alternative proposals are not satisfactory, the objections to taking the numbers of Numbers at face value must be examined in greater detail.

1. The greater size of Israel’s army relative to those of Egypt and Assyria is not as great a problem as may first be supposed. The censuses in Numbers mark the number of men in the entire nation who are aged 20 and above and who are able to fight. The number of fighting men in an entire nation is bound to be higher than the armies of nations, even nations such as Egypt and Assyria.

2. Joshua 8 may not be as great an obstacle as it first appears. What the ESV translates as "all the fighting men" and the NIV as "the whole army" (cf. HCSB), is better translated "all the people of war" (KJV, NKJV, NASB) (8:1, 3, 11). Howard notes, "This phrase ‘all the people of war’ is found in the Old Testament only in the Book of Joshua (8:1,3,11; 10:7; 11:7). These uses seem to emphasize the unity of the entire nation in doing battle (cf. the concern for unity in 1:12-15), even though it was most likely only the men who actually engaged in battles" (Howard, NAC, 203; Woudstra, NICOT, 134, n. 4). The 30,000 of Joshua 8 thus need not have been all the men of Israel but rather were a selected force (Calvin, Joshua, 123). Also, the numbers in Numbers are consistent with the numbers elsewhere in Israel’s early history (Exodus 12:37-38; Judges 20:2). This makes the numbers in Joshua 8, rather than those of Numbers, the outlier.

3. The wilderness narratives in Exodus and Numbers note repeatedly the difficulty of providing food and drink to the people along with the miraculous provision of food and water. Sanitation was regulated in the Torah. The issue of room to camp is not as easy to address since there is disagreement on the route of the Israelites. Nonetheless, E. J. Young notes that "if the people were encamped in the plain of Er-Rahah before Jebel es Safsaf, they were in a plain about four miles in length and quite wide, with which several wide, lateral valleys join (Young, Introduction, 89). The wilderness narratives are also frank in their description of the people’s low morale at various points. These objections are therefore either addressed in the text or are not accurate in their statement of the problem.

4. The disparity in population between Israelites and Canaanites may not be a major problem. The Israelites were afraid of the Canaanites for their physical (not numerical) size and for their fortified cities. The Canaanites had home field advantage, fortified cities, and experienced fighting forces. Exodus 23 may not be so much about the relative population sizes as about the transition period needed to establish a civilizing presence in the land after the current one is removed, though it must be admitted that this is a stronger challenge than the others.

5. The ratio between firstborn males and other males also seems to be a greater problem than some of the others. It seems to be an issue of internal consistency. One plausible solution is that the redemption of the firstborn applies only to those born between the exodus from Egypt and the events of chapter 3 (Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 268).

In the end, the objections against taking the numbers of Numbers have responses that are more convincing than the alternative explanations. In fact, some of the solutions to the large numbers of Numbers result in a population so small that one wonders what Pharaoh was worried about (Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 266; a similar argument could be mounted with regard to the Canaanites in Joshua, though the emphasis there is admittedly on the power of Yahweh rather than on the size of Israel; Josh. 2:9, 24; 9:24). The numbers in Numbers 1 should therefore stand as a historical fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham to multiply his seed and make him into a great nation (Theodoret of Cyrus, The Questions on the Octateuch, 87).

In his treatment of these verses Calvin reminds his readers of the need to keep the supernatural working of God in view while interpreting such passages as Numbers 1. His comments are worth pondering:

Such is the perverseness of men, that they always seek for opportunities of despising or disallowing the works of God; such, too, is their audacity and insolence that they shamelessly apply all the acuteness they possess to detract from his glory. If their reason assures them that what is related as a miracle is possible, they attribute it to natural causes,—so is God robbed and defrauded of the praise his power deserves; if it is incomprehensible, they reject it as a prodigy. But if they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the interference of God except in matter by the magnitude of which they are struck with astonishment, why do they not persuade themselves of the truth of whatever common sense repudiates? They ask how this can be as if it were reasonable that the hand of God should be so restrained as to be unable to do anything which exceeds the bounds of human comprehension. Whereas, because we are naturally so slow to profit by his ordinary operations, it is rather necessary that we should be awakened into admiration by extraordinary dealings (John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses arranged in the Form of a Harmony, 1:22).

Israelites as Outsiders in Numbers 1:52

by

In Numbers 1:52 the Levites are instructed to guard the tabernacle from outsiders, from non-Levites. God designed the tabernacle system both as a symbol of God’s nearness and as a symbol of the distance still required between God and man. In Numbers the distance of God is emphasized. As foreigners, were separated from the people of God in this era, so non-Levites were separated from tabernacle service. God did permit people to approach him, and the tabernacle symbolized his presence, but strict limitations were placed on the approach at the pain of death. A sinful people in the presence of God were always in danger of being consumed (Ex. 33:5).

This warning in chapter 1 about who may approach the tabernacle prepares the reader for Korah’s rebellion. The non-Levitical tribes should have led Israel in battle against the Canaanites, but when they failed to obey God in this manner and then pressed in upon the Levitical duties, God consumed them as he had warned Moses he would do.

This warning also highlights the benefits of the new covenant. Not only is the barrier between foreigner and Israelite broken down (Eph. 2:14), but the restrictions on non-Levites are removed. In fact, God’s people are now “a holy temple in the Lord” and “a dwelling place for God by the Spirit” (Eph. 2:22). Even the bodies of individual believers have become the temple of God’s Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19). The typical Israelite could not draw near to the symbolized presence of God in the midst of the people, but the Christian cannot escape the indwelling presence of God.

This marvelous access into the presence of God is possible because of the propitiatory death of Jesus. His death tore the barrier between God and man (Matt. 27:51). The wrath of God that threatened to break out, and did break out, against the Israelites, was satisfied by the sinless Christ. Christians can now enter boldly into the presence of God (Heb. 4:14-5:10).

This does not mean that all warnings cease or that personal holiness is of no issue since imputed righteousness has been procured. No, the very fact that the believer was purchased by the blood of Christ to be the temple of the Spirit means that his body needs to be holy (1 Cor. 6:18-20). Those who destroy God’s temple (the church) will be destroyed by God, and those who build it with shoddy material are saved only with great loss (1 Cor. 3:10-17).

Christians today should rejoice in the blessing of intimate access to God, while at the same time allowing the Old Testament restrictions remind them of high privilege they enjoy and the sacred responsibility that it bestows.

Genesis 1:26-28 as the Statement of the Bible’s Theological Center

by

The resurgence of the biblical theology movement of the past thirty years or so has given rise to a host of issues attendant to that discipline, including the search for a center, or organizing principle, around which the biblical data might be ordered. . . . It is the thesis of this article that such a center does exist and that it lies in the concept of the kingdom of God, the only concept broad enough to encompass the diversity of biblical faith without becoming tautological. . . . Theology must make a statement about God (the subject) who acts (the verb) to achieve a comprehensive purpose (the object).

If this is the case, not only would one expect that statement to be the interlocking and integrating principle observable throughout the fabric of biblical revelation, but he would also expect it to be enunciated early on in the canonical witness in unmistakable terms. Hence, Genesis should most likely provide the seed-bed in which the anticipated proposition is to be found. And a careful reading of that book of beginnings reveals a statement of purpose that is so striking in its clarity and authority that there can be little question it is the very formula we seek to establish the Bible’s own theological center: ‘Then God [the subject] said, “Let Us make [the verb] man [object] in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule [purpose] over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky. . . .” God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth’ (Gen. 1:26-28).

The theme that emerges here is that of the sovereignty of God over all His creation, mediated through man, His vice-regent and image. Thus Genesis, the book of beginnings, introduces the purposes of God, which remain intact throughout the Old and New Testaments despite the sin of man and the impairment of his ability to be and do all that God had intended. The failings of His creation—a major theme of human history and of the Bible itself—are unable to frustrate the ultimate purposes of God, for the language of eschatology is replete with the overtones of redemption and salvation that bring about a renewal of all that God desired to do in creation. There will be a new heaven and new earth wherein dwells righteousness (Rev. 21:1; cf. Isa. 65:17; 66:22).

Eugene H. Merrill, “Daniel as a Contribution to Kingdom Theology,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, ed. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 211-12.

Numbers 1 and the 144,000 of Revelation

by

Several commentators point out that in the OT a census was typically conducted to muster an army or to assess its strength. Thus they see the census of Revelation 7 as a parallel to Numbers 1. Revelation 7, according to these commentators, is about mustering an eschatological army of witnesses.[1] This view is bolstered by some verbal parallels between the two chapters: εκ φυλης in Revelation 7:5-8 corresponds with εκ της φυλης in Numbers 1:21-4; "of the sons of Israel" is repeated in both chapters; and both lists mention Joseph as a tribe.[2] The fact that Revelation 14 indicates that all of them are men strengthens the military view of this census.

Those taking this view typically understand the 144,000 of Revelation to be symbolic of the church, but this is doubtful. Revelation 7 divides its attention between Israel on the earth of a specific number and a numberless multitude from all nations in heaven. Israel is clearly the focus in the first part of chapter 7 because of the detailed listing of the tribes. One could argue that the census and listing of tribes is just a device to cause the reader to think of God mustering an army, but this expedient is not necessary for those who believe Israel still has a role to play in the future. Given the OT prophecies of Israel fulfilling its role as a witness to the nations (Ex. 19:3-6; Deut. 4:5-8), and given the partial fulfillment already in the NT (Matt. 15:24; Acts 1:6-8; 2:5, 41; 9:15; 10:44-48; 13:1-3), it is more natural to see this army as an army of witnesses sent to the nations. The numbering of 12,000 from every tribe could well signify completeness, though this need not rule out numerical prediction. Because of God’s sovereignty, symbol and reality can often coincide. If the passage is meant to parallel Numbers 1, the smallness of the numbers in Revelation may point up the fact that it is a remnant of Israel which God is restoring.

Revelation 14 returns to the 144,000. It seems that this chapter looks forward to the end when Christ is enthroned on Mount Zion.[3] This army of Israelite men accomplished what the army of Numbers 1 failed to achieve: they are in the land, indeed on Mount Zion. They have remained faithful, as symbolized by their virginity[4] and as evidenced by their honesty. This latter point especially contrasts with Numbers because the complaints that arise against God in this book and give rise to rebellion are, in fact, lies against God. Note also the difference in the task of these armies. In the OT the armies of Israel were to conquer Gentile nations both in judgment on them and to give Israel space to live out its witness to them; in the NT the army of Israel is purely a force of witnesses (the judgment is being carried out immediately by God himself). As Numbers progresses, it will begin to record the failures of Israel, but in the end, the text of Revelation assures us, God’s people will fulfill their role as witnesses to God, and they will live in the promised land forever.

[1] Beale and McDonough, "Revelation," in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 1107; cf. Osborne, BECNT, 313.

[2] Beale and McDonough, 1107.

[3] There is debate about whether Mount Zion in this passage is in heaven or on earth. The fact that a voice is heard from heaven favors an earthly scene. Osborne, BECNT, 525; cf. Thomas, 2:190.

[4] Again, symbol and reality do not need to be set at odds. There is no reason to think that the 144,000 were not actually virgins. The virginity of the 144,000 may strengthen the thesis that these men were mustered for service in the Lord’s army, for the OT indicates that soldiers refrained from sexual activity while in the field (Deut. 23:9-10; 1 Sam. 21:5; 2 Sam. 11:8-11). Osborne, BECNT, 529. Thomas notes this interpretation but dismisses it because he finds the military imagery inconsistent with martyrs who do not resist. Thomas, 2:196. But in reality this need not be inconsistent. The army mustered in Revelation need not fight in the same way as the army mustered in Numbers. They can be an army of martyred witnesses.

What is Theological Interpretation of Scripture?

by

Kevin Vanhoozer admits that “initially, it is easier to say what theological interpretation is not rather than what it is” (DTIB, 19; cf. Gorman, Elements of Biblical Exegesis, 145f.; Peter Kline, “Prolegomena,” Princeton Theological Review 14.1 (Spring 2008): 5). He specifies some things that it is not: “Theological interpretation of the Bible is not an imposition of a theological system or confessional grid onto the biblical text.” It is not, “an imposition of a general hermeneutic or theory of interpretation onto the biblical text.” And it is not, “a form of merely historical, literary, or sociological criticism preoccupied with “(respectively) the world ‘behind,’ ‘of,’ or ‘in front of’ the biblical text” (DTIB, 19).

Marcus Bockmuehl probes the issue with a question: “Is there perhaps some sense in which the living and lived word of Scripture shapes both exegesis and theology reciprocally, and in which dogmatics articulately engages and in turn illuminates the hearing of that word?” (Bockmuehl, in Scripture’s Doctrine and Theology’s Bible, 8; cf. Vanhoozer in DTIB, 20).

Theological interpreters answer Bockmuehl in the affirmative: interpreters must refuse to sequester theology from exegesis. This means the text is read as Christian Scripture by those within the Christian church. Furthermore, theological interpreters read the Scripture as addressed to them as Christians (and not merely addressed to communities in the past) for the purpose of spiritual transformation (and not merely as ancient texts to be analyzed) (see Gorman, 146f.).

Thus theological interpretation maintains two key emphases. First, it holds that exegesis should shape doctrine and that doctrine should influence exegesis. Second, it holds that theology is ultimately about faithful living.