On Tuesday I indicated that I think 1 Peter 2:13 teaches that God established government, like marriage, into the structures of the creation. Today I’d like to justify that claim.

1 Peter 2:13 is translated in several different ways:

ESV: Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution . . .

Achtemeier (Hermeneia): Be subject to every human creature because of the Lord . . .

RSV mg.: Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every institution ordained for men . . .

I favor the translation:

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every [divine] creation among mankind.

In the context it is clear that the creation in view is government.

Institution, Creature, or Creation?

It is common for translations to translate κτίσις in this verse as “institution.” But against this translation Achtemeier notes this “meaning is nowhere to be found in Greek literature” (1 Peter, Hermeneia, 182). He comments, “The closest one can come to such a meaning [human institution] is to point to the regular use of κτίσις in secualr Greek to mean ‘founding a city’ (e.g., Selwyn, 172; Goppelt, 182) but that is hardly the meaning here” (ibid., 183, n. 40). Elliot adds to this critique: “The rendition of ktisis as ‘institution’ (RSV, NRSV, NEB, Selwyn) is inappropriate, for the abstraction ‘institution’ is a modern rather than an ancient concept” (1 Peter, AB, 489).

Both Achtemeier and Elliot favor the translation “Be subject to every human creature.” But Grudem provides a cogent response to this translation: “The context (vv. 13b-14, 18-20, 3:1-6) makes it clear, however, that it is not every human being in the world to whom we are to be subject (a meaning that the verb hypotasso could not bear in any case, since it refers to subjection to an authority)” (1 Peter, TNTC, 118; note: Grudem favors the translation “institution”). It doesn’t make sense to begin a command to submit to the governing authorities with a command to submit to all humans.

Hort says, “Put briefly, the main question is this,—does ἀνθρωπίνη κτίσις mean here a κτίσις by men or a κτίσις by God among men?” Hort rejects “a κτίσις by men” in favor of “a κτίσις by God among men.” He writes, “But the former of the two interpretations, though thus prima facie natural, cannot without straining be reconciled with the context. Wide as is the use of κτίσις, to speak of the supreme ruler or subordinate rulers, or their office or function, as a κτίσις on the part of men is without example or analogy in Greek usage. . . . Moreover, human authorship, put forward without qualification as here, and yet more emphasised by the addition of πάσῃ, is not likely to have been laid down by an apostle as a sufficient reason for subjection: he could not but remember for how many evil customs human authorship was responsible. If however we take κτίσις as implying Divine authorship, as in every other place where κτίζω or any of its derivatives occurs in the O.T. or N.T. (or in the Apocrypha, 1 Esd. iv. 53 excepted), all these difficulties vanish. The effect of ἀνθρωπίνῃ is accordingly to limit the κτίσεις spoken of to such elements of God’s universal κτίσις as are characteristically human. . . . Here then we have an adequate explanation of St Peter’s meaning. Biblical associations defined the founding spoken of to be the founding of the commonwealth of mankind by God Himself, and the Greek usage suggested that the founding implied a plan of which mankind were to be organised. By an ἀνθρωπίνη κτίσις then St Peter means a fundamental institution of human society. Before Christ came into the world, mankind already possessed a social order of which the chief elements were the state, the household, and the family; and here St Peter declares that they were not to be slighted or rejected because they were found among heathen. On the contrary, they had a divine origin, and they were distinctively human: without them man would sink into savagery. It was needful to say this after the previous verses, which might seem by contrast to condemn heathen society absolutely” (F. J. A. Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter, I.1-II.17 [London: Macmillan, 1898], 139-40).

I think Hort is on the right track, though he does use the word “institution.” Yet, if what is really in view is an institution created by God, then the normal sense of “creation” would hold here and the meaning of the passage would would be similar to the one the Hort proposes. 

Best also comments along the same lines: “When the word and its cognate forms appear in the LXX they almost always denote something created by God, e.g., man (Dt. 4:32), the universe (Gen. 14:19,22), agriculture (Sir. 7:15; 40:1), wisdom (Sir. 1:4); see w. Foerster, T.D.N.T., III, pp. 1023-8. Sir. 39:30 says that God created ‘the sword that punishes the ungodly with destruction’ (cf. 40:9f.), and this is very similar to the conception of 1 Pet. 2:14. The principle objection to this view is the adjective ‘human’ attached to ‘institution’; it suggests that man creates the state, but it can be taken as in the RSVmg in the sense that God (not mentioned but understood) creates in the sphere of human affairs; thus civil authority may be considered as instituted by God. This is similar to Paul’s teaching in Rom. 13:1-7, and to that of the OT (Isa. 5:25-30; 45:1) which became more explicit in Judaism (Dan. 2:21,37f.; 4:17,32; Wisd. 6:3). . . . Consequently the state is viewed as deriving from God’s appointment” (1 Peter, NCB, 113).

If Hort and Best are right, then government is a structure of the created order created by God himself. This is a strange way of thinking because here we are not talking about a particular government or even anything physical. But it is not a unique concept in Scripture. As Al Wolters notes, “There are a few places in Scripture where the basic confession of God’s creational sovereignty is specifically applied to such non-physical realities. According to Paul, marriage is among the things ‘which God created to be received with thanksgiving.’ It is therefore a demonic heresy to forbid marriage, ‘for everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected’ (1 Tim. 4:3-4)” (Creation Regained, 2nd ed., 24).

 

Block, Daniel I. For the Glory of God: Recovering a Biblical Theology of Worship. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014.

This is a warm, biblically grounded study of worship that does an excellent job of moving from exegesis and biblical theology to contemporary application. I read the work slowly on Lord’s days, and I found it to be an excellent companion on those days.

Caro. Robert The Years of Lyndon Johnson. 4 volumes. Knopf, 1982, 1991, 2002, 2012.

These books, massive as they are (and still awaiting the concluding volume) were hard to put down. Caro is a superb writer, and I feel better informed after reading them not only about LBJ but also about life in Texas leading up to his time, the workings of the Senate, and much more. It may seem overkill to take a hundred pages to the present the biography LBJ’s rival in the election to the Senate or to tell the story of his mentor once he arrived. But these seeming diversions are often some of the best parts of these books.

Bull, Josiah, ed. Letters of John Newton. 1869; Reprinted, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth 2007.

I’ve long preferred reading biographies to reading diaries or letters. Biographies have a narrative thread that letters and diaries lack. However, reading John Newton’s letters are different. Newton was a master letter writer, and his letters are full of wise pastoral counsel. These are letters worth reading slowly and meditating on.

Though I’ve not yet finished it, Tony Reinke’s book, Newton on the Christian Life, is one of the best books I began to read in 2015. Reinke has distilled Newton’s wisdom as found throughout his letters and organized it into a work that will challenge you in your walk with God and inspire you to read more Newton.

Edwards, Jonathan. “Dissertation II: The Nature of True Virtue.” In Ethical Writings. Edited by Paul Ramsey. Works of Jonathan Edwards. Volume 8. Edited by John E Smith. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.

This, as might be expected, was one of the more difficult works that I read this year. I found Edwards’s arguments that there is no true virtue without love toward God compelling. I was not convinced by his argument that greater amounts of love are due to those with greater degrees of being (God, as Being in general, being the most deserving of love). This argument, it seems, could be run in an pantheistic direction. In addition, Scripture does not seem to tie our moral obligation to being. These disagreements aside, this is an enjoyable and beneficial work to think your way through.

Myers, Ken. All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.

This is one of the most incisive books about culture that I’ve read. Myers asks his readers to move beyond the question of what is permissible to the question of what is good and wise. Watching television is permissible. Watching several shows every night, night after night is neither good nor wise. This is true even apart from the content of the shows. While content is not unimportant, Myers is concerned to sensitize Christians to the sensibilities of pop culture, which tend to be sensibilities at odds with those of Christianity: novelty over tradition, immediacy as opposed to patience, diversion rather than meditation, celebrity rather than community, youth rather than respect for the wisdom of the aged, “authenticity” as opposed to controlling passions and developing virtue. I found myself challenged to think carefully about my cultural activities and the sensibilities they cultivate.

Köstenberger, Andreas J. A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters. Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

This is a great introduction to John’s Gospel and Letters. Readers encounter introductory matters, such as authorship, learn about the literary structure of these books, and have their themes unpacked in a winsome combination of depth and brevity.

Principe, Lawrence M. The Scientific Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Oxford’s “Very Short Introduction” series is generally excellent. The authors are experts in their fields, and most do an admirable job of truly introducing readers to a diverse array of subjects. Principe’s work is one of the best I’ve read in the series so far. Principe not only explains the factors contributing to the Scientific Revolution, but he also treats the people who came before it with respect. He demonstrates that the thinkers prior to the Scientific Revolution were not unintelligent, nor were their theories irrational. They made good sense of the world in the intellectual framework of the time. What is more, their view of the world may still have something to teach those of us who live on the other side of the scientific revolution.

Oliphint, K. Scott. God With Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God. Crossway, 2011.

I really appreciate the way that Oliphint wrestled with thick theological issues in this book while firmly rejecting attempts to trim Bible statements to better fit theological conclusions. Yet he does not reject the legitimacy of theological reasoning but instead works toward a legitimate theological solution. This work strikes me as a model for careful, biblically-rooted systematic theology.

Witmer, Timothy Z. The Shepherd Leader: Achieving Effective Shepherding in Your Church.  Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2010.

If Oliphint shows what biblically-rooted systematic theology looks like, then Witmer shows what biblically and theologically-rooted practical theology looks like. Anyone who serves as a pastor or elder would benefit from this book.

Stanglin, Keith D. and Thomas H. McCall. Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

This is probably the best book on Arminius’s life and thought in print. I believe I have a better understanding of what Arminius did and did not think as a result of reading this work. The authors do an excellent job of explaining his theology in a readable and sympathetic manner without sacrificing scholarly accuracy.

Another principal part of our reconciliation with God was, that man, who had lost himself by his disobedience, should, by way of remedy, oppose to it obedience, satisfy the justice of God, and pay the penalty of sin. Therefore, our Lord came forth very man, adopted the person of Adam, and assumed his name, that he might in his stead obey the Father; that he might present our flesh as the price of satisfaction to the just judgment of God, and in the same flesh pay the penalty which we had incurred. Finally, since as God only he could not suffer, and as man only could not overcome death, he united the human nature with the divine, that he might subject the weakness of the one to death as an expiation of sin, and by the power of the other, maintaining a struggle with death, might gain us the victory.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.12.3.

Common grace is a theological concept that has often been abused. Cornelius Van Til, who defended the concept against thinkers who wished to deny it entirely, warns against this abuse:

When men dream dreams of a paradise regained by means of common grace, they only manifest the ‘strong delusion’ that falls as punishment of God upon those that abuse his natural revelation.

Cornelius Van Til, “Nature and Scripture,” in The Infallible Word, 271.

Sinclair Ferguson provides a helpful summary of John Murray’s view of the functions of common grace. I’ve highlighted the various functions that he enumerates.

Common grace is marked by both negative and positive features. It restrains human depravity and its effects. . . . In common grace God also restrains his own wrath. His longsuffering (1 Pet 3:20) and forbearance (Acts 17:30) are expressions of this. Further, God restrains the influence of the evil that entered the world through sin. The disintegration of life is contained: crops grow even in the midst of the thorns and thistles of the divine curse (Gen 3:17). Nature may well be “red in tooth and claw,” but God has graciously placed the fear of man on the animal world to restrain its destructive tendency.

Positively, God has ordained good in the beauty and abundance of creation and among even unregenerate men. Admittedly the Lord blessed the Egyptians for Joseph’s sake (Gen 39:5); but he did bless them! He bestows good gifts on men (Matt 5:44–45). . . . Furthermore, through common grace “Good is attributed to unregenerate men” (ibid.). Admittedly there is paradox in such a statement, but Murray appeals to The Westminster Confession of Faith (16.7) for confirmation of his exposition. . . .

Again, civil government provides peace and order for men. Strife and unrest are inevitable in a sinful world. That there should be any peace is an evidence of common grace.

What, then, is the function of common grace? It is the precondition for special grace, and ultimately the context in which the salvation and glorification of the elect will take place. Common grace provides both the sphere and the materials in and on which special grace operates.

Sinclair Ferguson, “The Whole Counsel of God: Fifty Years of Theological Studies,” WTJ 50, no. 2 (Fall 1988): 271-72.

One of the intriguing functions, mentioned by Ferguson at the end of his quotation, is the service common grace provides as the precondition for special grace. Abraham Kuyper expands on this function:

Without common grace the elect would not have been born . . . . Had Adam and Eve died on the day they sinned, Seth would not have been born from them, nor Enoch from Seth, and no widely ramified race of peoples and nations would ever have originated on earth. On that basis alone all special grace assumes common grace. But there is more. Even if you assumed that their temporal death had been postponed so that the human race could have made a start, but that for the rest sin in all its horror had broken out unhindered, you would still be nowhere. For then life on earth would immediately have turned into a hell and under such hellish conditions the church of God would not have had a place to strike root anywhere. . . . From whatever angle we one looks at this issue, then special grace presupposes common grace. Without the latter the former cannot function.

Abraham Kuyper, “Common Grace,” in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 169.

The concept of common grace can be inferred from a number of Scripture texts.

At the end of Genesis 3, God pronounces judgment on the serpent, Eve, and Adam for their sin. The judgment for Adam and Eve was a curse that affected the blessing of Genesis 1:26-28. Yet the curse did not remove the blessing entirely. A great deal of that blessing remains for all human, svaed or lost. In addition, the penalty of death was not enacted on the outer man immediately. Instead it was delayed by many years.

This same pattern is seen in the Noahic Covenant. Precisely because man is sinful from his infancy (Gen. 8:20), God institutes a covenant that binds him to not destroy earth with a Flood ever again and to preserve regular days and seasons until the end. Apart from the covenant, God would have been just to send one Flood after another upon sinful humanity. This the Noahic covenant is gracious. Since it is made with all of creation, it is also common.

God waited to bring the judgment of the Flood upon the earth to give sinners time to repent (1 Peter 3:20), and after the Flood God deferred judgment on sinners, also giving them a chance to repent (Acts 17:30).

Isaiah 28:23-29 teaches that by God’s common grace both the saved and lost can develop the intellectual and practical skills to succeed at their vocations. God enables people to understand the world as he created in it and to succeed in living in it.

Jesus teaches in Matthew 5:44-45 that the Father shows love toward his enemies (grace) by giving sunshine and rain to both the righteous and the unrighteous alike (common).

Paul also points to the rains and the provision of food as the goodness of God shown to pagan people (Acts 14:17). In addition Paul indicates that this goodness was a witness to God himself (suppressed according to Romans 1).

This manifestation of grace consisted in restraining, blocking, or redirecting the consequences that would otherwise have resulted from sin. It intercepts the natural outworking of the poison of sin and either diverts and alters it or opposes and destroys it. For that reason we must distinguish two dimensions in the manifestations of grace: 1. a saving grace, which in the end abolishes sin and completely undoes its consequences; and 2. a temporal restraining grace, which holds back and blocks the effect of sin. The former, that is saving grace, is in the nature of the case special and restricted to God’s elect. The second, common grace, is extended to the whole of our human life.

Abraham Kuyper, “Common Grace,” in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 168.

Books

Bock, Darrell and Mitch Glaser, eds. The People, the Land, and the Future of Israel: Israel and the Jewish People in the Plan of God. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2014.

This book is a collection of conference papers. Many of the contributors are scholars, but the scholars are speaking to a broad audience. The book divides into four parts: The Hebrew Scriptures; New Testament; Hermeneutics, and Church History; Practical Theology. While some of the essays were disappointing in their coverage, I appreciated the basic surveys of biblical material provided by Merrill, Kaiser, Wilkins, Bock, and Vanlaningham. Michael Vlach provided a helpful précis of historical material covered at greater length in his book Has the Church Replaced Israel? John Feinberg and Mark Saucy also wrote outstanding essays on Israel and Israel in the Land being theological necessities. Saucy looks at the storyline of Scripture and notes the significance of Israel throughout the storyline, with special attention given to the New Covenant. One salient point that Saucy made was that changes in temple and cult were predicted by the prophets. The prophets do not prophesy the obsolescence of Israel or the land, however. Much to the contrary. Feinberg looks at Daniel 9:24-27; Zechariah 12; and Isaiah 19:16-25, demonstrating that Israel must be in the land for these prophecies to be fulfilled.

But the essay that is worth the price of the book is Craig Blaising’s essay on hermeneutics. He recognizes that the hermeneutical discussion has moved well beyond spiritualizing vs. literal interpretations. Those who do not see a future for national Israel typically appeal to genre considerations or typology, and they seek to operate within grammatical-historical hermeneutics. In Blaising’s words, these interpreters “do not claim to have read into the text meaning that is alien to it.” Instead, they claim to be “recognizing a typology embedded in the text” (156). Blaising argues that the supercessionist system needs to be evaluated by four criteria: are its interpretations “comprehensive,” “congruent” with the passages being considered, internally “consistent,” and “coherent” as a system. He goes on to demonstrate that supercessionists do not meet these criteria. His most telling point falls under the congruent heading. He notes that a promise differs from types “A promise entails an obligation. When somebody makes a promise, they’re not just stating something; they’re doing something. They are forming a relationship and creating an expectation that carries moral obligation” (160). The book of Hebrews recognizes many types in the Old Testament, but it says that two things are unchangeable: the promise and the oath (Heb. 6:18). The land promise would fall into the category of that which is unchangeable, since it is promised with an oath, rather than into the category of type.

Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam. Bampton Lectures in America. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.

This is a good overview of the state of scholarship on the crusades at present. Riley-Smith undercuts a number of popular misconceptions that crusades scholars have abandoned. For instance, he notes that Muslim resentment for the crusades is a rather recent phenomenon, dating back to the 19th century. Christian embarrassment at the crusades is also relatively recent. He demonstrates that support for the crusades were not marginal in Roman Catholic thought. (An aberration from Riley-Smith’s careful argumentation is his attempt to tie Protestants to the crusades. Luther’s argument that Christians may defend themselves against the Turks falls short of advocating crusade. Riley-Smith says there is a parallel between Luther and Catholic crusaders because both emphasize repentance and prayer. But surely repentance and prayer in war do not a crusade make. What is more, the Reformation was a protest against the penitential system that lay at the heart of the crusades.) Riley-Smith does a good job giving attention to the religious aspects of the crusades. While not defending the crusades, he does note that they were supposed to adhere to just war theory. This meant that they had to be reactive wars, wars taking back territory that had been lost. They could not be wars that led to forced conversions (though he notes crusades in the Baltic regions came close to violating these principles). He also describes the way that the crusades were tied to the Catholic penitential system. Contrary to the popular idea that crusaders were primarily motivated by financial gain, Riley-Smith notes that the crusades were dangerous endeavors that were more likely to cost a man everything, including his life, than to lead for wealth. Because of this, going on a crusade could be considered an act of penance that would lead to forgiveness of sins. Also interesting was Riley-Smith’s description of crusading sermons. He notes that one guide for crusading preachers instructed that “an invitatio should be accompanied by a hymn. . . . So as a preacher bellowed out his passionate appeal a choir would strike up and would presumably continue singing as men came forward to commit themselves publically” (38). The attention to these kinds of religious details make Riley-Smith’s book an excellent brief introduction to the crusades.

Stander, Hendrick F. and Johannes P. Louw, Baptism in the Early Church. Leeds, UK: Evangelical Press, 2004.

In this book two South Africa paedobaptists survey the writings of the early church and conclude that credo baptism was the common practice of the early church until the fourth century. Though not as detailed as Everett Ferguson’s survey, Stander and Louw do give a good survey of the evidence. They also often provide lengthier quotations of the primary sources than Ferguson does.

Ferguson, Everett. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

This is a comprehensive survey of written and artifactual evidence concerning baptism. Ferguson reaches three primary conclusions. First, baptism was primarily done by immersion throughout this time period. Other modes were used only in emergency situations. Second, paedobaptism emerged slowly over time. Not until the fourth century did it become widely accepted. Third, baptism was considered to be the point of regeneration, reception of the Spirit, and the reception of other salvific blessings. Ferguson is a member of the Churches of Christ. The conclusions he reaches are consistent with Churches of Christ doctrine. In general, however, I thought that Ferguson was giving a fair presentation of the data. I remain unconvinced, however, of his claim to find baptismal regeneration in the New Testament texts (though I grant that it is clearly found in the church fathers). He also seemed averse to finding the doctrine of original sin in fathers prior to Augustine. These caveats aside, this is the resource that has collected all the data on baptism in the early church.

Abrams, Douglas Carl. Selling the Old-Time Religion: American Fundamentalists and Mass Culture, 1920-1940. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2001.

Abrams discusses Fundamentalist’s relationship to both consumer culture and popular culture. He documents that fundamentalists both embraced and rejected aspects of both kinds of culture. Abrams also the reactions of Fundamentalism to culture. For instance, he critiques the general embrace of consumer culture by Fundamentalists. Overall, an excellent resource.

Hoffmeier, James K. Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Hoffmeier continues his case that indirect evidence lends credence to the Bible’s account of the Israel in Egypt and, in this book, in the Wilderness. For instance, in one chapter he looks at the names in the genealogies in Numbers and notes that a good number of them are of Egyptian derivation. This argues for the authenticity of the sojourn in Egypt. He also discusses issues such as the location of the Red Sea crossing and Mount Sinai, and the path taken in the Exodus. His point in these discussions is that the accounts in the Pentateuch are located in real places rather in than in a mystical realm in which such routes and locations cannot be evaluated. I think Hoffmeier’s point stands even if one wishes to argue for different locations. The very fact that he can make an argument for one location and that someone else can examine the evidence and make a case for another location proves Hoffmeier’s point that these accounts are of such a nature that such discussions are possible and profitable. This would not be the case with myth. Hoffmeier also takes on the inconsistency of critical approaches to Scripture. For instance, he notes that a historical treatise by a 3rd century BC historian that is preserved only in quotation in other sources (e.g., Josephus and Eusebius) is still used today as the basis for our sequencing of the early Egyptian dynasties. With the Bible we have a much better manuscript tradition that reaches back in time closer to the original documents and events. For instance, some of the Dead Sea Scrolls date back to the first and second centuries B.C. But the critics insist on dating the Pentateuch late and reject countervailing evidence. The Bible is rejected as a “historical partner.” Hoffmeier raises the question of why, despite claims that the Bible should be treated like any other book, it is treated like no other book. His supposition: “Either they want the material to be late so as to fit a particular theory or model they advocate, or they want sources to be late (operating under the assumption that later sources are poor sources) so as to discredit the historical reliability of the Bible. This in turn allows them to reconstruct the history, social framework, and moral or religious traditions in a manner that is more aligned with their own view of things” (18).

Caro, Robert. The Path to Power. The Years of Lyndon Johnson. Knopf, 1982.

This is part one of a five part biography of Lyndon Johnson. Though lengthy, Caro is an engaging writer. It is hard to put these biographies down. Some of the length is devoted to setting the background. For instance, the book begins with a fascinating history of the Texas Hill Country.

Caro does not pull his punches, but he’s not writing a hatchet job, either. HIs interest is in how power is gained and used. LBJ is his case study.

Austen, Jane. Persuasion.

Garretson, James M. A Scribe Well-Trained: Archibald Alexander and the Life of Piety. Profiles in Reformed Spirituality. Edited by Joel R. Beeke and Michael A. G. Haykin. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2011.

Like the other books in this series, A Scribe Well-Trained provides readers with a brief biography of its subject, bite-sized devotional readings by the subject, and a guide for additional reading. I find these books warm my heart toward God.

Block, Daniel I. For the Glory of God: Recovering a Biblical Theology of Worship. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014.

This is, as the title indicates, a biblical theology of worship. Each chapter covers a topic, moving from the First Testament, as Block prefers to call it, through to the New Testament and on to present-day application. The topics covered range from worship in daily life and in the family to the elements of corporate worship such as ordinances, preaching, prayer, and music. Block mounts a defense of the relevance of the Old Testament in guiding present worship practices (while appropriately noting discontinuities). While differing with Block on a few points, overall I found his exegesis and applications sound. Highly recommended.

Articles

Guy, Laurie. “‘Naked’ Baptism in the Early Church: The Rhetoric and the Reality,” The Journal of Religious History 27, no. 2 (June 2003): 133-42.

In researching baptism in the early church, I noticed that numerous sources indicated that those baptized were naked. This obviously raises a moral question for the baptism of women, since the priests who baptized were men. Guy addresses this issue. He notes that “there are three commonly held conclusions, one of which would seem to be wrong: 1. Baptismal candidates were baptized naked 2. Baptism was administered by male clergy 3. Judeo-Christian sense of modesty would not allow a religious practice where female nakedness was exposed to male gaze.” Guy begins with the third conclusion and is able to affirm from contemporary sources, especially those dealing with the baths, that it is true. Likewise, the second conclusion is true. Several of the church fathers explicitly address the issue of women administering baptism, and they forbid it. Guy argues that it is the first conclusion which must be modified. He makes the case that naked in biblical Greek does not necessarily meaning entirely unclothed. For instance, Peter in John 21.7 could have been still clothed in a tunic or smock. He finds evidence in Chrysostom that baptismal candidates could be considered naked while still wearing a chiton, which would enable them to be modest. In other words they were not fully clothed by normal standards but still clothed. Guy argues that the rhetoric of nakedness, however, is used for the purpose of emphasizing the new birth.

Sanford, John C. and Robert Carter. “In Light of Genetics… Adam, Eve, and the Creation/Fall.” Christian Apologetics Journal (2014).

An article by two creationary scientists with expertise in genetics challenging recent claims that genetics disproves a historical Adam. The outline of their article is as follows:

1. Humans are fundamentally different from all other life forms in terms of functionality.

2. Humans are profoundly different from all other life forms in terms of our genome.

3. The direction of genetic change is down, not up. Humanity is devolving due to mutation.

4. The information that specifies ‘man’ cannot arise via random mutations and natural selection.

5. The “junk DNA” paradigm has collapsed and is no longer a valid rescue mechanism for Darwinism.

6. All human beings are amazingly similar genetically—pointing toward a recent Adam and Eve.

• Demise of the evolutionary bottleneck theory.
• Demise of the evolutionary Out-of-Africa theory.

7. The limited amount of diversity within the human genome is best explained in terms of:

• Primarily, designed diversity (heterozygosity) within the biblical Adam and Eve.
• Secondarily, degenerative mutations that have accumulated since the Fall.

8. The number of “linkage blocks” and the limited degree of recombination seen within human chromosomes appears to be consistent with an original population of two individuals that gave rise to all humanity in the last 10,000 years.

9. The origin of people groups is best understood in the context of Adam/Flood/Babel, only requiring population fragmentation, rapid dispersal, founder effects, assortative mating, and limited selection.

10. There is clearly a singular female ancestor of all humans (“Mitochondrial Eve”), her basic DNA sequence is easily discernable in humans alive today, and it is not more similar to chimpanzee.

11. There is clearly a singular male ancestor of all humans (“Y Chromosome Adam”), his DNA sequence is largely known, and it is not at all similar to that of chimpanzee.

12. Molecular clocks and other dating methods most consistently point to a young genome.