Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Top Books Finished in 2022

by

Aside from books on covenant theology (reviewed on this site throughout the year), and works on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and books on false religions and philosophies (see below), the following are the ten best books I read in 2022.

Top Ten Books

Goodwin, Thomas. The Works of Thomas Goodwin. Volume 3. Edinburgh: Nichol, 1861.

Volume three of Goodwin’s works contains some particularly edifying and valuable works. The Return of Prayers is meditation on the duty of Christians to give attention to the answers to their prayers. A Child of Light Walking in Darkness addresses the Christian who is experiencing the withdrawal of God’s felt presence. In other words, this is a helpful work on Christian assurance of salvation. The Trial of a Christian’s Growth is a treatise on sanctification and mortification of sin drawn from the parable of the vine and the branches. The Vanity of Thoughts Discovered, with Their Danger and Cure encourages Christians to discipline their minds so that they do not think unprofitable and/or defiling thoughts.

The volume opens with An Exposition of Revelation. Goodwin operates in the historicist mode common in his time. His exposition does not have enduring value and is of interest only to those interested in the history of interpretation. For a summary of the Exposition, see this post: Three Post-Reformation Revelation Commentaries.

McKenzie, Robert Tracy. We the Fallen People: The Founders and the Future of American Democracy. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2021.

McKenzie is doing a number of things in this book. He is modeling good historiography from by a Christian historian. He provides a careful discussion of how the American founders viewed original sin. He then traces how an increasingly democratic age and an increasingly positive view of human nature reinforced one another. He provides a helpful history of the main events of the Jacksonian era in light of the these transformations. Finally, he makes wise applications to our own democracy in light of the theology and history discussed.

Crowe, Brandon D. Why Did Jesus Live a Perfect Life? The Necessity of Christ’s Obedience for Our Salvation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2021.

This is an excellent, accessible, exegetical and theological defense of the active obedience of Christ. In this book Crowe deals with the law’s requirement for perfect obedience. His version of covenant theology complicates his exegesis at points, but he is headed in the right direction. I highly commend this book.

Fanning, Buist M. Revelation. Edited by Clinton E. Arnold. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020.

This may be the best recent commentary on Revelation. For a review see here.

Gerhard, Johann. On the Law. Theological Commonplaces. Saint Louis: Concordia, 2015.

A Lutheran scholastic view of the law. I found it helpful, and I am sympathetic to the Lutheran approach to the law, with some modifications brought over from the Reformed view.

Tweeddale, John W. John Owen and Hebrews: The Foundation of Biblical Interpretation. New York: T&T Clark, 2019.

Tweeddale’s published doctoral dissertation includes helpful background about the writing of Owen’s Hebrews commentary. More significant however are the careful treatments of how Owen saw the OT and NT relate and the place of the in relation to the new covenant. This is significant because Owen departed from many of the covenant theologians of his day. In my view Owen’s views were better grounded in sound exegesis. Highly commended as a resource into this part of Owen’s thought.

Wells, David. No Place for Truth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Wells persuasively argues that it is not abstract ideas which shape people’s thinking (ideas have consequences) but the inculturation of ideas that shape people’s thinking. This is a helpful corrective to a pure intellectual history.

Given my work at BJU Press, I found some of the most helpful material to be on the democratization of American culture and how that has fostered both problematic individualism and problematic communities.

Adams, Isaac. Talking about Race: Gospel Hope for Hard Conversations. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2022.

Chapters 7-9 of this book are particularly Bible saturated and provide a great deal of biblical wisdom for this fraught topic. One aspect of this book that I greatly appreciated was its recognition that no technique can solve our racial divisions. Instead, Adams directs readers attention to dependence upon God in prayer and to relating biblical teaching on sanctification to this topic.

Jacobs, Alan. Breaking Bread with the Dead. Penguin, 2020.

Jacobs makes a case for reading past authors with whom we disagree. As typical for Jacobs the argument is supported by well-chosen literary examples and careful reflection.

Whitney, Donald S. Praying the Bible. Wheaton: Crossway, 2015.

The most valuable benefit of this book for me was Whitney’s schedule for praying through the psalms.

Three Notable Articles

Webster, John. “Sins of Speech.” God without Measure: Working Papers in Christian Theology: Virtue and Intellect. Vol. II. New York: T&T Clark, 2016.

This is a careful theological essay on the ethics of speech. Webster begins with the theological foundations in God and creation for virtuous speech, relates human nature to virtuous speech, describes how sin disorders speech, and then looks at how speech can be mortified and vivified for the regenerate person. I found the essay spiritually warm, and it had the effect of arousing desire for more God-honoring speech in my own life.

Jonathan M. Cheek, “Bruising, Crushing, or Striking: The Translation of שׁוף and the Promise of Victory in Genesis 3:15,” Journal of Biblical Theology and Worldview 2, no. 1 (Fall 2021).

This is a helpful investigation of the meaning of שׁוף. Cheek argues that “bruise” is an anachronistic translation that no longer communicates what it died in the seventeenth century. He finds “crush” to be an adequate interpretation of what the seed of the woman does to the serpent’s head (cf. Rom. 16:20), but he prefers “strike” as less interpretive and more fitting to describe both what the serpent does and what happens to the serpent. He finds this sense supported in the other passages where שׁוף is used: Job 9:7 and Psalm 139:11. Cheek acknowledges that the strike of the serpent on a heel can be fatal if the serpent is poisonous, and he grants that the passage could point to the death of the Messiah as a key component of the victory of the Messiah over the serpent. Though this would be cryptic to original readers, the unfolding of Scripture would clarify this. Cheek does maintain that in context Genesis 3:15 does give the reader an expectation of victory over the serpent.

Craig Blaising, “A Critique of Gentry and Wellum’s Kingdom through Covenant: A Hermeneutical-Theological Response,” Master’s Seminary Journal 26.1 (2015): 111-27.

This is an excellent review of Kingdom through Covenant. Blaising praises the attempt at a canonical reading of the covenants and of biblical theology that is not superficial but which captures deep connections. Blaising’s overall critique is that KtC does not pay enough attention to certain “crucial textual details” which, if attended to, would provide for a more holistic biblical theology.

More specifically, Blaising critiques the continuity/discontinuity framing for evaluating biblical theological systems. Blaising suggests, “It would be better to avoid these abstractions and refocus the issue on plot development and resolution.” The better system will account for how the biblical narrative develops “as a coherent narrative” and how it brings all the elements of its plot to a resolution.

Second, Blaising critiques KtC’s understanding of typology. 1. He notes that not all types are directly Christological nor escalatory. 2. He demurs from the claim that types “establish” God’s plan, arguing that the plan is established in the narrative and framed in covenant promises. He is wary of typology when used to “contravene, suppress, or subvert the meaning of explicit covenant promise, and even more so when the NT explicitly repeats and reaffirms the same promise as declared in the covenants of the OT.” 3. He denies that the covenants prior to the new covenant are types of the new covenant, especially when the antitypical nature of the new covenant is appealed to as justifying a reinterpretation of those covenants’ promises.

Blaising instead calls for an understanding of the nature of the speech act of a covenant promise and the commitment God makes when he swears to covenant promises. Blaising also calls for a “holistic anthropology” that recognizes that the scriptural vision for humanity into the eternal state is multinational. Third, Blaising calls for a holistic new creation eschatology that recognizes the particular land promised to Israel is a part of the whole, renovated earth. The whole does not replace the part; the part is necessarily a part of the whole. Fourth, Blaising calls for a Christology that does not reduce all fulfillment to the Person of Christ but which recognizes variegated richness of the realm Christ inherits. Finally, Blaising argues that the ecclesiological payoff that progressive covenantalists are seeking―a regenerate new covenant community―is to be had in progressive dispensationalism without losing the fullness and complexity of the biblical narrative.

Top Ten Books on Philosophy and Religion Finished in 2022

Chirico, Leonardo. Same Words, Different Worlds: Do Roman Catholics and Evangelicals Believe the Same Gospel? London: Inter-Varsity, 2021.

This is a superb work that does an excellent job of describing Roman Catholic beliefs and how they differ from orthodox Protestant theology. Chirico understands that Roman Catholicism is a system and that individual teachings must be understood in light of the system. As a result, apparent agreement between Roman Catholic and Protestant theology is just that—apparent. I also read De Chirico’s A Christian’s Pocket Guide to Papacy (Christian Focus, 2015) and A Christian’s Pocket Guide to Mary (Christian Focus, 2017) and Gregg Allison’s 40 Questions about Roman Catholicism.

Trueman, Carl. The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020.

This book is as good as everybody says it is. Well worth reading.

Snead, O. Carter. What It Means to Be Human: The Case for the Body in Public Bioethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2020.

Carl Trueman put the phrase “expressive individualism” into evangelicals’ lexicon with regards to LGBT issues. Carter Snead shows that expressive individualism also undergirds arguments regarding abortion and other issues of bioethics. 

Cooper, John W. Panentheism—the Other God of the Philosophers: From Plato to the Present. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.

This is a historical and theological survey of the concept of Panentheism. It does an excellent job of describing the variety of views that fall under that label and how the concept developed in history.

Watkin, Christopher. Jacques Derrida. Great Thinkers. P&R, 2017.

Watkin, Christopher. Michel Foucault. Great Thinkers. P&R, 2018.

Watkin, Christopher. Gilles Deleuze. Great Thinkers. P&R, 2020.

I found Watkin’s books on these French postmodern thinkers to be helpful in understanding their thought. He did a good job of accurately describing these difficult thinkers in an accessible but accurate manner.

Stevens, Anthony. Jung: A Very Short Introduction. OUP, 1994.

This book reveals the great influence of Jung on contemporary thinking. Though the author is secular and sympathetic to Jung, it is hard to read without wondering if Jung was engaged in occult practices that put him in touch with the demonic.

Bennett, Matthew Aaron. 40 Questions about Islam. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2020.

This is a helpful introduction to Muslim beliefs and practices.

McGuckin, John Anthony. The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008.

McGuckin is an Orthodox theologian, and this book does a good job of describing its history, doctrine, and practice from an Orthodox perspective.

Resources on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy

by

For 2022 I focused my personal Bible reading on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. I read a shorter commentary on these books, the notes in the NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible, and a few other resources.

Leviticus

Richard Averbeck contributed excellent notes for the NIV BTSB on Leviticus. I also read his articles in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch and in NIDOTTE on the sacrificial system and the key words related to it. I also read his article “Reading the Ritual Law of Leviticus Theologically” in Interpreting the Old Testament Theologically. Averbeck is slated to write the Leviticus volume in the EEC series, and based on these articles, I expect to be especially helpful on the ritual elements of the book.

For the commentary I chose Jay Sklar‘s entry in the Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series and found it to be excellent. He was less helpful than Averbeck on the opening section of the book, which discusses sacrifices, but I found him full of insight in his comments on the laws in the latter part of the book. I found that he anticipated the questions that I had about these laws and answered them with clarity and brevity. He has a fuller commentary on Leviticus coming out this spring in the ZECOT series.

I also read Michael L. Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord: A Biblical Theology of Leviticus. This was one of the best books I read all year, and it is one of the best entries in the New Studies in Biblical Theology series. It is subtitled “A Biblical Theology of Leviticus,” but it is more than that. It locates Leviticus within the structure of the Pentateuch, and thus discusses the structure of the Pentateuch. Morales also traces the theme of God’s presence through Genesis and Exodus. Morales is also full of insight on how this theme and others extend through the rest of the canon. And that is all in addition to his insightful theological comments on the book of Leviticus.

This is a book in which even the places where I think Morales is wrong were helpful in stimulating my thought. For instance, Morales argues for a structure of the creation week account that highlights days four and seven and which minimizes day six. From this structure he emphasizes the theme of God’s presence with his people in festivals and Sabbaths.

Morales is correct to highlight the importance of the seventh day, but I am not convinced of his Days 1, 4, 7 palistrophe, with day 4 setting up the times for cultic festivals. מוֹעֵד can refer to cultic festivals, but it is a much broader word than that. In a creation Psalm (104:19) it is clearly contrasted with the normal order of day and night and the seasons.

I also remain skeptical of readings which read cultic material back into Genesis 1 and 2. It is more plausible that Genesis 1 and 2 are about the normal creation order rather than about the cult of the Mosaic covenant. Connections between creation and cult are due to the cult looking back to what was lost in creation because of the Fall and to it looking forward to the restoration of creation.

I further doubt that the rule of the sun and moon over the day and the night is a rule that is placed over the rule of man. This would place parts of the creation over man, the image bearer of God. Different terminology is used, suggesting that distinct kinds of rule are in view (the terms used of man indicate that he is to continue to shape the world that God has made; they are not static terms).

The argument that “word allotment” is not sufficient to demonstrate the significance of day six is true in the abstract, but in this case the narrative slows down with the creation of man and shifts into poetry at some points. Thus, the argument is not merely that there are more words given to day six. The argument is that the narrative pace shifts to place special emphasis on the creation of man in God’s image and on the dominion blessing.

In addition, the dominion blessing is the fountainhead for the blessing, seed, land themes that are central to Genesis and at the heart of all of the covenants. These verses are also the foundation for the kingdom of God theme, which is central to the Bible’s storyline and to the gospel.

Finally, to say that the primary blessing of the imago dei is to have fellowship with God is, without minimizing the importance of that blessing, not actually what the text says. Grammatically, the blessing of the imago dei is tied to the blessing of dominion over the earth. Further, the idea that the seventh day is about the presence of God and fellowship with God is not actually found in Genesis 2:1-3. Humans are not mentioned in those verses nor is the theme of presence/fellowship.

I agree that the presence of God theme is one of the central themes of Scripture. Exodus 33 makes clear that to receive the seed and land blessings apart from God’s presence is no blessing at all. But the presence of God theme is assumed rather than explicit in Genesis 1 and 2.

A better way forward is to bring together the imago dei/creation blessing with the seventh day. I wonder if a case could be made that God is setting a telos for man in the seventh day. God blessed mankind with rule over the earth, which meant that he was to extend the Garden to cover the world, as it were (along with other cultural developments). But at a certain point man would complete this work and enter into God’s rest.

I further wonder if under the Second Adam this task will be completed in the Millennium. Man can then enter the rest of the new earth. Humans will continue to reign under Christ, but it will not be a reign of subduing and gaining dominion.

Other works on Leviticus: Other works on Leviticus that I’ve found helpful are Wenham (NICOT), Kiuchi (AOTC), Hartley (WBC), Rooker (NAC), Currid (EPSC), Ross, Holiness to the Lord. I almost chose Wenham as my commentary for Leviticus this year, but I opted for something briefer. Wenham, however, is hard to surpass for insight. I’ve also found Kiuchi helpful on numerous occasions. I recall his comments on Leviticus 18:5 being especially helpful. Hartley has the most detailed treatment of the Hebrew (though Kiuchi also deals with Hebrew technicalities), but I too often find him operating with critical assumptions. Rook is good, but thinner than the others. I’ve benefited from Currid’s commentaries on the Pentateuch, especially those on Exodus and Genesis. I’ve only recently acquired his Leviticus volume; I expect it to be good. Ross spans the gap between exegesis and exposition and is regularly helpful.

Numbers

For Numbers I chose Gordon Wenham‘s entry in the Tyndale series. It is an excellent, brief commentary. Though an older entry (1981), I still think it is an excellent entry point into the book.

I didn’t think that Jay Sklar‘s notes on Numbers in the NIV BTSB rose to the level of some of the other contributors. I didn’t feel as though he was orienting me to the structure and flow of the book the way many other contributors did. Instead, too many of the notes seemed to be of the one-off variety common in other study Bibles.

Other works on Numbers: Other works on Numbers that I’ve found helpful are Ashely (NICOT), Allen (EBC), Harrison (WEC), Cole (NAC), and Currid (EPSC). I don’t think that I’ve read anything by Ashley other than this commentary, but I’ve regularly been helped by his comments. Harrison also gives detailed help with the Hebrew. In addition to these, I’ve found Roy Gane (NIVAC) helpful on the numbers in Numbers (though I’ve not read other parts of his commentary) and Stubbs (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible) helpful on the structure of the book.

Deuteronomy

Stephen Dempster contributed helpful notes to the NIV BTSB. I also read J. Gary Millar‘s contribution to the New Studies in Biblical Theology series, Now Choose Life: Theology and Ethics in Deuteronomy. I found this book most helpful in outlining the structure of Deuteronomy. It also provides a helpful, high level commentary on the whole book. This would be a good place to start a study of Deuteronomy. Millar is slated to write the Deuteronomy commentary in the Christian Standard Commentary series.

I chose Daniel Block‘s work in the NIV Application Commentary series as my commentary for Deuteronomy. Based on my experience with Block’s commentaries on Judges, Ruth, and Ezekiel, I expected to be in basic agreement with Block throughout. However, I found myself disagreeing with Block’s exegesis at key points. For instance, Block takes the “fathers” in Dt 4:31 to be the exodus generation and the covenant to be the Sinai covenant rather than taking the “fathers” to be the patriarchs and the covenant to be the Abrahamic. The latter is more likely. In verse 37 the “fathers” are distinct from the “you” that Yhwh brought out of Egypt. Motivating Block’s interpretation, in part, is his belief that the Abrahamic, Israelite, and new covenants are all part of the same covenant. A result of this framework is the blurring of distinctions between the unilateral nature of the Abrahamic and new covenants and the bilateral nature of the Mosaic covenant. Disagreements notwithstanding, the commentary is a helpful contribution.

Block has also compiled three books of essays on Deuteronomy:  How I Love Your Torah, O LORD!: Studies in the Book of Deuteronomy, followed by The Gospel according to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of Deuteronomy, and concluding with The Triumph of Grace: Literary and Theological Studies in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Themes. These studies were always rigorously argued and thought-provoking, even though I didn’t always agree with Block.

In “Reading the Decalogue Right to Left,” among some insightful observations about the Decalogue, Block also seems to relativize its status. In addition, he argues for the numbering the commands according to the Catholic and Lutheran tradition rather than with the Reformed tradition. His arguments are worth reading, though I did not find them persuasive in the end.

In “How Many Is God?” Block argues that the Shema is not “a great monotheistic confession,” noting “Moses had made that point in 4:35, 39. Instead, he argues for the translation, “YHWH our God! YHWH alone!” The point, then, is that Yhwh is Israel’s only God. I have to give more thought to this.

In “A Prophet Like Moses: Another Look at Deuteronomy 18:9-22” Block argues that this passage is not Messianic but that it predicted a series of prophets that followed Moses; indeed, in “Hearing Galatians with Moses: An Examination of Paul as a Second and Seconding Moses,” Block argues that Paul stands in this line of prophets like Moses. Again, I am not entirely convinced, but Block’s arguments are to be reckoned with, and I’ve marked them down for further study.

His essay, “Convenance,” spells out in greater detail his theology of the biblical covenants. Here he argues in greater detail for the linking of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and new covenants. He recognizes that his formulation runs into some difficulties in Hebrews, and he attempts to address those problems in this essay (unsuccessfully, in my estimation).

I found myself in greater agreement with other articles. For instance, “The Fear of YHWH: The Theological Tie that Binds Deuteronomy and Proverbs” contains an excellent study of the semantic range of ירא as well as an insightful linking of Deuteronomy and Proverbs in connection with this theme.

In the essay, “All Israel Will Be Saved: An Examination of Moses’ Eschatological Vision in Deuteronomy, ” Block surveys Deuteronomy’s outline of Israel’s history—both that which precedes Deuteronomy and that which Deuteronomy predicts will follow. Block then turns to examine in detail three key eschatological passages: Deuteronomy 4:29-31; 30:1-10; and chapter 32. He then insightfully links these passages with Romans 9-11, arguing that Paul’s conclusion “all Israel will be saved” has roots in Deuteronomy’s eschatological vision. Block also argues in “Covenance” that although there is some spiritualizing of Israel in the NT (e.g., Paul calling the church “the temple of the living God”),

we should not interpret this spiritualizing and universalizing move to mean that the ethnic/national nature of the covenant was either forgotten or superseded…. On the contrary, in Rom 9-11 Paul emphatically declared that while Gentile believers have been grafted into the covenant community, a future for physical Israel remains.

He concludes,

Indeed, in fulfillment of Deut 30:1-10 and Jer 31:31-37, with great excitement he anticipates the day when the ideals of the original covenant will be finally realized—all Israel will be saved (Rom 11:25-32). I resist speculating under what circumstances this will transpire—whether in a millennial context or in the new heavens and the new earth, but it is difficult to imagine Moses and the prophets who followed in his train (like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel) being happy with contemporary supersessionists, for whom God’s eternal commitments evaporate into irrelevance.

There were also a number of essays that I was not able to read but which look interesting: “Preaching Old Testament Law to New Testament Christians,” “All Creatures Great and Small: Recovering a Deuteronomic Theology of Animals,” “Other Religions in Old Testament Theology,” “‘A Place for My Name’: Horeb and Zion in the Mosaic Vision of Israelite Worship,” “‘O Day of Rest and Gladness’: Rediscovering the Gift of Sabbath,” “The Patricentric Vision of Family Order in Deuteronomy.” I found the essays in Triumph of Grace to be the most interesting and helpful.

Other Resources on Deuteronomy: I’ve yet to find a Deuteronomy commentary that I really love. I’ve found Edward Woods’s entry in the Tyndale series uniformly helpful when I’ve consulted it, and I wondered in the course of this year if I should have chosen it rather than Block for my Deuteronomy commentary this year. I’ve also found Christopher Wright’s contribution in the NIBC series (now Understanding the Bible) to be uniformly insightful. My main complaint with these two commentaries is that they are too brief. Allan Harman’s contribution to the Focus on the Bible series is another brief but insightful entry. For a fuller treatment, including of the Hebrew, I’ve used and benefited from McConville’s entry in the Apollos OT series. Note also his theology Grace in the End. However, I’d like someone a bit more conservative than McConville. Eugene Merrill in the NAC volume on Deuteronomy and Grisanti in the revised EBC fit the bill, and I’ve found help in both. However, I’ve also found them a bit too thin. The same can be said for Cragie in NICOT: good material, but thin for what the series has become. Bill Arnold has just come out with the first of a two-volume commentary on Deuteronomy (to replace Cragie in NICOT). Based on his discussion of authorship, I’m not sure it fits the “conservative” desiderata. Adolph Harstad’s contribution to the Concordia Commentary series may fit the bill: this series has been consistently conservative and at over 1,000 pages that include detailed treatments of the Hebrew text, this commentary is not thin. I also see that Jason DeRouchie is slated to write on Deuteronomy in the forthcoming Pillar Old Testament Commentary series, and I have high hopes for his contribution.

Legacy Standard Bible and the translation “slave”

by

I’ve been using the Legacy Standard Bible in various settings for several months, and there are several translation choices that I appreciate (e.g., the use of Yahweh in the Old Testament,” altering the NASB’s “descendants” to “seed”).

However, I think the decision to render δοῦλος universally as “slave” is misguided. The translation of עֶבֶד seems to have been more careful, though there are some instances in which “slave” would not be my preferred translation.

In the Greek world of Paul, this word and its cognate verbs were commonly used of slaves and their service, and Paul occasionally used it this way (Gal 3:28; 4:7, 22, 23, 30, 31). However, given the conceptual and lexical legacy of the Hebrew Bible and the inscriptional use of the Semitic root ע-ב-ד in the ancient Near East, it is misleading to render the word δοῦλος as ‘bond-slave’ or ‘bond-servant’ when Paul applies it to himself [Note 30: “NAS renders the word ‘bond-servant’ in Luke 2:29; Lom 1:1; Gal 1:10; Phil 2:7; Col 1:7; 4:7; 2 Tim 2:24; Titus 1:1; Jas 1:1; 2 Pet 1:1; Jude 1:1; Rev 1:1; 15:4]. In royal circles עֶבֶד הַמֶּלֶךְ, ‘servant of the king,’ was an honorific title designating persons equivalent to cabinet ministers in modern governments (2 Sam 18:29; 2 Kgs 22:12 [//2 Chr 34:2]’ 25:8). The expression occurs often in the Hebrew Bible [Note 31: “the word עֶבֶד occurs frequently in construct with the names of specific kings: e.g., Saul (1 Sam 29:3); Solomon (1 Kgs 11:26; 2 Chr 13:6); the king of Babylon (2 Kgs 25:8). Note also the personal name עֶֽבֶד־מֶלֶךְ in Jer 38:7-13; 39:15-18.”], but its courtly significance is confirmed by the plethora of ancient seals from Israel and its environs bearing epithets like עֶבֶד הַמֶּלֶךְ, or more specifically, ‘servant of RN,’ where RN represents a royal name. Even more impressive is a recently discovered Anatolian monument erected by a ‘servant of the king.’ No slave would have had the resources, or the Chutzpah to erect a monument like this.”

Daniel I. Block, “Hearing Galatians with Moses: An Examination of Paul as a Second and Seconding Moses,” in The Triumph of Grace: Literary and Theological Studies in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Themes (Eugene Oregon: Cascade, 2017), 379, second brackets original.

Summary Charts from Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views

by

The conclusion to Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views includes several helpful tables which compare and contrast the four views on specific issues. I’ve added a column reflecting my own views on those topics. When possible I’ve used the wording from one or more of the preceding columns to indicate agreement. (Note: to see my column, you’ll probably need to scroll the chart; see the scroll bar at the bottom of each chart.)

Table C.1. Systems of Theology on Hermeneutics and the Structure of the Bible

 Covenant Theology (Horton)Progressive Covenantalism (Wellum)Progressive Dispensationalism (Bock)Traditional Dispensationalism (Snoeberger)Collins
Hermeneutical Framework and/or PrinciplesLaw/gospel contrast (wrath, curse, condemnation versus grace, blessing, promise); covenant of works and covenant of grace as the outworking of the covenant of redemption.God’s one plan is developed through the plurality of covenants (creation, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, new) across the storyline of Scripture; three horizons of Scripture are key: textual, epochal, and canonical.Emphasis on three key covenants of promise (Abrahamic, Davidic, and new); complementary hermeneutic (both/and reading) as the original meaning can be expanded as it is developed in the NT, but the original sense is not lost.Dispensations and arrangements with emphasis on the covenants to and for Israel (including the new covenant); originalist hermeneutic—strict intentionality with binding authority to the author’s intention, meaning and referents are fixed.God’s one plan is developed through the plurality of covenants (creation [law], Noahic [promise], Abrahamic [promise], Mosaic [law], Davidic [promise], new [promise]) across the storyline of Scripture; three horizons of Scripture are key: textual, epochal, and canonical. complementary hermeneutic (both/and reading) as the original meaning can be expanded as it is developed in the NT, but the original sense is not lost.
Hermeneutical PriorityNT, for it is the divinely inspired interpretation of the OT.NT, later texts in progressive revelation bring more clarity and understanding; yet, grammatical-historical-canonical method focuses on covenants in terms of what precedes and follows each one.Neither, a complementary hermeneutic allows each text in each testament to say what they say without nullifying what was originally communicated.OT, Christ and NT authors honor the OT and bring NT faith, practice, and mission in conformity to it.Neither, a complementary hermeneutic allows each text in each testament to say what they say without nullifying what was originally communicated. Later texts in progressive revelation bring more clarity and understanding; yet, grammatical-historical-canonical method focuses on covenants in terms of what precedes and follows each one.

Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, “Conclusion,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2022), 252, with Collins column added to reflect my own views.

Table C.2. Systems of Theology on the Covenants

 Covenant Theology (Horton)Progressive Covenantalism (Wellum)Progressive Dispensationalism (Bock)Traditional Dispensationalism (Snoeberger)Collins
Is there a Covenant in Gen 1‑3?Yes, the covenant of works with a commandment of life based on law (“Do this and you shall live; disobey and you will surely die”), made with Adam as the covenant head in a state of nature prior to grace.Covenant of creation—Adam is federal head, image, son, and in a Lord/vassal relationship; foundational for all future covenants as Adam’s role as priest-king and image-son is unpacked and the typological structures are tied to the creation covenant.No covenant but a mandate. Covenants are about restoration and the delivering work of God. The idea of creation covenant has no role in progressive dispensationalism.Not a formal covenant, but an Edenic “arrangement” with Adam and Eve involving civil and redemptive spheres.Yes, the covenant of creation, a covenant or works (“Do this and you shall live; Disobey and you will surely die”), made with Adam as the covenant head, image, son, and in a Lord/vassal relationship; Foundational for all future covenants.
Categorization of the CovenantsConditional (suzerain vassal or bilateral) and unconditional (promissory) covenants.All covenants have both unilateral and bilateral aspects (conditional and unconditional elements) even as an accent may be on the bilateral or unilateral aspects (e.g. the Mosaic covenant is predominantly bilateral, but God unilaterally keeps his promises).There are covenants of promise (Abrahamic, Davidic, new covenants), and covenants that are other: Mosaic covenant is promise and law; Noahic covenant is not promissory but features God’s commitment to preserve the creation.Covenants are unilateral or promissory or royal grant (Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic) or bilateral, suzerain vassal (Mosaic and new covenants). Note: God’s expectations are communicated through “arrangements” that may or may not be governed by covenants.Conditional/bilateral (Adamic, Mosaic) and unconditional, unilateral, promissory (Noahic, Abraham, Davidic, New); all post-fall covenants are graciously established, and even the unconditional covenants come with expectations for obedience.
Covenants Already Fulfilled in ChristAllAll covenants (even as creation and Noahic structures continue in this age) are fulfilled in Christ and the new covenant.Covenants of promise (Abrahamic, Davidic, new) have initial realization in Christ. The Mosaic covenant has been completely fulfilled through the work of Christ and the indwelling Spirit.Abrahamic covenant could be considered “partially” fulfilled but generally is not. Mosaic covenant is fully fulfilled in Christ. The church has no legal relationship to the new covenant and it will be fulfilled to national Israel in the future.The Mosaic covenant has been completely fulfilled through the work of Christ. The covenants of promise (Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, and new) have initial realization in Christ and the new covenant.
Covenants to Be FulfilledNoneNoneThe covenant promises to Israel remain (especially the Abrahamic covenant) and will be realized in the future.The Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new covenants are distinctly Israelite and the terms must be fulfilled by ethnic Israel. Fulfillment (except the Mosaic covenant) will occur in the future along with the eternal benefits to national Israel.All covenants are fulfilled or have begun to be fulfilled, but the Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants all have promises that await the second advent for their ultimate fulfillment.

Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, “Conclusion,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2022), 253–254, with Collins column added to reflect my own views.

Table C.3. Systems of Theology on Various Ecclesiological/Eschatological Issues

 Covenant Theology (Horton)Progressive Covenantalism (Wellum)Progressive Dispensationalism (Bock)Traditional Dispensationalism (Snoeberger)Collins
Israel/Church RelationshipThe church is the Israel of God (Gal 6:16), the descendants of Abraham are those who believe and so the true Israel are the people of Christ. Israel is not superseded as Rom 9–11 holds out hope of a future salvation of Jews. It is the nation of Israel that is a parenthesis; the church from Eden onward are those in the body whose head is Christ.The church is part of the one people of God and yet is covenantally new. The church is God’s new creation and remains forever, consisting of Jews and Gentiles together. The church receives all of God’s promises through Jesus Christ. Rom 9–11 could speak of a mass gathering of Jews into the church at the return of Christ.There is unity as Jews and Gentiles are made one and are saved in Christ, but the expansion of the Abrahamic promises does not lose what was originally promised for the people of Israel. Israel is not transformed into another entity even if nations are added to the people of God. There is one people of God, unity in salvation, but diversity in reconciliation as Israel will be among the nations.The church is an intercalation parenthetical to God’s covenants with Israel. Israel and the church remain distinct forever.Israel is a nation, and (along with the Gentile nations) will persist for all eternity. The church is a multinational institution comprised of people from every nation. There is one people of God, unity in salvation, but diversity in reconciliation as Israel will be among the nations.
Future Restoration for National Israel?No, for example James’s citation of Amos 9:15 in Acts 15:13–21 shows that the promise of restoration is fulfilled in Christ. The people of God are redefined around Jesus. The Mosaic/Sinai covenant is made obsolete and there is no revival or renewal of it. Jesus is the fulfillment of the temple and the sacrificial system and nothing is then left for Israel as a nation now or in the future.No, Christ fulfills the OT covenants as all the promises, instruction, and typological patterns culminate in him. Further, Israel’s restoration begins at Pentecost, and the OT restoration promises for Israel are applied to the church through ChristYes, the national hope of Israel remains and will occur in the future and through the new heavens and earth. The role of national, territorial Israel is promised and is complementary to the blessing extended to all who believe in Christ. National Israel will live in shalom with the nations in the new creation.Yes, after the church age (when all the Gentiles enter), God returns his attention to Israel with Christ returning after the tribulation and thus fulfilling the Abrahamic and new covenants with the mass conversion of every Israelite. Israel will remain distinct from the nations in the eternal state.Yes, the national hope of Israel remains and will occur in the future and through the new heavens and earth. The role of national, territorial Israel is promised and is complementary to the blessing extended to all who believe in Christ. National Israel will live in shalom with the nations in the new creation.
Israel and the Promised LandNo, the promise was fulfilled when God brought Israel in the land. The Mosaic/Sinai covenant took over for the nation of Israel to remain in the land. Israel and the land point and lead to God’s worldwide family inheriting the whole earth through Christ.No, in the context of Genesis, the land points back to creation and an expansion beyond the Promised Land to include the whole earth. The land is typological and is fulfilled in Christ already in his inauguration of the new creation and finally in the consummated new heavens and earth.Yes, even if the NT adds or augments the original promise of land, the language of the original OT text stands.Yes, the Abrahamic covenant is left unfulfilled unless Abraham’s physical descendants (national Israel) occupy the Promised Land forever.Yes, for even though the Promised Land conquered by Israel under the Mosaic covenant was typological of the new creation, and even though the land promise is extended to the Gentiles and finally consummated in the new earth, Israel will receive the land God promised her.
Circumcision and BaptismPaedobaptism—the Abrahamic covenant continues with respect to the promises of worldwide family and inheritance in Christ. Circumcision was a sign and seal of Abraham’s faith and baptism welcomes recipients into the covenant of grace. The covenant promises are to believers and their children as the household texts in the NT indicate. The warning passages of Hebrews show that members of the visible church can turn away.Credobaptism—the arrival of Christ and the new covenant brings changes to the structure and nature of the people of God such that all in the new covenant community receive the Spirit and forgiveness of sin, and all know God savingly unlike OT Israel. The church by nature consists of those circumcised in heart and in faith union with Christ.Baptism is distinct from the practice of circumcision and represents Spirit baptism, evidencing a new era and new dispensation. Baptism depicts union with Christ and the new life of the Spirit indwelling believers, pointing to circumcision of the heart.Baptism is restricted in the NT to the regenerate (believers only).Credobaptism—the arrival of Christ and the new covenant brings changes to the structure and nature of the people of God such that all in the new covenant community receive the Spirit and forgiveness of sin, and all know God savingly unlike OT Israel. The church by nature consists of those circumcised in heart and in faith union with Christ.

Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, “Conclusion,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2022), 255–256, with Collins column added to reflect my own views.

Mark Snoeberger, “Traditional Dispensationalism,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views—Agreements and Disagreements

by

Mark Snoeberger contributed a spirited and competent defense of the traditional dispensational position.

I agree with Snoeberger on a number of points:

1. I agree with Snoeberger’s dispensing with the term “literal hermeneutics” since “literal” has multiple senses, and these are often conflated by both critics and adherents alike. The term “originalist” is a good substitution.

2. I agree that “clearly stated promises, specific referents thereof, or words with plainly established meanings cannot change with the passing of time” (154-55).

3. I agree that God will fulfill his promises to Abraham and his redeemed physical seed as promised (156).

4. I agree that the term Israel refers to Jacob as an individual, to the Israelite/Jewish ethnicity, to the civil nation of Israel, and to believing Israelites. I agree that Galatians 6:16 does not identify the church as the Israel of God (though I do not adopt the same interpretation of that verse as Snoeberger) (157).

5. I agree that in some cases (such as in the series of Davidic kings between David and Christ) there is a kind of “generic/serial fulfillment” (161-62). However, I would see this occurring in conjunction with typology rather than in opposition to it.

6. I agree with Snoeberger’s rejection of an overarching covenant of grace (163-64).

7. I agree that the Noahic covenant is “a unilateral, universal, promissory covenant” (168).

8. I agree that the Abrahamic covenant is “a unilateral, promissory grant ” (169).

9. I agree that the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled by Christ and is now no longer in force (170-71).

10. I agree that nations will still exist in the eternal state under the ultimate reign of God (178-79).

I disagree with Snoeberger on a number of points:

1. Snoeberger roots his defense of dispensationalism in a defense of the spirituality of the church (150, 165-66), however there are multiple versions of this doctrine, and some were used to shield the church from addressing moral issues that it ought to have condemned, such as slavery. Those using the concept should specify which version they are using and defend their view against the concern that the doctrine prevents the church from addressing current moral issues. I’m also puzzled by Snoeberger’s embrace of two kingdom theology given that he holds to a postponement view of the kingdom (164). Two kingdoms theology and traditional dispensationalism are incompatible.  I’m befuddled by the appeal to concepts developed by covenant theologians (spirituality of the church, two kingdoms theology) as key distinctives of dispensationalism.

2. The fundamental error of traditional dispensationalists is the failure to “base their insistence on originalist hermeneutics upon a discursive study of Scripture’s own use of itself” (154). This error is replete in traditional dispensational writers. They often begin by laying out their hermeneutic as if it is axiomatic and then insist that all passages conform to this hermeneutic without having first demonstrated the validity of their hermeneutic. Here Snoeberger explicitly affirms this approach. This approach violates the sufficiency of Scripture, since Scripture’s own self-interpretation should be the foundation for any biblical hermeneutic.

3. I disagree that progressive revelation is only about “details of ‘time and circumstance'” or revealing implications, analogies, or illustrations (154-55). Types cannot be reduced to “figures of speech” (157), and while typology involves analogy, it cannot be reduced to mere analogy (160). These seem to be expedients to save the system.

4. I do not agree that “implication” is better than typology with regard to the use of Psalm 16 in Acts 2, in the case of the use of Amos 9 in Acts 15, or in the use of Joel 2 in Acts 2 (161). I think Psalm 16 is likely a direct messianic prophecy. Regarding Acts 15, the inclusion of the Gentiles as Gentiles within the people of God is only possible due to a redemptive-historical shift, and that shift is the arrival of the Davidic king. Amos 9 has not been entirely fulfilled, but it has begun to be fulfilled—which is what James recognized. Snoeberger is also wrong to say that none of Joel 2’s prophecies were fulfilled at Pentecost. The Spirit was poured out. The strained interpretations of these texts demonstrate the implausibility of the traditional dispensational system.

6. While I think it is possible that NT writers at times borrow language from the OT scriptures simply because that is the language in which the NT writers were immersed, when I dig into a passage quoted by the NT, I’m usually impressed with how contextual the NT use of the Old is (162-63).

7. I would make clearer that apart from union with Christ, the Seed of Abraham, none of the physical seed of Abraham will ultimately enjoy the promise. Furthermore, the church is not called the seed of Abraham merely by analogy (156). Rather, Gentiles are the seed of Abraham by virtue of being in the Seed of Abraham (Gal 3). Furthermore, they are no longer strangers to the covenant of promise (Eph 2). The promises are extended to them as well in a way appropriate to them. This is even anticipated and hinted at in Genesis. To reduce this to analogy is to fail to adopt an originalist interpretation of Galatians 3 and Ephesians 2.

8. I don’t agree that the benefits promised in the Abrahamic, Davidic, or new covenants are directly given to Israel alone (168) (except insofar as all benefits, to Jew and Gentile, come through union with Christ) or that Galatians 3:15 or Romans 11:29 prevents Gentiles from being partakers of the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant (156). The Abrahamic covenant itself speaks of the future inclusion of Gentiles. The Old Testament also predicted that Gentiles would benefit from the Davidic covenant as the Messiah ruled over all nations. New Testament revelation explains how this inclusion takes place and what it entails. While the new covenant was promised to the house of Israel and the house of Judah, it was not actually cut until the cross. Ephesians 2 indicates that Christ through the cross brought Gentiles, who were strangers to the covenants of promise, into the condition of no longer being strangers and aliens. Now they are fellow citizens of Christ’s kingdom with Jewish believers—and thus beneficiaries of the covenant promises.

9. I disagree with the statement that that a focus on redemptive history ignores the unredeemed (163-64). The unredeemed are included in the Noahic covenant, and redemptive history also includes judgment.

10. I disagree that covenant theology is necessarily or uniformly “narrow,” “giving scant treatment to human civil structures, political and legal structures, advances in art, science, agriculture, etc.” (163-64). This is not true of the Dutch Reformed reformational theologians, for instance.

11. I disagree that a holistic approach needs to be pitted against a crucicentric approach (164-65). It is due to his cross work that Jesus says all authority has been given to him, and it is due to his cross-work that the Father has given him a name above every name. This would be more evident to TDs if they recognized that Jesus is currently reigning as the Davidic king over every aspect of creation as the result of his cross work.

12. I disagree that covenant theology is anthropocentric, and I disagree with Snoeberger’s seeming disconnect between eschatology and soteriology (163-64). Redemptive history is all about the restoration of God’s rule through his human vice regents. Thus, redemption and the rule of God are linked inseparably.

13. I disagree with Snoeberger’s denial of a covenant of works (166). (1) The term covenant need not be used for a covenant to be present. The elements of a covenant need to be. This is so for the covenant of works and in an analogical way for the covenant of redemption; it is not so for a unified covenant of grace. (2) Even if God’s activities are broader than redemption, this does not preclude a covenant of redemption. (3) Though the covenant of works does not hang on Hosea 6:7, I think that passage does support it. The question is not whether there are alternate interpretations, but which is the best.

14. I’d argue that the Noahic covenant is part of God’s redemptive plan and that even though church and state are two institutions, they are not two kingdoms. This would be more evident to Snoeberger if he recognized covenantal role of Gen. 1:28 and the way that all the subsequent covenants are restoring that mediatorial rule (166).

15. I disagree with Snoeberger’s denial that the authority given to Christ after his resurrection is Davidic, and I disagree with his assertion that Christ reigns right now only from his Father’s throne over all creation rather than from the Davidic throne (171-). Snoeberger has missed the fact that the kingdom theme is rooted in Genesis 1:28 and the role of ruling creation under God which was entrusted to mankind. The restoration of this rule was promised through the covenants to the seed of Abraham, the seed of Judah, the seed of David. When Christ received all authority after his ascension, this must pertain to has Davidic, human kingship since he never lacked (and never needed to be granted) divine sovereignty.

16. I disagree that the New Covenant is only for Israel and that it is a bilateral covenant. I also disagree with Snoeberger’s claim that the church has no covenant relationship with God (174-75, 177).

17. I disagree that circumcision has ceased at present because the church is a parenthetical administration (180–181).

Darrell Bock, “Progressive Dispensationalism,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views—Agreements and Disagreements

by

Bock contributed a well-argued essay for progressive dispensationalism.

I disagree with Bock on a number of points:

1. I disagree with Bock’s denial of a creation covenant; I think he creates a false dichotomy between legal and relational connections to God. I disagree with his denial of a covenant of works with Adam (and with his exegesis of Hos. 6:7). Bock misreads Genesis 1-2 and thus misses the covenantal elements in these chapters (134, 223, 226). Being fruitful and subduing the earth (Bock wrongly reduces this to managing the garden) are the blessings promised, not the command. What Bock calls a warning was the command not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When disobedience occurred, the blessing was cursed. These chapters include two parties, promised blessings, threatened curses, and stipulated obedience. These are the elements of a works covenant. 

2. I disagree with Bock’s marginalization of the Noahic covenant. Bock would have done better to have adopted Progressive Covenantalism’s vision of covenant development from creation covenant to new covenant in which the Noahic covenant plays an enteral part of the plan of redemption (135).

3. I agree with Wellum against Bock that “the covenants are successive” (228-29). I don’t think that continuing covenant curses or promises negate the successive nature of the covenants. While the curses of the Adamic covenant continue, that covenant as a means of salvation is defunct. The Noahic covenant does run concurrently with the other covenants. The Mosaic covenant was fulfilled by Christ’s life and death and is no longer in force. The promises of the Abrahamic covenant still continue (as do those of the Davidic covenant), but the sign of circumcision is no longer valid, and the covenant promises of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants have been taken up by the new covenant, which is the only covenant that believers are party to today.

4. If Bock is indeed saying that regeneration (and not simply the giving of the Spirit) only occurs under the new covenant, then I disagree with him (142). Old Testament saints also needed to be regenerated.

5. I think that Bock concedes too much on Galatians 6:16 (144–145). The best position is that the Israel of God refers to elect Israelites to whom God will show mercy (in distinction from the already redeemed Jew and Gentile who walk by Paul’s rule).

I agree with Bock on a number of points:

1. I agree with Bock that redemption involves not only individuals but also the variety of creational structures that exist in God’s world. I agree with Bock that the continued existence of nations in the new creation is important for the comprehensive redemption of all creational structures that Scripture promises and that sound theology requires (116, 122, 137).

2. I agree that the Abraham, Davidic, and new covenants are the “covenants of promise” and that the Gentiles are connected to these covenants in Christ (Eph. 2). (The Noahic covenant is also a promise covenant, but Gentiles have always been included in that covenant.) I agree that the Mosaic covenant is a law covenant distinct from the promise covenants and temporary in its duration (127, 134, 141).

3. I agree with Bock that fulfillment of the covenant promises in Christ and equality of the redeemed nations in receiving covenant blessings does not cancel out specific promises made to the nation of Israel. I agree that Israel typology is fulfilled in the church and that Jew and Gentile become one new man in Christ; I further agree that these truths do not cancel or redirect specific promises made to redeemed national Israel (115, 129).

4. I agree that “church is a different kind of entity from nations or ethnicities,” meaning that the one people of God does not cancel out the diversity of nationalities or ethnicities (231).

5. I agree with Bock that the specific promises made to Abraham and his physical seed are expanded, as the promises themselves indicated, to include the Gentiles without cancelling the specific promises to Abraham’s physical seed. Thus, I agree that redeemed Jews and Gentiles are one new man, the church; I agree that both Jew and Gentile will be heirs of the new creation; I agree that within this new creation the redeemed Jewish nations and redeemed Gentile nations will coexist in distinct lands in shalom. In other words, there will be a unified people of God that exist in a diversity of creational structures (including nations) for eternity (118, 122; 129-31, 131, 132-33, 138, 224-25, 229, 232).

6. I agree with Bock that promises are of such a nature that they need to be fulfilled as promised to those to whom they were promised while also agreeing that the promises can be expanded to include redeemed Gentiles (123, 124).

7. I agree with Bock that the OT priority of traditional dispensationalism leads to “strained readings of some NT texts,” and I agree that the reign of Christ as Davidic king commenced at the conclusion of the first advent (119-20, 135-36, 233-37).

8. I agree with Bock that though Progressive Covenantalism intends to maintain the original meaning of OT texts and sees the NT as simply providing the proper understanding of those texts, Progressive Covenantalists at times fail to provide for convincing readings of the details of OT texts and fail to account for the continued teaching of Jesus and the apostles regarding future national Israel (cf. Isa. 2:1-4; 19:23-25; Jer 31:31-35; Acts 1:6-7; Acts 3:18-21; 26:6-7) (120-22, 142-43, 144, 232).

9. I agree with Bock and Progressive Covenantalists that types often “develop along the textual, epochal, and canonical horizons of the biblical covenants.” I agree with Bock and Progressive Covenantalists that “typology always has an eschatological aspect that is described as an escalation of the earlier pattern” and that “the escalation may involve an annulment or fulfillment of an earlier type in Christ’s first advent, the church or in the eschaton still to come” (recognizing that this wording is Bock’s and that Wellum may want to drop the qualifiers “often” and “may” and that Wellum emphasizes escalation in Christ at the first advent). I agree with Bock’s concern that the Israel typology not “cancel out” Israel’s reception of the promises made to her (124-26, 227–228). However, I would nuance the claim here and note that it is not Israel per se or the land per se that is a type. Israel under the Mosaic covenant and the land after Joshua’s conquest and during Solomon’s reign are the types. In the nature of the case, these have passed away. But neither the nation Israel nor has the promised land passed away in fact or redemptive historical significance.

10. I agree that in the land typology, the land of Israel in the new creation is a part of the whole rather than something eliminated by the new earth being the antitype of the land typology (231).

11. I agree that Wellum’s definition of typology may be too constrained and formulaic and thus may not account for the diversity of typology found in Scripture (228).

12. I agree with Bock that Horton’s “claim of NT priority” in practice results nullifying certain promises of God and emptying certain texts (like the opening chapters of Hosea) of their profound promises of restoration to unfaithful Israel (222, 232-33). I agree with Bock, against Horton, that the land promise continued after the conquest by Joshua since the prophets continue to speak to the restoration of Israel to the land (225).

Stephen Wellum, “Progressive Covenantalism,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views—Agreements and Disagreements

by

Stephen Wellum’s essay is perhaps the best written in the book. Wellum’s essay is well-organized and generally clear in its argumentation. On many points I have long held the positions Wellum is arguing for, on some points I have learned from him, and on other points I think he needs to make some refinements, which is to be expected in a relatively new theological system.

 I agree with Wellum on a number of points.

1. I agree that the divine origin of Scripture results in “an overall unity and coherence,” and that this coherence includes an unfolding plan of God through a series of covenants (77) rather than making the individual covenants administrations of a covenant of grace (204-5).

2. I agree that since God used humans to write his Word, grammatical historical exegesis within the context of the entire canon is the proper way to read Scripture. (77).

3. I agree that “the NT’s interpretation of the OT is definitive, since later texts bring greater clarity and understanding” and I further agree that “later texts do not contravene the meaning of the earlier texts” (77-78).

4. I agree with the affirmation of progressive revelation, and I agree with the centrality of Christ in the fulfillment of that revelation (78).

5. I agree with the three horizons of interpretation that Wellum lays out: textual, epochal, and canonical (79).

6. I agree that “God’s one eternal plan is unveiled through a plurality of covenants,” that covenant theology flattens this diversity of covenants by making them administrations of the covenant of grace (81).

7. I agree that the creational covenant is foundational to God’s covenant plan, that the Noahic covenant is a commitment to God’s original intentions of creation and looks ahead to the new creation. I agree that the Abrahamic covenant is “the means by which God will fulfill his promises for humanity, especially in light of Genesis 3:15″ and that it unfolds first through Israel and then the promises are expanded to include all the redeemed and the whole world. I agree that the Mosaic covenant was “temporary in God’s plan, and thus when Christ comes, it is fulfilled as an entire covenant package, and Christians are no longer under it as a covenant (Gal 3:15–4:7).” I agree that the Davidic covenant draws together all the previous covenants and indicates that they will be fulfilled by a Davidic king. And I agree that the new covenant is new because is made with individual believers and that every member of the new covenant is regenerate (91-98).

8. I agree that Jesus as “David’s greater Son, who inaugurates God’s kingdom” is “now seated as the Davidic king” fulfilling all the covenants and “leading history to its consummation at his return.” I agree that Jesus is “the true Israel,” “Abraham’s true seed,” “the last Adam, “the promised Messiah who receives the Spirit in full measure … and who pours out the Spirit on his people.” In other words, I agree that Jesus is the one who fulfills the preceding covenants (99-100).

9. I agree that “in Christ and the church, all of God’s promises are now being fulfilled” (109). (Redeemed Israel is now part of the church.)

10. I agree that “there is only one elect people of God throughout time who are saved by grace through faith in God’s promises grounded in Christ alone,” that the church is God’s new covenant people, that the church is “God’s new temple,” that the church is “God’s new creation/humanity that remains forever, comprising believing Jews and Gentiles, who equally and fully receive all of God’s promises in Christ” (106-8).

11. I agree that covenant theology “does not sufficiently account for the relationship of Christ—the head of the new covenant—to his people,” and I agree that “now that Christ has come, one is either in the new covenant or not, and to be in the new covenant entails that one now knows God, is forgiven of his sins, and is circumcised in heart” (104-5).

12. I agree with Wellum that Horton wrongly identifies the field with the church rather than the world in his interpretation of the wheat and the tares. I further agree that with Wellum that Tom Schreiner’s approach to the warning passages in Hebrews is superior to Horton’s. Thus I agree with Wellum that the new covenant is not a mixed covenant containing regenerate and unregenerate people (209).

13. I agree with Wellum (contra Snoeberger) that the Noahic covenant is part of God’s plan of redemption (211).

14. I agree with Wellum (contra Snoeberger) that the church has been brought into the covenant promises made with Israel (211-12).

15. I agree with Wellum that it is a weakness of many dispensationalists to begin the “covenantal storyline” with the Abrahamic covenant rather than with the creation covenant (213).

I largely agree with Wellum on a number of points, but I also think these points need further refinement.

1. I agree that typology is rooted in history and text. I agree that types are intended by God and  are thus a kind of prophecy. I agree that types may not be discerned without the later unfolding of revelation. I agree that types are discerned through repetition that creates a pattern. I agree that types often reach their fulfillment first in Christ and then in his people (83). But I don’t think that this is always the case. For instance, the conquest of Canaan is part of a series of day of the Lord judgments that begin in Genesis 3:8 and reoccur in history (including in AD 70, shortly after the earthly ministry of Jesus) and reached final fulfillment in the Parousia of Christ. Christ is clearly involved in that he is bringing about the judgment, but the type is more focused on the judgment that unbelievers will receive.

2. I agree that Noah, Abraham, Israel, and David all prefigure Christ. However, I don’t think it is wise to identify them as “Adams” (83-84). Adam and Christ are unique heads of humanity. As covenant head of the creation covenant, all who are in Adam fell when he fell. As covenant head of the new covenant, all who are in Christ died and rose with Christ. But Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David do not play the same role in the covenants made with them. It is for this reason that Adam is termed “the first man” and Jesus “the second man” (1 Cor. 15:47).

3. I agree that there is a son of God typology that runs from Adam through Israel to Christ and from him into the church. I agree that Jews and Gentiles in the church are (in Christ) Abraham’s seed (84). But I disagree that this means that Israel as God’s firstborn son “takes on Adam’s role” since Israel is not a federal head for all mankind.

4. I agree that Christ can be called the true Israel in the sense that he, as the Davidic king, is the representative Israelite. I further agree that in Christ, the seed of Abraham, Gentile Christians can be identified as the seed of Abraham. I disagree with the claim that Galatians 6:16 identifies the church as the Israel of God (84). This position contradicts the main thrust of Paul’s argument in Galatians, and thus cannot be correct (the Judaizers were the ones who held that Gentiles needed to become Israelites and Paul argued that Jews and Gentiles distinctly were one in Christ). Grammatically the best translation is “May peace come to all those who follow this standard, and mercy [also] to the Israel of God!” (CSB, alt.), and contextually and intertextually, the best understanding is that “all those who follow this standard” are Jews and Gentiles in Christ and that the “Israel of God” refers to elect Jews who will come to salvation due to God’s mercy. See further argumentation here.

5. I agree that Israel has a typological function in relation to the church (84), but Wellum’s typology is too abstract in that it doesn’t properly take time into account. It is not Israel per se that is a type of the church; it is Israel under the Mosaic covenant that is the type of the church. This distinction is necessary since Jews with Gentiles are part of the one new man that makes up the church. Thus, the new covenant promise is not applied to the church because the church is now identified as “the house of Israel/Judah” (84) but because promises originally given to Israel in the covenants of promise have now been extended to Gentiles as well as Jews since Christ has formed Jew and Gentile together into one new man (Eph. 2:11-16).

6. I agree that types often move in a lesser to greater pattern and that escalation typically occurs with Christ at his first coming (84), but I’m not sure that these features are universal. For instance, Mitchell notes with regard to marriage typology, “However, the NT fulfillment of the OT nuptial theme may be more preliminary and provisional than the NT fulfillment of many other OT themes because of the eschatological shift: the OT pictures God’s people as his wedded wife, while the NT portrays the church as the betrothed bride, awaiting the future consummation” (The Song of Songs, CC, 71). Similarly, while AD 70 was a day of the Lord connected with Christ’s first coming, the real escalation of the day of the Lord typology occurs with the second coming.

7. I agree that typology often “develops through covenantal progression” (85). However, I’m not sure this is always the case. The day of the Lord comes to mind as a counter example.

8. I agree that “the new covenant is the fulfillment and telos of the biblical covenants,” and I agree, with one caveat, with the statement, “Yet now that Christ has come, Christians are no longer under the previous covenants as covenants (other than the creation and Noahic until the consummation)” (86-87). The one correction that I’d make is that we are no longer under the creation covenant. Adam broke the creation covenant. It is for this reason that several of its provisions are restated as part of the Noahic covenant, adjusted to the context of the Fall.

9. I agree that “Scripture begins with the declaration that God, as Creator and triune Lord, is the king of the universe (Gen 1–2; Ps 103:19; Dan 4:34–35; Acts 17:24–25),” that “sin is essentially rebellion against the king,” and that God’s kingdom is restored through the covenants (88). However, Wellum leaves out the important fact that the kingdom theme in Genesis 1 is rooted not only in the Lord’s role as king of the universe but also in the role humans have as vice-regents under God. Redemption involves not merely subduing the rebellion of humans against God, the King but also involves the restoration of humans to the role of obedient vice regents over all creation.

10. I agree with Wellum that a creation covenant exists in Genesis 1-2 despite the absence of the word, that Hosea 6:7 refers back to the creation covenant, that all the covenantal elements are present in Genesis 1-2, and that Romans 5:12-21 requires a creation covenant since Adam is there portrayed as a covenant head” (89-90). However, I do not think that the use of qum in Genesis 6:18; 9:9, 11, 17 “implies a pre-existing covenant.” While the language of cutting a covenant only refers to the initial establishment of a covenant, qum in connection with covenants is used in various ways, including the initial establishment of covenants. In any event the Noahic covenant cannot be the continuation of the creation covenant because the creation covenant is a works covenant and the Noahic covenant is a grace covenant. The two covenants are a different nature and thus the one cannot be the continuation of the other (see disagreement 1 below).

11. I agree that the creational covenant is foundational with subsequent covenants. I further agree that the temple and priest typology has roots in Eden (90). However, I do not think that Eden was a temple or that Adam was a priest in Eden. There is no need for a temple when God is present or a priest when access to God is unmediated.

12. Wellum objects to certain dispensationalists who claim that the spiritual blessings of the new covenant are being fulfilled already while the physical blessings remain to be fulfilled in the future is attractive on one level. Who would not want to affirm that “all new covenant realities are now here in Christ and applied to the church in principle” (104). I agree that in Christ’s resurrection we see an initial realization of the new creation and that Christians themselves are identified in Scripture as new creations. And yet, Christians are new creations in their inner man and are still awaiting the resurrection body. The renovation of the earth is something creation still groans for. I think that dispensationalists do affirm what Wellum wants affirmed: that in Christ’s resurrection and in regenerated Christians the new creation is inaugurated; I’m sure Wellum himself believes that the resurrection of the body and the renovation of creation awaits the Parousia.

13. With Wellum, I “agree that the Scripture’s central plot is ‘not the nation of Israel, but the seed of Abraham together with his spiritual family from Israel and all nations,'” and, with Wellum, I “deny that the church is a parentheses in God’s plan.” With Wellum, I “deny that the NT changes the meaning of the OT.” I further agree that “in Christ, God’s revelation is now complete; we now know what the OT was predicting” (202). However, I favor a complementary hermeneutic because I think a complementary hermeneutic best allows for the text in both testaments to be understood according to authorial intent of both the human authors and the divine Author.

14. Contrary to Wellum’s understanding, not all progressive dispensationalists believe in a restoration of the sacrificial system (and it was not clear to me from Bock’s article that he believed in it). Most or all do believe that Antichrist will set himself up in a future temple, but that does not impact the development of the temple in the storyline of Scripture. I agree with Wellum’s development of the sacrifice and temple themes in Scripture.

I disagree with Wellum on a few points:

1. Wellum distinguishes between “creation realities such as male-female that do continue forever” and “nation-states that are more tied to the fall and Babel but now reversed at Pentecost and in the church” (219).

1.a. This is a significant error on Wellum’s part that colors his whole analysis. In fact, nations are creational realities just as the male-female distinction is a creational reality. For an understanding of creation as encompassing structures such as marriage, government, nations, and more, see Wolters, Creation Regained.

1.b. Nation-states are not tied to the fall and Babel in contrast to creation realities such as male-female distinctions. Nations are part of the created order. Psalm 86:9 and Acts 17:26 identify nations as created by God. Christopher J. H. Wright observes, “The nations of humanity preoccupy the biblical narrative from beginning to end. . . . The obvious reason for this is that the Bible is, of course, preoccupied with the relationship between God and humanity, and humanity exists in nations” (The Mission of God, 454). Daniel Strange argues the structure of Genesis 10-11 supports the claim that the diversity of nations is part of the creation order: by placing the Babel event after the Table of Nations, Genesis avoids the idea that the division into nations is itself a curse and confirms that the “scattering” was not merely a judgment but an enforced fulfillment of God’s command to fill the earth (Their Rock Is Not Like Our Rock, 124).

1.c. As part of the created order, nations will exist for all eternity (Rev. 21:24-26).

1.d. Nationhood is not reversed at Pentecost or done away with by the church. Rather, Pentecost revealed that the church is a multiethnic body.

1.e. Since nationhood is a significant theological theme within the storyline of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, Progressive Covenantalism will remain a defective system until it incorporates this theme into its system.

2. I disagree with Wellum’s claim that covenants cannot be categorized as unconditional/unilateral or conditional/bilateral. Wellum argues that all covenants are unilateral in that God always keeps his promises and that all covenants are bilateral in that God demands obedience from his covenant partners. Thus, God provides Christ as “an obedient covenant partner” so that the promises can be fulfilled (85-86; 207).

2.a. I agree that all the covenants are initiated by God and are in that sense gracious. I further agree that all the covenants have expectations for obedience.

2.b. The terms conditional and unconditional relate not to the selection of the covenant partner or to the presence of stipulations. Rather, conditional and unconditional identify whether the fulfillment of the covenant depends upon the promises of God alone or upon the obedience to the covenant stipulations.

2.c. There are obligations in the Noahic covenant: to live out the creation blessing, to exercise capital punishment when necessary. But humans have regularly violated these obligations since the time of Noah. Nonetheless, God has not sent worldwide floods because the fulfillment of the covenant depends not on obedience to the obligations but to God’s unilateral promise.

2.d. By contrast, the nation of Israel came under the curses of the Mosaic covenant because that covenant promised blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. Wellum has made all the covenants conditional covenants and then claims that Christ will fulfill the conditions. But this reading does not survive a close study of the covenants themselves.

2.e. Wellum points out that Genesis 15 indicates “God’s unilateral commitment to keep his own promises” but that Genesis 17:9-14; 22:16-18 present “bilateral emphasis of the covenant” (207). But Genesis 15 is the cutting of a unilateral covenant. Genesis 17 presents us with expectations which are the means for bringing the covenant to fruition, and Genesis 22 is a test of Abraham’s faith. These covenant expectations cannot change a unilateral covenant into a bilateral covenant. This is fundamental to Paul’s argument in Romans 4:9-12.

2.f. I agree with Horton against Wellum that Galatians 4:21-26 “distinguish covenants of promise (e.g., Abrahamic) from covenants of law (e.g., Sinai).” Wellum objects, “it is questionable whether Paul is using this distinction as the means to distinguish all the covenants” (208). But this objection is beside the point. Though Paul does not have all covenants in view, he does clearly communicate that the Abrahamic covenant is unilateral in nature and the Mosaic covenant bilateral. 

3. I disagree that Genesis 3:15 is part of the creation covenant (90-91). The creation covenant was broken by Adam’s Fall, and Genesis 3:16-19 recounts the cursing of the blessings of the creation covenant. Genesis 3:15 is a judgment on the serpent that involves a promise of redemption. It is not itself a covenant or part of a covenant. The following covenants are the means for fulfilling this promise.

4. I agree with Wellum’s overall hermeneutical approach (see points 1-5 under agreement above). However, despite his professed intention to not change the meaning of the OT, I think there are reasons that Bock and Snoeberger argue that Wellum is changing the meaning of the OT.

4.a. I’ll use the land promise as an illustration of how I think Wellum’s hermeneutic works: In Genesis 15, 17, and 22 God makes promises to Abraham’s seed. Wellum understands that seed as not being fully defined in the OT, and he understands the NT to define the seed of Abraham as Christ and the church in Christ. Thus, when Wellum reads Genesis 15, 17, and 22 he reads Abraham’s seed as referring to Christ and the church in him. Wellum does not think he is changing the meaning of the Genesis 15, 17, and 22 in doing this any more than reading the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15 as Christ changes the meaning of that OT text.

4.b. But the seed of Abraham is not undefined in the way that the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15 was. Genesis 22, for instance, distinguishes between the physical seed of Abraham (plural), the seed of Abraham (singular), and the Gentiles (whom Paul will later identify with the seed of Abraham in Christ). All three seeds of Abraham sit adjacent to one another in passages like Genesis 22, and it does change the meaning of the OT texts in a way that the NT does not require to read the seed of Abraham language in the OT as referring only to Christ and the church.

4.c. Thus, despite his intent to the contrary, Wellum does at times change the meaning of OT passages.

5. I disagree with the claim that the church is “the true, eschatological Israel who receives all of the promises, including the inheritance of the land fulfilled in the new creation (103).

5.a. I affirm that the church is the antitype (through Christ) of Old Testament Israel. I deny that this means that the church is eschatological Israel because the NT continues to speak of redeemed ethnic Israel as a part of the church in both Ephesians 2 and Romans 11.

5.b. I affirm that all the covenant promises made to Israel in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are expanded to encompass the entire church. (I agree with Wellum that the Mosaic covenant was a temporary covenant that is no longer in force; in addition, Ephesians 2 specifies the covenants of promise as the ones that the church is brought into.) I deny that the expansion of the covenant promises to the entire church means that specific promises to redeemed ethnic Israel are not fulfilled in the specificity with which they were given (e.g., land promises with specific boundaries).

5.c. Wellum objects that granting Israel the specific land promised to it gives Israel promises “distinct” from Gentiles in the church. This objection misunderstands the nature of land promises; it abstracts the land promises so that they only speak of the entire new creation. But in the nature of the case the land Israel receives will be distinct from the land other ethnic groups receive just as the land that Michael, Stephen, Darrell, and Mark receive in the new creation will be distinct from one another. A certain kind of distinctness is necessary if the land promise is not to become a mere abstraction. On the other hand, what Israel receives is not distinct from what Gentiles in the new creation receive: land in the new creation.

5.d. While I agree with the concern to uphold the unity of the people of God, I’m not sure that “nations receiving slightly different … privileges” is necessarily a problem since I think it is possible that individuals will receive slightly different privileges in eternity (e.g., the parable of the servant who received ten cities). At the very least it seems difficult to avoid the fact that Christ is an Israelite and that he rules over the world as a Davidic king. I wouldn’t want to minimize Jesus’s ethnicity any more than I would want to minimize his humanity.

6. I disagree with Wellum’s reading of Acts 1:6, in which he says that the kingdom is being restored to Israel (understood as the church) through the spread of the gospel and the growth of the church. Wellum is here concerned that all the promises of God be expanded to include Jew and Gentile in the church (108). But Wellum is here reading the promises too narrowly. Jew and Gentile in the church alike receive the land promise. But only Israel can receive the land promise as a restoration. A restoration of the kingdom does not make sense for Gentiles since in the OT era they were strangers to God’s kingdom. The better way to understand the disciples’ question is to recognize that the OT connected the giving of the Spirit with restoration to the land and the reestablishment of the Davidic monarch (cf. Eze 36-37). So their question is based in the text of the OT. Jesus’s answer does not give the timing but instead points out what must happen before the kingdom is restored to Israel. Romans 11:25 (“I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in”).

7. I disagree with the idea that the restoration of Israel to the land is only a dispensational idea (110). This view was held by many Puritans, by Jonathan Edwards, and by David Brown of “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown” fame. I fear that the eschatological restoration of Israel to the land is often rejected today in reaction to dispensationalism without the realization that this has been a historic position on non-dispensationalists as well.

Michael Horton, “Covenant Theology” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views—Agreements and Disagreements

by

I have read all of Michael Horton’s significant writings on covenant theology, and, other than 1689 Reformed Baptist covenant theology, Horton’s version of covenant theology is my preferred version. That said, this essay was not Horton’s best contribution. It was too tradition-focused and more attuned to intra-covenant theology debates when this book called for more Scripture-based argumentation designed to persuade those holding alternative positions. Further, the structure of the essay led to some repetition. A more persuasive essay would have sought to make a clear exegetical case for the three covenants of covenant theology.

I agree with Horton on a number of points.

1. I agree with his claim of a pretemporal covenant of redemption that is worked out in the historical, biblical covenants (41, 52).

2. I agree that the biblical covenants can be classified as law covenants and promise or grace covenants (40). I further agree that that this distinction is not denying that all the post-Fall covenants are established by God’s grace (44). I further agree that both law and grace covenants are contributing to God’s gracious plan of redemption (52). I would add that this distinction is also not denying the existence of promises in law or works covenants or the existence of commands in promise covenants (57). Finally, I agree that the difference between a law/works covenant and a promise covenant whether the “basis” for the realization of the covenant’s blessings is unilateral on God’s part or requires obedience on the human participant’s part (57).

3. I agree that the creation covenant is a covenant of works (43, 46).

4. I agree that the Sinai covenant is a works covenant, but I think its promises pertain not only to temporal blessings (Horton’s view) but also to eternal life (53-54, 68).

5. I agree that the Abrahamic covenant is a promise covenant and that God has unilaterally promised to uphold its provisions (55). The requirements of the Abrahamic covenant will be fulfilled as the fruit of faith and not as conditions for the promises being fulfilled (57).

6. I agree that the new covenant is a grace covenant distinct in type from the Sinai covenant, which is a law covenant (58).

7. I agree with his critique of the traditional dispensational tendency to operate with such a rigid hermeneutic that they engage in question-begging exegesis of the NT, I agree with his critique of the traditional dispensationalist interpretation of Acts 15, and I agree with his critique that the resort to analogy and implication fails to interpret the NT use of the OT accurately (184, 185). (One might say that traditionalist dispensationalists fail to interpret the NT literally.) On the other hand, Horton does not seem to appreciate that Amos 9 also has elements that were not fulfilled in the first century.

8. I agree, against those traditional dispensationalists who deny the church membership in the new covenant, that Ephesians 2 teaches that the Gentiles now partake of the covenants of promise since Christ created one new man through his blood (188).

9. I agree, against Bock, that there is a covenant of creation. Horton rightly points out that Bock misunderstands what elements need to be present for there to be a covenant (189).

10. I agree, against Wellum, that the creation covenant is a works covenant. Horton is correct to note that “the question is not whether covenants contain both promises and obligations” but whether the covenant is a “do this and live kind of covenant” or a covenant in which God unilaterally promises certain benefits. I further agree with Horton that the protoevangelium and the Noahic covenant are not continuations of the creation covenant (196-97).

11. I agree with Horton, against Wellum, that there are only two Adams: Adam and Christ (197).

I also disagree with Horton on a number of points:

1. I disagree that the post-fall biblical covenants are administrations of an over-arching covenant of grace. The fact that Sinai was made post-Fall, serves to advance God’s plan of redemption, and contains promises of a new covenant and coming redemption (45) does not make it a covenant of grace. A covenant may be graciously given, as the Sinai covenant was, but if its principle is “do this and live,” it is not a covenant of grace even though it furthers the plan of redemption. The designations works covenant or grace covenant refer to whether or not the fulfillment of the promises rest entirely on God’s oath or whether they rest on human performance. In Sinai, they rest on human performance—even as the Sinai covenant points Israel ahead to the new covenant as their only hope for salvation both through the imagery of the sacrificial system and through the explicit teaching of Deuteronomy 30.

2. I disagree that the land promises were fulfilled with the conquest of Canaan (60, 190-91). This is to not read carefully the promises themselves as stated in Genesis, the book of Joshua’s acknowledgment of more land to be conquered, the prophets’ predictions of restoration to the land on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant, and Jesus’s statement that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob need to be resurrected so they can experience the promised covenant blessings.

3. I disagree that that the Abrahamic covenant is still in force and that circumcision, transposed to baptism, is thus required of all covenant children (61).

4. I disagree that the new covenant is a mixed covenant, including those who are internally part of the covenant and those who are externally part of the covenant (64). This is the very point of contrast between the old and new covenants that Jeremiah identifies as distinguishing them.  I further disagree that the church ought to include both wheat and tares until the eschaton (65). The field is the world, not the church. I further disagree that the warning passages in Hebrews demonstrate a mixed covenant (198-99). Hebrews 6 is certainly speaking of professing Christians who denied the faith. But this does not demonstrate that the apostates were members of the covenant of grace. Saying so proves too much. If Horton’s view is correct, a covenant child who rejected the faith could never be restored to repentance again.

5. Horton sometimes speaks as though an inaugurated fulfillment in the first century is the complete fulfillment of prophecies. Horton also seems to think that the establishment of an earthly kingdom requires the revival of the Sinai covenant (68-69). But this is not the case. The prophecies of new covenant include the earthly, political reign of the Messiah and the return of Israel to the land.

6. Horton seems to think that sacrifices, temple, and the national of Israel are all types that have been fulfilled in Christ (69).  Horton is confusing two distinct things here. The temple and the sacrifices (as Hebrews plainly indicates) are types that are superseded by Christ. But Israel is not a type as such. Israel in the time of the Old Covenant is a type of the church just as David, as king, was a type of Christ. But David will be resurrected and will live in eternity, and Israel will be resurrected (Eze. 37) and be restored as a nation in all eternity.

7. I disagree that Charles Hill demonstrated amillennialism to be the dominant eschatological position in the early church (189). (See further here.)

Logos 10 Review

by

Logos 10 released this week. Here are a few highlights.

Speed

One of the perennial complaints about the Logos desktop app has been slow speeds. Speed improvements were a focus for this edition of Logos. Faithlife has provided the following information about speed:

  • Native support for Apple Silicon gives a good performance increase across the board (~10% – 40%?) for everyone with an M1 processor
  • .NET 6 support gives everyone using Windows a good performance increase across the board, which varies according to the feature (~10% – 40%?).
  • Faster indexing (~15%) for everyone on desktop, and about 10% less disk space for the index.
  • Improved server performance improves the speed of most online functions, which is especially beneficial to the mobile and web apps.

I can say that I’ve noticed the speed improvements on my Surface Pro. I have several different Layouts that I switch between for different tasks. Logos 10 switches between these layouts much more quickly than previous versions. It is harder for me to judge startup times. There still is a logo splash screen followed by a “Preparing Your Library” and “Synchronize” spinner. I’m pretty sure this sequence is moving faster, but it’s not quite so noticeable as the speed with which Logos 10 switches between layouts. On the other hand, search results display much more quickly in Logos 10 than in previous versions.

New UI

The most visible change in Logos 10 is the movement of the toolbar from the top of the program window to the left edge.

The settings allow the toolbar to be moved back to the top, but I’ve come to appreciate the side location. Computer screens typically have greater width than height, so this lefthand placement of the toolbar gives more space to the content on the screen. In addition, I use Logos on a Surface Pro tablet, and the new UI puts the toolbar buttons in closer proximity to my thumb when holding the tablet.

In the screenshot above, I have the toolbar collapsed, but, as screenshots below will show, the toolbar can be expanded to show labels for the different tools. I’ve found that I typically work with the toolbar collapsed, but the multiple modalities is nice.

Search Print Library

This is the most significant feature for me. During college and seminary, I built a decently large print library and used BibleWorks as my primary Bible software. I didn’t shift to the Logos platform until I was working on my dissertation. This means that I still have a large print library, and even though I now have some duplicates between my digital and print books, I still have plenty of books in print that I don’t have in Logos. Further, in terms of budget, I’m inclined to purchase Logos books that I don’t already own in print. Nevertheless, there are some advantages that Logos books have over print books: they are more portable, and they are searchable. (There are advantages that print books have over digital, but we’ll leave that aside for the moment.)

To get the benefits of portability, you still have to buy digital editions, but the advantages of searchability now come to those who do the Logos 10 Full Feature Upgrade or to those who buy a Gold base package or above.

In the screenshot below, the results are displayed for a search of <Filioque> in the “All” modality of the search pane:

Notice the result from “Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia,” two places below the “Factbook” panel. Note on the far right of that result an icon displaying three books. That icon indicates that Augustine through the Ages is in my print library. To be honest, I may not have thought to look in that encyclopedia while researching the filioque.

In the next screenshot, the results are displayed for a search of <Filioque> in the “Books” modality of the search pane. Notice that in the “All’ modality the print and Logos resources are intermixed in the search results. In the “Books” modality Logos books and Print books receive their own separate listings.

In this screenshot most of the results are from systematic theologies in my print library. I probably would have thought to consult these in a study of the filioque, but these search results provide me with page numbers. This saves time flipping through indices from multiple books. As I’ve begun adding print books to my Logos library, I’ve added some books that I have both in print and in Logos book format. (Like No One Like Him in the search results above.) I’ve decided to remove print books that I already own in Logos format to restrict the search results of printed books to those I only have in print.

Adding and removing books from the print library is easy. In the desktop app, go the Library. There is an “Add to Library” tab. Once in the add to library modality is selected, search for a book or series. Off to the left are two options: purchase a Logos edition of the book (shopping cart icon), add a book from your print library to your Logos library (three books with a plus sign icon). Logos books that you have already purchased are indicated with an unlocked padlock icon. Print books that you have already added to your library are indicated by three books without the plus sign. If you’d like to remove a book from your print library, just select the three books icon and you’ll have an option to remove the book.

The mobile app provides another, even quicker, way to add books from your print library to your Logos library. It includes a “Print Library ISBN Scanner.” Opening the scanner will turn on your phone’s camera. Hold the camera over the ISBN barcode of a print book, and Logos will add it automatically to your library. If it isn’t quite sure what book to add, it will suggest a range of options from which to select. This process works very well.

Personally, I find the ability to search my print library worth the upgrade. Of course, not every book in my print library is in the Logos catalogue, but enough are to make this a most useful feature.

Search Improvements

Logos has also simplified search syntax. For instance, <Lemma = lbs/el/λόγος> ANDEQUALS word is now lemma:λόγος EQUALS word.

Logos 10 brings over Search Templates from Logos 9 (accessible through the hamburger menu) and basic search helps in a blank search window. If you look up to the upper right of the search pane, options for matching case and form are now more visible.

I also noticed that when searching under the “All” modality, a pane with Factbook results is included. In addition, if the search term is a Bible term a pane with the first few results from the user’s default Bible is present (and a link in this pane will launch a full search of the term under the “Bible” modality.

Factbook Improvements

Factbook was one of the banner new features in Logos 9. I now often begin a search in Factbook if I’m just looking for basic information quickly. I know it will surface that information from my library, and if I need to dig dipper, it can serve as a launching point for that too.

I’ve tended to turn off the factbook underlining in other resources, though. However, soon after starting to use Logos 10, I noticed that I was getting some helpful information via factbook in some of my resources. For instance, here I’m getting basic information about the meaning of a Hebrew word in Keil and Delitzsch’s Commentary on the Old Testament.

I understand that what information Factbook will surface in other resources depends on the base package.

  • Starter includes People tags.
  • Bronze adds theological terms and Greek words
  • Silver adds Hebrew and Aramaic words

I also understand that the church history datasets for Factbook have been expanded.

Machine Translation

For those with a Gold package or above on desktop (or Starter and above on the web app), there is now a machine translation feature available. For instance, say that you’re reading some John Owen and you come across some Latin. Highlight the Latin phrase and select the translate option from the context menu. A translation into English will appear in a sidebar.

My understanding is that this feature is not limited to just phrases but can be used on books in other languages. However, Faithlife says there are generous monthly fair-use limits. In addition, Faithlife says that due to ongoing costs, access to this feature might be limited to a particular period (e.g. two years).

Mobile App

The mobile apps have also received some enhancements. The app on my Android phone now pulls up a nice toolpane when text is selected. It gives recent highlight options as well as commands for copying, sharing, note taking, searching, and more. If a Bible word is selected a pane with identifying the Hebrew or Greek word is displayed. This pane is an access point into a preferred lexicon or into a search of the Word Study feature.

I use a Surface Pro as my desktop, laptop, and tablet. I therefore use the Logos desktop app as my tablet app. However, I do keep my eye on the iPad to see if I could replicate on the iPad the functionality that I have on my Surface. For a long time the answer has been a clear, “no.” But with Apple adding mouse and monitor support the gap is narrowing. Logos desktop is also more powerful than the Logos iPad app. But that gap is also narrowing. While I’ve not had any hands-on experience with the Logos iPad app, it looks like that app has made significant improvements in this release.

Verdict

In my view the most significant new feature of Logos 10 is the ability to search my print library. It has also made substantial improvements in speed, search, and the expansion of the Factbook. If you are interested in upgrading, here is a link by which you can do so.  Faithlife is currently offering 15% off for new customers and 30% off for upgraders. Those who upgrade via the link can gain five free additional books from a pre-selected list.

Oliver O’Donovan Regarding the Folly Often Present in Political Opinionating

by

Here is the “simple” of the Proverbs, who “believes everything” (14:15), and here is the “scoffer,” who “does not like to be reproved” (15:12), the suggestible and the counter-suggestible, one echoing the current views and the other reacting against them, both wholly creatures of them, forming no judgment and offering no dialogical resistance. Opinion gains no coherence, and so has no prospect of growth. It is neither accumulative nor critical but reactive, a series of discontinued beginnings. …

The dialectic itself follows predictable currents. The phenomenon is familiar enough in politics: we assert things we know nothing about simply because those who deny them are those we habitually contradict. We speak of “moral attitudes” as “on the left” or “on the right.” We cannot recall too often that these polarized postures are no more than habitual responses to the noise of discourse going on around us. … Led by the Pied Pipers of the media we plunge into the caverns of imagination, framing our views on how the world may be put to rights and never giving thought to the fact that the world we are shown is a carefully constructed representation which demands interrogation. …

When from time to time we become aware that certain points of view have become fashionable, we should sense danger. We should know that complexities will be elided, so that even truths, when only partially grasped, will yield cruel and unjust implications. We should know that love of truth is corrupted (as Trollope’s John Bold found) when focused on a narrow campaign. And we double our guard against the need of politics (not only democratic politics, but that, too) to rally the active forces of mass judgment around narrowly conceived agenda. … It is the fate of the politician to concentrate on programs of action that can ignite and unite passions. But the quantitative massing of judgments is inhospitable to exploration, and so betrays the truths it purports to champion. The best such politics can aim for is that someone with good judgment should mitigate the common passions; the problem of mass democracy is that simply arousing them becomes so all-consuming and competitive a business that no one with good judgment has much success at it. To take the commonest of experiences: a circular mailing arrives, telling of some shocking event or state of affairs, and a lobbying postcard is enclosed with a one-line message we are to send to our Member of Parliament or the Prime Minister. We are not told to inquire further into the situation; we are not told to refrain from judgment until we are in a position to make up our minds on the rival accounts that are given of it. We are encouraged, in fact, to model our behavior on what we most disapprove of in professional politicians, bending our ear to the latest lobbyist. To do otherwise, we are warned, is to be complacent. Ignorant passion is thus taken to be the special line of political amateurs, and we are encouraged to indulge it, leaving it to our cunning but indolent masters to work out what is to be done with it. They, meanwhile, declare their great respect for our ill-informed agitations.

Oliver O’Donovan, Finding and Seeking. Ethics as Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 2:86-88.