Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Schreiner on Spiritual Gifts

by

Schreiner, Thomas R. Spiritual Gifts: What They Are and Why They Matter. Nashville: B&H, 2018.

This is an excellent brief introduction to spiritual gifts. The first part of the book presents wise pastoral counsel about what spiritual gifts are and how people should exercise them in the church. The latter part of the book is a brief, winsome defense of the cessationist position.

Schreiner had in the past held to the continuationist position. He comments about his change of mind: “What set me personally back on the road to cesssationism is this very matter of prophecy. I slowly became convinced that the idea that New Testament prophets were different in nature from Old Testament prophets was flawed. Instead, it is more convincing to say that New Testament prophets were infallible like Old Testament prophets” (loc 1681). Like Schreiner, I have always found this (rather than tongues) to be at the heart of the debate.

Schreiner argues that NT prophecy is infallible because there would need to be a clear indication in the NT if prophecy became fallible. To the contrary, the quotation of Joel 2:28 in the NT points to continuity. The NT warnings about false prophets point in the same direction. Second, Ephesians 2:20 teaches that the church was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. While Grudem argues that this should be interpreted as “the apostles who are prophets” (thus showing a distinction between infallible and fallible NT prophets), Schreiner notes that Grudem misapplies the Granville Sharp rule to make this claim. Third, the NT demands that prophecies be judged, and the standard laid out in Deuteronomy 18 is that true prophets and prophecies are without error. Fourth, Schreiner rejects that argument that Paul’s claim of apostolic authority over prophets shows that prophets could be in error. “The issue here isn’t whether the words of the prophets are mixed with error. Instead, the issue is whether one is a false prophet!” (loc. 1203). Fifth, Schreiner rejects the claim that the prophecy of Agabus in Acts 21 was in error, noting that Paul in Acts 28 indicates that it was not. Further, Schreiner observes, “if Agabus is judged to be in error, the same kind of judgment could be used to assess other texts which some claim have errors” (loc 1225).

With regard to tongues, Schreiner holds that Acts 2 defines tongues as xenoglossia. None of the following passages in Acts or 1 Corinthians demand that tongues be understood as glossolalia. Thus the claimed gift today is not the same thing as the gift of tongues as practiced in the New Testament.

Two Puritan Books: McGraw on Owen and Watson on the Ten Commandments

by

McGraw, Ryan. The Foundation of Communion with God: The Trinitarian Piety of John Owen. Profiles in Reformed Spirituality. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2014.

The Profiles in Reformed Spirituality are favorites. They are small books which fit easily into one’s hand or pocket. They begin with a brief biography, but the heart of the books are two-page selections from the featured theologian’s writings. The selections focus on personal piety and one’s walk with God. This volume concludes with a suggested plan for reading Owen’s works.

Watson, Thomas. The Ten Commandments. 1692; Reprinted, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1965.

This is the first book I would recommend buying on the Ten Commandments (although Udemans’ The Practice of Faith, Hope, and Love ranks with it). Since this book is derived from sermons it provides both exposition and application of the Decalogue.

As the second volume of Watson’s exposition of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, Watson’s book covers more than the Ten Commandments. He also discusses the questions that relate to sin, salvation, and the ordinances.

Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will

by

Luther, Martin. Career of the Reformer III. In Luther’s Works. Volume 33. Edited by Helmutt Lehmann and Philip S. Watson. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1999. [Bondage of the Will]

The Bondage of the Will is essential reading. Luther believed that Erasmus, to whom he is responding, reached the heart of the Reformation in his critique. It is important to recognize that by bondage of the will Luther does not mean that people do not do what they please. Rather, he means that the will is so bound by sin that people will not choose to come to God apart from the working of God upon their hearts. Luther’s argumentation is both theological and exegetical.

Leeman, How the Nations Rage

by

Leeman, Jonathan. How the Nations Rage: Rethinking Faith and Politics in a Divided Age. Nashville: Nelson, 2018.

Leeman, a pastor and theologian with a degree in political science, is writing to help American Christians think biblically about politics. While he states up front that he is “not a political radical” or revolutionary, and while he values the political heritage that Americans have been bequeathed, he is concerned that American Christians often accept certain political principles because they are American without examining whether they are truly biblical.

Separation of Chruch and State?

For instance, many American Christians read Jesus’s words in Matthew 22:21, “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” as if God’s things (“worship, faith, church, etc.”) belong in “the private domain” while the government’s things belong in the public domain. Leeman argues that Jesus’s words in Matthew 28 do not allow for this: “Jesus said he possesses all authority in heaven and on earth” (12). While Leeman affirms the separation of church and state (as two distinct institutions), he rejects “the separation of religion and politics.”

That is, Leeman rejects the old European model of Christendom in which church and state jointly ruled a nation. In Leeman’s view, this arrangement violated the unique spheres of authority that God gave church and state while bearing bad fruit (e.g., nominal Christianity, states that persecuted Christians in the name of Jesus).

But Leeman also rejects the model of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson in which the state rules over “outward things” and the church rules over personal, inward, religious matters. Leeman notes that people who hold such a view delude themselves into thinking that certain parts of life are not religious. For instance, the American values of “rights, equality, and freedom” may seem neutral. But when you ask: freedom to do what? rights to what? equality in what way? it becomes clear that religious viewpoints are smuggled in under these allegedly neutral terms. This, makes the fiction of a neutral public square damaging to the public good because it maintains a fiction.

Leeman explains:

When the non-Christian affirms his belief in the separation of church and state, he means separation of government from my church, not his own. He effectively says, ‘You can’t impose any of your beliefs and morals on me because they come from your church.’ Okay, but does that mean he cannot impose his idolatrous and non-Christian views on me? Ah, there’s the catch. He has no official church and no god with a name. And there’s no such thing as separation of idolatry and state. Too bad for me. Lucky for him. [41]

Thus the public square is not truly neutral: “What you really have is a square rigged against organized religion. Organized religions are kept out. Unnamed idols are let in” (34).

Leeman’s view is that the church and state should be largely separate institutions. God has given them two distinct jurisdictions. But all of life is religious. There is no neutrality.

What is at stake is found in the title of the book How the Nations Rage. While nations war among themselves, the greatest political rivalry is that of the nations conspiring against the Messiah. Leeman insightfully observes that “worship and rule belong together.” In a fallen world, rule is claimed by those who justify themselves as deserving the right to rule. Part of the challenge that Christians face is that the “politics of the new creation,” is currently present only in the church, which God by his Word and Spirit transforms hearts. And yet Christians are involved in the politics in this fallen world.

How Does the Bible Connect to Politics?

In order to navigate politics in a fallen world a right understanding of how the Bible relates to politics is needed. Leeman argues that “when it comes to thinking about politics, the Bible is less like a book of case law and more like a constitution. A constitution does not provide a country with the rules of daily life. It provides the rules for making the rules” (79). Leeman does not deny that the Bible makes some direct demands that should be translated into law. Law’s against murder come to mind. But in most cases, the Christian applying the Bible to the political realm is in need of wisdom. Leeman says that “wisdom is both the posture of fearing the Lord, as well as the skill of living in God’s created but fallen world in a way that yields justice, peace, and flourishing” (84; cf. Prov. 8:15-16). His point is that whereas there are some “straight-line issues” where the Bible can be directly applied (no murder means no abortion), most issues are “jagged line issues” where the Bible still applies, but not directly (e.g., health-care policy). Leeman argues that churches can bind people’s consciences on straight-line issues but should not do so with jagged line issues.

Why Do We Have Government?

Leeman then turns to the Bible’s teaching about the origin, purposes, and forms of government. He notes that the Bible’s view of the origin of government “sits uncomfortably with aspects of America’s liberal, democratic tradition.”

Our liberal, democratic tradition teaches that “governments derive their powers … ‘from the consent of the governed'” (101). This is the social contract view. On this view people lived in a pre-political state until they consented to form a government. Since the government provided a framework for life rather than something that regulated all of life, the formation of government created public aspects for everyone’s life while leaving a substantial portion of life private. The “source of the government’s moral authority … depends on our consent.” On this view, religion is considered a private matter, rather than a public one.

Leeman notes that the Bible’s view of government has no room for a “pre-political” state because everyone is “always under God’s rule.” When people form a social contract, they ought to do so under the rule of God since, according to the Bible “a government’s authority comes from God” (Rom. 13:1, 2, 4; John 19:11). “Our governments, after all, are simply a way of working out in time and space the rules that God has provided” (105).

Leeman’s discussion of the biblical purposes for government begins with Genesis 9. God requires “a reckoning for the life of man” in Genesis 9. From this, Leeman concludes that the first purpose of government is “To Render Judgment for the Sake of Justice.” Other biblical texts that support this purpose include 1 Kings 3:28; Proverbs 20:8; Romans 13:3-4. The second purpose of government also Leeman also derives initially from Genesis 9: “The authority that God gave to shed blood for blood (vv. 5-6) facilitates the larger enterprise of filling the earth and ruling over it (vv. 1 and 7)” (112). Thus the second purpose for government is “To Build Platforms of Peace, Order, and Flourishing.” See also Prov. 29:4; 16:12, 15; Joseph’s preparation for famine in Egypt and Mosaic regulations that provide for the poor. From 1 Timothy 2:1-4, Leeman discerns a third purpose for government: To Set the Stage for Redemption.” A good government “clears a way for the people of God to do their work of calling the nations to God.”

This last purpose of government raises the issue of religious freedom. Leeman supports the view that governments should tolerate false worship because Scripture authorizes no government, except Old Testament Israel, to punish people for false worship. Leeman points out that this argument is not based on the freedom of the conscience (though that is a “fruit” of the argument) but on the authorization that God gives to government. Second, Leeman argues that “governments possess no authority to exercise the keys of the kingdom, and no ability to coerce true worship” (122).

With all this in view, what is the best form of government? Americans may be tempted to answer, “democracy.” But Leeman observes that a democracy only functions well when “the right kind of political culture must be in place.” He observes, “There must be a strong tradition of respecting the rule of law. Citizens must prize honesty and eschew bribes. They must trust one another to keep their contracts. They must know how to negotiate, persuade, compromise, and lose votes, yet still submit to the system. Apart from these kinds of public and private virtues, democracy has a much harder time working” (122). The Bible itself provides “no abstract ideal form of government.” Instead, a good government is any government that fulfills the three biblical purposes for government noted above.

The Chruch and Politcs

Leeman then turns from the role of the government to the role of the church. He emphatically denies the path of arguing that the church focuses on spiritual matters while the government focuses on political matters. Instead, he asserts, “Every week that a preacher stands up to preach he makes a political speech. He teaches the congregation “to observe all” that the King with all authority in heaven and on earth has commanded (Matt. 28:20)” (131-32). On the other hand, Leeman is skeptical of making the church into a lobbying organization. He notes that it is beyond the church’s mission and competency to formulate public policy. “Therefore, churches should ordinarily not seek to influence government policy directly. … It risks misidentifying Jesus’ name with human wisdom. It risks abusing the consciences of church members. And it risks undermining Christian freedom and unity” (145). He observes, “I have watched churches unite their names and therefore the name of Jesus to a Supreme Court nominee, to presidential candidates, and to legislation in Congress. And nearly every time I want to ask, ‘Are you sure? Do you really want to stake the reputation of Jesus and the gospel to that nominee or candidate or reform?'”(148).

Leeman acknowledges there are certain issues that are so clear that the church can speak directly to them. In fact, he notes that “churches can sin and prove faithless by not speaking up in matters of government policy when they should” (147). But the church has to be able to discern the difference between what it can bind consciences on and what a Christian, working in a sphere outside the church, might conclude as he brings policy expertise together with a biblically-shaped worldview.

The Christian and Politics

The limitations that Leeman places on the involvement of the church as an institution do not apply to general Christian involvement in politics. In fact, Leeman argues that disengagement from civic life is wrong, as is capitulation, “positively endorsing the world and its ways.” Leeman cautions, “Be leery of being too captivated by any political worldview” (181). Neither the right or the left provide the Christian with a biblical worldview. For the Christian to simply embrace the zeitgeist of either side or either party will result in conformity to the world in some areas of life. A third wrong path is to be worldly in the way the Christian acts politically. “There is a way of engaging that’s right on the substance but wrong on the strategy or tone” (164).

Leeman also notes various strategies for Christian engagement in the political realm. The first approach is to find some common ground in the way the argument is made. For instance, Leeman observes that when the Affordable Care Act required employers to provide insurance coverage that included abortion, Christians objected to this requirement (and prevailed in court) on religious freedom grounds. Leeman notes that he agrees with the religious freedom argument, but he observes: “Religious freedom isn’t the real issue. It’s a backup issue. The real issue, for a Christian, is murder. We don’t want the state to require us to fund something we believe is murder” (183). A second approach is to appeal to natural law. This was attempted in the debate over the redefinition of marriage. A third way of engagement Leeman calls the “sociologists approach.” For instance, a Christian defending policies that support two-parent homes or opposing policies that undermine two-parent homes could point to studies showing that children do better in two-parent homes.

Leeman does not object to Christians deploying any of these approaches when appropriate. But he does issue a warning about these ways of making a political argument. “All three lack the force of conviction because the very thing they are good at—finding common ground—affirms our modern intuitions that all authority and moral legitimacy rests in every individual’s consent. Unless I can be convinced something is true on my terms, it must not be true. And so you owe it to me to convince me on my terms. Ironically, the very attempt to persuade risks hardening people in the deeper certainty that they are right” (184).

This objection runs up against the way Americans tend to think about the public square. Leeman observes that John Rawls argued that “we are morally obligated to only bring arguments that everyone can understand on his or her own terms” (186). Leeman calls this view “a Trojan horse for small-g god idolatry.” Governments do not make laws only about matters for which there is consensus. When there is no consensus, on whose terms is the decision made. Leeman argues that it is better to observe that everyone’s god is attempting to set the terms of the debate. There is no religiously neutral public square or religiously neutral public argument.

Justice

Leeman’s final chapter addresses the issue of justice. The primary responsibility of government is to ensure justice, and Americans have a particular viewpoint on justice. “Together Jefferson’s Declaration and Lincoln’s Address present America’s mission statement on justice: we are a people dedicated to the principles of equality, freedom, and natural rights” (204).

Leeman is skeptical that this view of justice works. Just as there is no religiously neutral public argument, so there is no religiously neutral approach to justice: “Pick your God or gods; out will come your views on justice. Pick your conception of justice; out will come your views on equality, freedom, and rights” (206). Leeman’s point is that equality, freedom, and rights are themselves empty concepts that will be filled with different content depending on one’s worldview.

Leeman also challenges the more recent views of identity politics. He notes such approaches deny the Bible’s teaching about our “common humanity” and speak as if both truth and morality are social constructs of different groups. Instead of bringing about justice, identity politics, pits groups against each other so that they cannot even communicate with each other, much less work together as citizens. In contrast, Leeman says “The Christian path affirms both our common humanity and our created differences. It requires color-blindness with respect to our oneness in Adam and (if believers) in Christ (Gal. 3:28). It requires color-consciousness with respect to our different experiences, histories, and cultural traditions, as well as the unique ways different people can glorify God (1 Cor. 12:13–14; Rev. 7:9)” (221).

Evaluation

Good books on Christians and politics are difficult to find. Often Christians are tempted to baptize current political philosophies (whether from the left or right) rather than testing these philosophies against Scripture. Leeman does an admirable job of letting the Bible challenge our customary ways of thinking. This is probably the best brief book on politics that I’ve read.

Mumford on Metaphysics

by

Mumford, Stephen. Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

This is another excellent entry in Oxford’s Very Short Introduction series. Mumford begins with seemingly simple questions, like what is a table and progressively works his way into deeper and deeper problems of metaphysics. His treatment is accessible for the non-philosopher, but it also does a good job of initiating the reader into the current philosophical arguments about metaphysics.

For the theologian, the lesson should be to avoid making any philosopher’s metaphysical theory the foundation for one’s theologizing. Some views are more and others are less compatible with Scripture. But the views themselves are so open for debate that they cannot provide a starting point for the theologian. To speak in traditional terminology, metaphysics may serve as a handmaid to theology, but it cannot be its master.

“Adam’s Reward: Heaven or Earth?”

by

Herzer, Mark A. “Adam’s Reward: Heaven or Earth?” In Drawn Into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism. Edited by Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones. Oakville, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.

Mark Herzer observes that while Reformed theologians agreed that Adam would have received eternal life if he had kept the covenant of works, disagreement existed as to where that life would have been lived. On one side were Francis Turretin, Thomas Boston, Thomas Ridgley, and John Brown who held this was to be a heavenly life. On the other side were Thomas Goodwin, John Gill, and Jonathan Edwards who held to an earthly life in paradise. Others, John Ball, Peter Bulkeley, and Anthony Burgess did not think there was enough biblical data on which to take a position.

Herzer focuses his attention on Thomas Goodwin and Francis Turretin. Goodwin argued for an earthly life on the basis that only Christ, who is both God and man could secure a heavenly reward. Turretin argued that if the threat is eternal death in hell, the reward could not be less than heaven.

Naselli: “Was It Always Idolatrous for Corinthian Christians to Eat εἰδωλόθυτα in an Idol’s Temple? (1 Cor 8-10)”

by

Naselli, Andrew David. “Was It Always Idolatrous for Corinthian Christians to Eat εἰδωλόθυτα in an Idol’s Temple? (1 Cor 8-10),” Southeastern Theological Review 9, no. 1 (Spring 2018): 23-45.

The title question of the article is first addressed by surveying three arguments that answer the question in the affirmative. The headings summarize the arguments. 1. “Argument from the Historical-Cultural Context: Eating ἐδωλόθυτα in an Idol’s Temple was an Inherently Religious Event.” 2. “Argument from a Word Study: εἰδωλόθυτος Means Meat Sacrificed to Idols That One Eats in an Idol’s Temple.” 3. “Argument from the Literary Context: 1 Cor 8 Parallels 10:14-22.” That is, in both cases, Paul is arguing that believers should not eat meat sacrificed to idols in the idol temple. The “right” to do so mentioned in chapter 8 is not truly a right.

Andy answers the question in the negative, and his headings again summarize the arguments. 1. “Argument from Historical-Cultural Context: Eating εἰδωλόθυτα in an Ido’s Temple Could Be a Non-Idolatrous Social Event—Like Eating in a Restaurant.” 2. “Argument from a Word Study: εἰδωλόθυτος Means Meat Sacrificed to Idols—Whether One Eats It in an Idol’s Temple or at Home.” 3. “Argument from the Literary Context: 1 Cor 8 Differs Significantly from 10:14-22.” This third argument is unpacked in four points: 1. If eating idol meat in the temple was always wrong, it is odd that Paul does not address it until chapter 10. Andy quotes Fisk: “Was Paul really more concerned with the selfishness of chap. 8 than with the idolatry of chap. 10?” 2. Andy demonstrates that the grammar does not demand that the “right” of 8:9 be read as a “so-called right.” 3. He draws a contrast between 6:12-20 in which the Corinthians thought they had a right to commit πορνεία and 8:9. In the former passage, he immediately indicates that they do not have that right. In this passage, Paul does not do so. 4. In chapter 8 Paul is dealing with disputable matters among Christians; in chapter 10 he is dealing with idolatry.

Evaluation

I agree with Andy’ argument 2. The usage of εἰδωλόθυτος does not restrict the meaning of this word to food eaten in the idol temple. “It simply means meat sacrificed to idols.”

Argument 1 contains a wealth of interesting background information. However, I’m not yet convinced that eating in an idol’s temple was simply the equivalent to eating in a restaurant. Footnote 33 includes a notable clarification from Wendell Willis: “I seem to have left the impression that I did not think these meals were ‘religious’ but ‘merely’ social. I could not a tall support such a view; clearly the meals were ‘religious.’ There is strong evidence that these cults (and their worshippers) would not have accepted—even understood—a contrast between ‘religious’ and ‘social.’ But the question really should be, what does ‘religious’ mean in the first-century pagan world? Their gods gave, as one of their great gifts, occasions for conviviality and enjoyment as an essential aspect of sacrifice. This social enjoyment was a positive part of religious sacrifice.” This seems to cast doubt on the idea that eating in an idol temple could ever be simply like eating at a restaurant.

In the end, however, I wonder if the location—in an idol temple or out of an idol temple—is really the main issue. The second argument indicated that ἐδωλόθυτα referred to “meat sacrificed to idols” without regard to the location where it was eaten. This means that the question is whether Christians were allowed to eat εἰδωλόθυτα under any circumstances.

This question seems to be answered by the Jerusalem Council (AD 49). Circumcision and the Mosaic law are not required of Christians, but the following are required: abstain from εἰδωλόθυτος, from blood (and thus from things killed by strangulation as a means of keeping the blood in the meat), and from sexual immorality (Acts 15:29). Though some wish to place a statute of limitations on this apostolic decree, there is nothing in the text that indicates this decree expired after a certain amount of time. Further, sexual immorality has always and will forever be forbidden to Christians. The prohibition against eating blood is part of the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:4), which is a covenant that is still in effect (Gen. 8:22). Thus the other items listed seem to be permanently forbidden to Christians. If εἰδωλόθυτα was only temporarily forbidden, it would be the outlier in this list.

Even if the decree of the Jerusalem Council was only temporary, Paul wrote 1 Corinthians in AD 54 or 55. Would the decree of the Jerusalem Council have expired within five or six years? Confirmation that it had not expired is found in the repetition of the decree in Acts 21:25—after 1 Corinthians had been written. Further confirmation that eating εἰδωλόθυτα was not permissible is found when the ascended Christ rebukes the churches of Pergamum and Thyatira for permitting teachers who taught the acceptability of eating εἰδωλόθυτα (Rev. 2:14, 20). Confirmation that εἰδωλόθυτα was always forbidden is found in the fact that the post-New Testament early church universally held that εἰδωλόθυτα was forbidden (see the quotation from Garland below; cf. Chrysostom’s homilies on 1 Cor. 8-10).

Andy concluded the article by revealing his motivation for writing: “I cannot harmonize 1 Cor 8:9-10 with 10:14-22 unless what Paul describes in 8:9-10 is actually a disputable matter and not idolatry.” The article was effective in helping me see the force of this concern. And yet, I cannot see how understanding 1 Corinthians 8:9-10 harmonizes with the wider canonical context if eating εἰδωλόθυτα is a disputable matter and not idolatry.

Later Christians uniformly opposed idol food, and no church father felt any need to defend Paul against rumors that he advocated eating idol food or to challenge any alternative interpretation of his writings. (Cheung 1999:97). His argument that to eat idol food is to have fellowship with demons became the basic argument against eating idol food. Yet some argue that these later Christians misunderstood Paul. Witherington (1995: 191) contends that soon after the NT era, Paul’s ‘ability to make nice distinctions about eating food from the temple at home and eating in the temple was misunderstood’ (see also Büchsel, TDNT 2:379, who labels it a reemergence of Jewish legalism). Dunn’s evaluation of the matter is more judicious: ‘If those closer to the thought world of Paul and closer to the issue of idol food show no inkling of the current interpretation, that interpretation is probably wrong’ (Dunn 1998: 704). [Garland, BECNT, 395.]

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.

Ten Best Books Read in 2017

by

Watson, Thomas. A Body of Divinity. 1692; Reprinted, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1965.

This is theology that is solid in its doctrinal content and warm in its exhortation. This is doctrine to be both believed and lived. See full review.

Watson, Thomas. The Beatitudes. 1660; Reprinted, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2014.

I found this the most valuable of the sources that I read on the Beatitudes this year. Watson writes with a whole Bible awareness. He also applies as well as exposits the Beatitudes. See full review.

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

The great value of this book are the numerous connections between the OT and the Gospels that it lays bare. Chief among these connections are those which show the Gospel writers’ conviction that Jesus is truly God. See full review

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

Pennington’s discussion of the biblical teaching about human flourishing and his discussion about the structure of the Sermon on the Mount are the most valuable parts of this book. HIs discussion of blessedness/flourishing is superb, and I think he is right to see human flourishing as central to the Bible’s theology, though this needs to be linked to the glory of God: to glorify God and to enjoy him forever. See full review.

Rowe, C Kavin. One True Life: The Stoics and Early Christians as Rival Traditions. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016.

I picked this book up to understand more about Stoicism, and it met that goal, but its great value was in highlighting common errors in the way that comparative religion studies are carried out. Rowe persuasively makes the case that Stoicism and Christianity are incommensurable worldviews. See full review.

Crowe, Brandon D. The Last Adam: A Theology of the Obedient Life of Jesus in the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017.

Crowe’s goal in the book is to demonstrate that the Pauline identification of Jesus as the Last Adam and the theological concept of active obedience are both rooted in the Gospels (and linked ideas). I think he succeeded admirably in his goals, and this book gave me a better understanding of the Gospels. See full review.

Jeffery, Steve, Micahel Ovey, and Andrew Sach. Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution. Crossway, 2007.

This is a superb defense of penal substitutionary atonement. It is also a model for how to do exegetically-rooted, historically-informed, practically-aimed systematic theology. See full review.

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.

I don’t think there is a better theology of the book of Acts at present. See full review.

Levin, Yuval. The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left. Basic Books, 2014.

This is an excellent work on the thought of Burke and Paine. While Burke’s view of Christianity tended toward civil religion, on a number of points his thought aligns admirably with Christian thought, namely his emphasis on the need to reckon with the giveness of government instead of trying to probe its origins (think: Romans 13), the fact that nature and convention are not to be pitted against each other (think: God created a world with creational norms but also commanded humans to exercise dominion in harmony with those norms), and the importance of family to society. See full review.

Austen, Jane. Mansfield Park.

Along with Sense and Sensibility,this is now one of my favorite Austen novels. It raises moral questions well worth long meditation.

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.