Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Obadiah’s Use of the Old Testament

by

Standing behind this whole book is Genesis’s account of the twins Jacob and Esau, who are the forefathers of Israel and Edom. Obadiah 10-11 indicates that this kinship between the two nations exacerbates Edom’s sin. Obadiah 2, in saying that Edom will be “utterly despised,” echoes Genesis 25:34, which says that Esau despised his birthright. Edom is on the trajectory set for it by Esau, and the punishment for their sin will be linked with his sin.

Genesis 12:3 also stands behind this verse. Edom is cursed because it attacked Abraham’s seed, but in the end, Edom will be blessedly possessed by Yhwh in the person of the Davidic Messiah in fulfillment of the promise that all the families of the earth will be blessed in Abraham (Obad 19, 21).[1]

The dispossession of Edom and destruction of the nation without survivors (Obad. 8, 9, 10, 18, 19) was first prophesied by Balaam in Numbers 24:18-19.[2] Note that the dispossession and cutting off of Edom as a judgment happened in the past as a judgment (Obad, 8, 9, 10), but the possession of Edom by Yhwh in the new creation will be a blessing upon those converted Edomites living in the millennium and eternal state.

The restoration of Israel to the land after having been dispossessed is part of Deuteronomy’s prediction of the new covenant and its terms (Dt 30:3-5).[3]

Obadiah also evokes Joshua in that “the future repossession of the land” (Obad 19-20) is “a recapitulation of early Israel’s settlement in the land.”[4] The future Day of Yhwh against all the nations was foreshadowed by the conquest of the nations in Canaan.

As noted above, the reference to “saviors” in Obadiah 21 evokes the judges from the book of Judges who threw off Israel’s enemies.[5] Here these saviors rule Edom from Mount Zion, which indicates that Israel now rules over Edom rather than Edom threating Israel.[6] But this may also indicate God’s deliverance of Edom as it now ruled over by Yhwh.

[1] Rooker, “The Book of Obadiah,” in The Word and the World, 444.

[2] Raabe, AB, 32-33, 248-49; Schnittjer, OTUOT, 401.

[3] See Staurt, WBC, 420.

[4] Timmer, TOTC, 24; cf Raabe, AB, 272.

[5] Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets; Raabe 32, 272.

[6] Block, ZECOT, 102-3.

Structure and Summary of Obadiah

by

After the superscription, Obadiah can be divided into four major sections, each marked with a “speech formula,” thus dividing the book into four major sections: 1b-4, 5-7, 8-18, 19-21.[1] The third, and longest section, can be divided into four additional sub-sections. Verses 8-9 refer to Edom in the third person and pronounce a day of Yhwh judgment upon it. Verses 10-11 directly address Edom for what it did to Judah and Jerusalem. Verses 12-14 warn Edom against future actions against Judah. Verses 15-18 turn to the ultimate day of the Yhwh judgment.

Verse 1a identifies the prophet who wrote this book as Obadiah, a name the means “servant of Yhwh.”[2] Nothing further is known about the prophet. If our dating of the book is correct, Obadiah is not the same man who was over Ahab’s household in the time of Elijah (cf., 1 Kgs 18:3-7, 16). The name occurs several other times in the Old Testament (1 Chr 3:21; 9:44; 12:9; 2 Chr 17:7; 34:12), but this prophet cannot be identified with any of these men.[3] The prophecy is called a vision, which “serves as a technical term for a revelation of a ‘prophet.’”[4]

In the first speech, of the Lord Yhwh addresses Edom (1b-4). Though most translations, going back to the KJV, render this “concerning Edom,” the usage here as part of a messenger formula indicates makes it more likely that the Lord Yhwh is addressing Edom in this prophecy not merely rhetorically but historically.[5] Obadiah reveals that he has heard from Yhwh that a messenger has been sent among the nations to cause them to rise up and fight Edom. This is probably best understood as an angelic messenger from Yhwh to stir up the nations.[6] Yhwh then declares that has made Edom small and despised. Edom is proud in its mountain fastness. The Edomites think that no one can bring them down. But the Lord says that even if Edom was high in the sky like an eagle who made its nest (not high in the trees) but among the stars—even from there Yhwh would bring Edom down. This is certain. It is the declaration of Yhwh.

In the second speech (5-7), Yhwh turns to the extent of the judgment that Esau will face. He presents Esau with two scenarios. In the first thieves and plunders come at night. In the second gatherers go out in a vineyard to gather grapes. Yhwh says that even thieves still what is sufficient for them, and grape-gatherers leave gleanings for the poor. But Esau will be utterly pillaged. Further, it will be Edom’s allies who will turn against it. Edom was known as a nation renowned for its wisdom, but Yhwh declares, “You have no understanding.”

In the third speech (8-18) Yhwh reiterates the day of Yhwh judgment that will befall Edom (8-9), reveals what Edom did to provoke this judgment (10-11), warn Edom against future actions against Judah (12-14), and closes by linking the judgment against Edom to the eschatological day of Yhwh (15-18).

In Edom’s day of Yhwh judgment, Yhwh will destroy the wise and understanding men from Mount Esau. In fact, Edom will be entirely destroyed. Furthermore, Edom’s warriors will be slaughtered (8-9).

Verses 10-11 reveal why Edom will receive these judgments. Edom had acted violently against Judah when other nations attacked Jerusalem, and Edom did not intervene to aid Judah.

In verses 12-14 Yhwh warns Edom against acting toward Judah in a similar manner in the future. Incidentally, this passage presumes there is a day of misfortune, ruin, distress, and calamity in Judah’s future. When that day comes, Edom is not to align itself against Judah.

Verses 15-18 provide a reason for avoiding further opposition to Judah: the day of Yhwh is near. Here the message broadens out to include all nations. The standard of judgment is what the nations have done to others. They will have the same done to them. Just as Edom drank on God’s holy mountain in celebration of Jerusalem’s fall, so all the nations (Edom included) will drink the cup of God’s wrath.[7] The result of this judgment is the annihilation of the nations.[8] During this ultimate day of Yhwh, Mount Zion is a holy place once again, and it becomes a refuge for those who escape. There is also an eschatological realization of the conquest of the land as the house of Jacob possesses its own possessions again. Verse 18 implies a reunited Israel (“house of Jacob” and “house of Joseph”). The reunited Israel will consume the house of Esau like stubble, leaving no survivor.[9]

The final speech (19-21) continues the theme of Israel’s repossession of the land. In this listing, Israel obtains possession of its surrounding enemies, with territories at all points of the compass listed, indicating a possession of all the land promised to Israel. In addition, this passage predicts the return of the exiles and the reunification of the two kingdoms. Deliverers, a term used in Judges to describe those God sent to deliver a sinful Israel from oppression will now rule over Mount Esau from Mount Zion. This allusion to deliverers ruling over Edom could indicate that these are deliverers that deliver Edom and rule over redeemed Edomites in the Messianic kingdom.[10] In the end, “and the kingdom shall be Yhwh’s.” As Niehaus observes, “Obadiah’s message concludes with an expectation of the day when we may say, ‘The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord / and of his Messiah / and he will reign forever and ever’ (Rev. 11:15).”[11] All nations will come under the lordship of Yhwh.

[1] Raabe, AB, 18.

[2] Niehaus, 511; Block, ZECOT, 49.

[3] Niehaus, 511;

[4] Raabe, AB, 94; cf. Niehaus, 511.

[5] See Raabe, AB, 107 for argumentation.

[6] Niehaus, 513; Raabe, AB, 113-14; Block, ZECOT, 53.

[7] Stuart, WBC, 420; Finley, WEC, 371-72; Niehaus, 2:535-36; Rogland, ESVEC, 383-84. The other option is that the “you” who drank on Yhwh’s holy mountain is Judah. In this interpretation, just as Judah drank God’s wrath so the nations will drink God’s wrath. Against this view, the “you” addressed throughout the book has been Edom. Proponents of view note that this is a plural you, rather than the singular you used to refer to Edom throughout the rest of the book. Raabe, AB, 203. Critics of this view argue against the abrupt introduction of Judah by a pronoun. Critics of the view represented in the main text above argue that it must understand the significance of drinking differently between the first and second parts of the verse. Finley, WEC, 371-72.

[8] Since the nations, including Edom, are represented elsewhere in Scripture as being present in Millennium and new creation, this annihilation of the nations does not include the remnant of the saved within the nations. It thus is an annihilation of the present world order with evil nations and not a removal of the nations as such. See Timmer, TOTC.

[9] On no survivors from Edom, see previous note. The context for this judgment on Edom is eschatological (see Finley and Busenitz). But Edom seems to have already ceased existence. Is it possible that Israel being a fire that burns up the stubble of Esau refers not to eschatological military action by Israel against Edom but instead reflects God’s eschatological judgment proleptically visited by God on Edom through other nations. The judgment was due to mistreatment of Israel (hence Israel as a flame) rather than Israel as the agent of judgment. Or perhaps Israel acting as a flame refers to Edom’s assimilation into Israel so that it is no longer a nation? I don’t see this view in the literature anywhere, and it will need to be tested against other passages which may speak of an eschatological judgment of Edom.

[10] Robertson, Christ of the Prophets, 248-49 / 168-70. In support of this Robertson observes that Amos, the book preceding Obadiah, concludes by speaking of the Davidic king possessing the remnant of Edom. Robertson does not note this, but it may be significant that the next prophet, Jonah, is about the gospel going to Gentiles.

[11] Niehaus 1993: 541.

The Date of Obadiah

by

Obadiah does not have a superscription that dates the book, and there are numerous proposed dates ranging from the early ninth century BC to the mid-fourth century BC. There are two dates that are most common among conservative scholars: a date during the reign of King Jehoram of Judah (mid-ninth century BC) or a date between the conquest of Jerusalem by Babylon (586 BC) and Nabonidus’s conquest of Edom (553 BC) (mid-sixth century BC).[1]

Arguments for a Mid-Sixth Century Dating

This dating goes back at least to the time of the Reformation. Calvin dated Obadiah subsequent to Isaiah (740-700 BC) and noted the prophet was a possible contemporary of Jeremiah. Calvin suggested that Jeremiah may have made use of Obadiah.[2] Luther more confidently dated Obadiah to the time of the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon and stated his conviction that Obadiah and Jeremiah were contemporaries. Luther held that Obadiah drew on Jeremiah’s text in writing his own prophecy.[3] This is currently the most popular viewpoint among evangelical scholars.

1. Some argue that Obadiah made use of Jeremiah, which would require Obadiah to have been written after Jeremiah.[4] However, others grant that Jeremiah often made use of other, earlier prophets and that he may have made use of Obadiah even if the two were contemporaries.[5] If Obadiah made use of Jeremiah, a date from the mid-sixth century of later would be necessary. If Jeremiah made use of Obadiah, Obadiah would have needed to precede or be a contemporary of Jeremaih.

2. The words used to describe Judah’s situation—“misfortune,” “ruin,” “distress” (2x), “calamity” (3x), and “disaster” (Obad 12-14)—point to an event more like that destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon rather than to earlier attacks upon Jerusalem.[6] Raabe notes, “The phrase in v 12 is especially strong, ‘on the day of their [the Judahites’] ruin,’ literally, ‘on the day of their perishing.’”[7]

3. Raabe argues that Obadiah 12-14 should be understood to refer to past actions of Edom. “Unlike other parts of the book that employ figurative language and imagery, these verses use realistic language and make specific accusations. Only if the Edomites actually engaged in such activities does the prophet’s expression of shock and disbelief make sense.”[8]

4. The Hebrew term translated “carried off” in Obadiah 11 is elsewhere used of Babylon taking Israel captive (Jer 13:17; 50:33; Ezek 6:9; Ps 137:3).[9]

5. Numerous Scripture passages indicate that Edom encouraged Babylon’s destruction of Jerusalem (Ps. 137) and participated in it (Lam 4:21-22; Ezek 25:12-14; 35:1-15). Other texts indicate that Edom was active in the politics surrounding Judah and Babylon in the time surrounding the invasion (Jer 27:1-11; 40:11-12).[10]

6. Several commentators think that the reference to Edom having “drunk on my holy mountain” “implies” or “alludes” to the destruction of the temple (Obadiah 16).[11]

7. Some commentators interpret Obadiah 16 as teaching that Judah drank the cup of God’s wrath on the temple mount, which they think best aligns with Babylon’s destruction of the temple.[12]

8. Raabe argues that Obadiah 19 “presupposes the loss of the territories of Ephraim, Samaria, and Gilead, which happened during the Assyrian campaigns of 732 and 722.” This would preclude a mid-ninth century date, since the book must have been written after the Fall of the Northern Kingdom.[13]

9. The reference to exiles from Israel and Jerusalem best fits with the Babylonian exile, though these interpreters grant that there were Israelites exiled previous to that event.[14]

Arguments for Mid-Ninth Century Dating

Though the mid-sixth century date is currently the most common among evangelical commentators in the late nineteenth century evangelical scholars favored the mid-ninth century date, and this date retains advocates up through the present time.

1. Though the minor prophets are not organized according to a strict chronology, those dated to the pre-exilic period are found at the beginning of the collection, and those dated to the post-exilic period are found at the end of the collection. Obadiah is found with the pre-exilic prophets (as is Joel, the other undated book).[15] More specifically, Hosea, Amos, Jonah, and Micah are eighth century prophets. Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah are seventh century prophets. Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi are post-exilic prophets.[16] While this observation is not definitive, it favors a pre-exilic date.

2. More significantly, the grammatical construction used in Obadiah 12-14 indicates that these verses are prohibitions of future actions. Raabe gives a helpful explanation:

To express a past subjunctive—”you should not have”—Hebrew uses lmh+ perfect, “Why did you gloat?” (I owe this observation to C. R. Krahmalkov.) But the construction used in vv 12-14, ’al + second person jussive, is the standard way to make a vetitive or negative command, as Hebrew does not negate the imperative form. Therefore it should be translated “Do not do so-and-so” (so LXX, Vulgate, Peshitta, NEB, NASB). The construction expresses the speaker’s will and desire that the addressee not engage in the activity, often with the sense of urgency (Joüon 1991 § 114). By definition vetitives concern present or future time. One does not say “Do not gloat yesterday.” They can be rendered “Do not begin an action” (e.g., Gen 22:12; 37:22) or “Stop doing an action” (e.g., Amos 5:5; Pss 35:19; 75:5-6 [4-5]). The context dictates.[17]

Raabe, who adopts the mid-sixth century date says that “the prophet imaginatively locates himself back to the time of Judah’s fall, or he projects the past catastrophe into the present.”[18] But Keil and Niehaus both argue that “Obadiah is warning Edom not to do again what she had already done.”[19]

3. Those who argue for the mid-ninth century date see evidence that Jeremiah made use of Obadiah, rather than the other way around.

3.a. Notably, these warnings against future conduct are absent from Jermiah 49:7-21. As Niehaus observes, “because these verses are injunctions against future conduct, they are appropriate in the Book of Obadiah, which predates the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem. Jeremiah, who wrote his oracle against Edom after the fall of Jerusalem (Jer. 39), had no reason to employ such injunctions, since Edom had already committed the acts that Obadiah 12-14 had warned them not to commit.”[20]

3.b. Second, Jeremiah’s oracles against the nations often made use of earlier prophecies against those nations.[21] It is more likely, therefore that Jeremiah continued this practice here than that Obadiah made use of Jeremiah.

3.c. Finally, “Obadiah seems to be a more unified speech, whereas the wording in Jeremiah is more scattered.”[22]

4. Leaving aside Obadiah and Joel, the earliest mention of the Day of Lord in the Minor Prophets occurs in Amos (dated to the eighth century). It would be somewhat puzzling for Amos to contain the first revelation on this topic because Amos 5:18 reveals that the Israelites have already twisted the Day of the Lord to apply only to Israel’s enemies and not to themselves. On the other hand, Robert Bell observes, “If Obadiah and Joel preached their messages on the day of the Lord in the ninth century, then it is completely understandable that the eighth-century Amos found the term on the lips of carnal Israelites.”[23] Bell finds confirmation for this thesis by charting the characteristics of the Day of the Lord and noting that “Obadiah mentions the fewest common characteristics,” which “is what one would expect of the passage that first mentions a concept.”[24]

5. Numerous passages indicate that Edom was hostile toward Israel in pre-exilic times. Amos 1:11 says that Edom “pursued his brother with the sword and cast off all pity,”[25] and Amos 1:6 says that the Philistines carried of exiles to Edom.[26] Psalm 83 presents Edom in league with the Ishmaelites, Moabites, Amalekites, Philistines, Assyria, and others against God’s people. The inclusion of Assyria in this list of nations favors a pre-exilic date.[27] Referring to events during the reign Ahaz, subsequent the sixth-century, 2 Chronicles 28:17 says Edom “again invaded and defeated Judah and carried away captives” (emphasis added).[28] If Joel is pre-exilic, then Joel 3:19 would be pre-exilic mention of Edom acting violently toward Judah.[29]

6. Edom had been subordinate to Judah until the reign of Jehoram, at which time Edom successfully “revolted from the rule of Judah” (2 Kings 8:20-22; 2 Chron. 21:8-10). Later the Philistines and Arabians invaded Judah and “carried away all the possession they found that belonged to the king’s house, and also his sons and his wives, so that no son was left to hum except Jehoahaz, his youngest son” (2 Chron. 21:16-17). This is a significant invasion that clearly penetrated into the city of Jerusalem. If Amos 1:6 refers to this event when it says that Gaza (a Philistine city) “carried into exile a whole people to deliver them up to Edom,” then Edom is certainly implicated in the charge that he “stood aloof on the days that strangers carried off [Judah’s] wealth” (Obadiah 11). Amos’s direct charge against Edom, “he pursued his brother with the sword and cast off all pity” (Amos 1:11) could indicate that Edom also took a more active role in this invasion (cf. Obadiah 16)—if Amos refers to the same event.[30]

7. Obadiah does not mention Babylon anywhere in his prophecy. Instead, when Obadiah foresees Judah possessing its enemies, he mentions possession of Edom, Philistia, the Northern Kingdom of Israel, and Phoenicia. This collection of conquered enemies fits best with an earlier date.[31]

Evaluation

The strongest objection to the ninth century date is that the Bible does not reveal much about Edom’s actions toward Judah during the reign of Jehoram except that Edom revolted during his reign.[32] The correlation between 2 Chronicles 21:16-17, Amos 1:6, 11, and Obadiah 11 is plausible but not entirely certain. The strongest objection to the sixth century date is the grammar of Obadiah 12-14, which is best read as prohibitions of future actions. While it is possible that this can be explained as rhetorical, this seems to be explaining the grammar away rather than explaining the text in light of the grammar.

Numerous arguments favor the ninth century date even if they are not definitive. The placement of Obadiah with the pre-exilic prophets and Jeremiah’s likely quotation of Obadiah both favor the earlier date. It is also true that Amos presupposes preceding revelation about the Day of the Lord that Obadiah (and Joel) would provide if dated to the ninth century.

On the other hand, numerous arguments made for the sixth century date are also consistent with the ninth century date. The argument that the strong language in Obadiah 12-14 describing Judah’s ruin best fits the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem is compatible with the view that these verses are warnings against future actions by Edom—warnings which Edom did not heed. Similarly, the passages that indicate that Edom encouraged and participated in Babylon’s destruction in Jerusalem could indicate that Edom did not heed the warning given in Obadiah in the ninth century. The argument that the term translated “carried” off is used of Babylon taking Israel captive is weakened by the fact that Obadiah refers to wealth being carried off while Babylon carried off people. Likewise, the claim that the references to exiles from Israel and Judah best fits with the Babylonian exile is neutralized by the reference in Amos 1:6 to exiles who were carried off in earlier invasions by other countries.  

Other arguments in favor of the sixth century date simply fail. It is simply not the case that Obadiah 16 indicates that the temple was destroyed. Nor does Obadiah 19 indicate that Ephraim, Samaria, or Gilead had been lost already to Assyria. These verses are eschatological and indicate only that the Northern kingdom was at times hostile to Judah and that in the end it would be possessed by Judah (the Davidic kingdom).[33]

In sum, a mid-ninth century date, in the reign of Jehoram is to be preferred.

[1] Raabe, Obadiah, AB, 51; Block, Obadiah, ZECOT, 23.

[2] Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 418-19.

[3] Luther, Works, 18:193-94.

[4] Luther, Works, 18:193; Shepherd, A Commentary on the Book of the Twelve, KEL, 27-28.

[5] Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, WEC, 344-45.

[6] Finley, WEC, 341; Raabe, AB, 51; Block, ZECOT, 24.

[7] Raabe, AB, 51, brackets in original.

[8] Raabe, AB, 52.

[9] Raabe, AB, 51.

[10] Luther, Works, 18:193; Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, WBC, 404; Finley, WEC, 341; Raabe, AB, 52; Rooker, “The Book of Obadiah,” in The World and the Word, 440; Block, ZCOT, 25-26; Rogland, “Obadiah,” ESVEC, 373-74.

[11] Raabe, AB, 51-52; Block, ZECOT, 25.

[12] Raabe, AB, 51; Block, ZECOT, 24-25.

[13] Raabe, AB, 52; also Block, ZECOT, 24.

[14] Raabe, AB, 52; Bloack, ZECOT, 24-25.

[15] Paul Kleinert, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Obadiah, ed., John Peter Lange (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 4; Niehaus, “Obadiah,” Minor Prophets, 500; Irvin A. Busenitz, Commentary on Joel and Obadiah, Mentor Commentaries (Geanies House, Fearn, Ross-shire, Great Britain: Mentor, 2003), 229.

[16] O. Palmer Robertson, Prophet of the Coming Day of the Lord, 10.

[17] Raabe, AB, 177.

[18] Raabe, AB, 177.

[19] Niehuas, 498; cf. Keil and Delitzech, in loc.; Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 335.

[20] Niehaus, 501.

[21] Keil and Delitzsch, 10:228-29; Kleinert, 4; Archer, 335; Niehaus, 500; Tully, Reading the Prophets as Christian Scripture, 291 (Tully holds to the mid-sixth century date).

[22] Tully, Reading the Prophets as Christian Scripture, 291; cf. Keil and Delitzsch, 10:228-29; Archer, 335; Niehaus, 500; Busenitz, 234.

[23] Bell, The Theological Messages of the Old Testament Books, 377-78.

[24] Bell, Theological Messages, 377.

[25] Kleinert, 4; Niehaus, 498.

[26] E. J. Young, Introduction to the Old Testament, 253.

[27] Niehaus, 498.

[28] Niehaus, 499.

[29] Kleinert, 4.

[30] Keinert, 4-5; Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 333; Niehaus, 501.

[31] Kleinert, 4; Busenitz, 232-33.

[32] Stuart, WBC, 404.

[33] See Busenitz, 232.

Thoughts on an Interview with Tom Schreiner on the Millennium

by

In this interview with Tom Schreiner on his forthcoming Revelation commentary in the Baker Exegetical series, he discusses his current view of the Millennium.

Schreiner has famously shifted between premillennial and amillennial views of Revelation 20. In his forthcoming commentary he argues that Revelation 20 is the first stage of the new creation. He agrees with premillennialists that Satan is entirely bound during this time and that the bodily resurrection of believers is the “first resurrection” mentioned in Revelation 20. He notes that if the “first resurrection” is not the bodily resurrection, Revelation would have no mention of the ultimate vindication of the saints.  However, because he sees this period as part of the new creation, he does not see any non-glorified saints in Revelation 20. All the wicked are judged and all the saints are glorified. He also understands all of the “famous so-called millennial passages” in the OT are fulfilled in the new creation; he observes that they are copiously quoted in Revelation 21-22.

He notes that the big problem with his new creation view is the final battle in 20:7-10 . Who joins Satan in this final battle against the saints? His solution: these are those who were raised from the dead before the final judgment.

In many ways Schreiner’s view is similar to my own (and to that of Robert Duncan Culver in Daniel and the Latter Days). I too see the Revelation 20 as the first stage of the new creation. I too think that this helps make sense of OT millennial passages being referenced in Revelation 21-22. However, I would differ with Schreiner on a few points. (1) I don’t interpret the OT millennial passages symbolically the way that Schreiner does. I think those passages actually blend the millennial stage of the new creation with the consummate stage. That is why they can be alluded to in Revelation 21-22 while also containing material that cannot be true of the consummate new creation. (2) Because I hold to a pre-Day of the Lord rapture, my view doesn’t have a problem with non-glorified saints entering the Millennial period. Thus, I don’t have the difficulty with who joins with Satan in the final battle against the saints. (3) In the interview Schreiner does not elaborate on the purpose for a millennial first stage for the new creation. In my view this period is when Jesus Christ, the second Man, leads all mankind to fulfill the blessed mandate of subduing the earth.

In the interview Schreiner notes that his overall interpretation of Revelation is symbolic. If his ESV Expository Commentary is a guide, to the forthcoming BECNT volume, it will be consistent with Beale’s modified idealism. In the intreview Schriener notes his concern is with newspaper eschatology: Hal Lindsay, Tim LaHaye, or those who were finding Iraq in Revelation during the early 2000s. I too am concerned with such eisegesis. I don’t think those views can rightly be called futurist. They are a kind of presentism, a historicist approach focused on the present, just as preterism is a historicist approach focused on the first century. A true futurist approach would see Revelation 6 and following taking place during the final Day of the Lord, the timing of which is completely unknown to us.

Schreiner also made some helpful comments about dispensationalism at the end of the interview. He notes that the trend today is away from dispensationalism. However, he warns against having a “superior, supercilious spirit” toward dispensationalists. I think this is precisely right. I find that dispensational positions, or even positions thought to be dispensational (even if they have been held by a wide variety of interpreters throughout church history), are often dismissed, without actual engagement with the arguments or perhaps with a passing reference to a proof text here (as though the interpretation of that text is beyond debate). Schreiner does not have that spirit and rightly warns against it.

Abraham Believed in the Resurrection of the Body: A Meditation on Genesis 23

by

Genesis 23 focuses on Abraham’s first acquisition of property in the promised land. The Hittites seem to want to deprive Abraham from owning any land by offering Abraham permission to bury Sarah in one of their tombs. Abraham, however, insists on purchasing a tomb for Sarah.

It is striking that the first piece of land that Abraham obtained in the promised land is the tomb. Notably the covenant promise is that Abraham will himself possess the land (Gen 15:7-8; 17:8). And yet, God also indicated that the nation will not be possessed by Abraham’s seed until after Abraham is buried (Gen. 15:15). If Abraham had meditated on the specifics of God’s covenant promises, he would have recognized that they entailed resurrection from the dead. Thus, the purchase of a tomb as a down payment land promise looked forward to the hope of the resurrection.

Confirmation of this eschatological hope is found in Hebrews 11:13-16. Hebrews mentions that the patriarchs and Sarah died in faith, “having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth” (NASB), a refence back to Genesis 23:4. The author of Hebrews understands this to mean that Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob were looking for a heavenly homeland and country.  Hebrews is not teaching Abraham was looking forward to going to heaven when he died. That was not the covenant promise. Instead, he was looking forward to the land that was promised to him being characterized as heavenly rather than as Canaanite. The land will be heavenly (and the prepared city will descend from heaven to the renewed earth) after the resurrection. Notably, in the very next paragraph the author of Hebrews affirms that Abraham believed in the resurrection from the dead (Heb. 11:19).

Jesus also appealed to the Abrahamic covenant when defending the resurrection of the dead. When Jesus quoted Exodus 3:6, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” the import is that God had made covenant promises to the patriarchs that entailed them living again. My argument here is that the truth of the resurrection was not only deduced by Jesus from the Abrahamic covenant; it was deduced by Abraham himself.

“The Covenant of Grace: A Critique of the Concept in Stephen Myers’s God to Us: Covenant Theology in Scripture.”

by

Stephen Myers has produced the best recent exegetical and theological argument for covenant theology, and this paper, published in the most recent issue of the Journal of Biblical Theology & Worldview critiques his argument for an overarching covenant of grace, of which the post-Fall biblical covenants are administrations.

John Owen on Union with Christ as the First and Principal Grace

by

“Thirdly, It is the first and principal grace, in respect of causality and efficacy. It is the cause of all other graces that we are made partakers of; they are all communicated unto us by virtue of our union with Christ. Hence is our adoption, our justification, our sanctification, our fruitfulness, our perseverance, our resurrection, our glory. Hence is our adoption; for it is upon our receiving of him that this right and privilege is granted unto us of becoming the sons of God, John 1:12. No man can be made the adopted son of God but by an implantation into him who is the natural Son of God, John 15:1–6, 20:17. And thence also are the consequent privileges that attend that estate; for “because we are sons, God sends forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father,” Gal. 4:6,—that is, to own God, and address ourselves unto him under the consideration of the authority and love of a father. And hence is our justification: for,—1. Being united unto Christ, we are interested in that acquitment from the condemning sentence of the law which was granted unto himself when he satisfied it to the utmost, Rom. 1:3, 4; Isa. 50:8, 9. For he was acquitted as the head and surety of the church, and not on his own personal account, for whereas he did no sin, he owed no suffering nor satisfaction to the law; but as “he suffered for us, the just for the unjust,” so he was acquitted as the representative of his whole church. By our union, therefore, unto him, we fall under the sentence of acquitment, which was given out towards whole Christ mystical, head and members. 2. Our union with him is the ground of the actual imputation of his righteousness unto us; for he covers only the members of his own body with his own garments, nor will cast a skirt over any who is not “bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh.” And so he is “of God made unto us righteousness,” 1 Cor. 1:30. Hence also is our sanctification, and that both as to its principle in a new spiritual nature, and as unto its progress in fruitfulness and holiness. The principle of it is the Spirit itself of life, holiness, and power. This God sheds on us through Jesus Christ, Tit. 3:6, or on the account of our interest in him, according to his promise, John 7:38, 39. And for this cause is he said to be “our life,” Col. 3:4, because in him lie the springs of our spiritual life, which in and by our regeneration, renovation, and sanctification is communicated unto us. And its progress in fruitfulness is from thence alone. To teach this, is the design of the parable used by our Saviour concerning the vine and its branches, John 15; for as he showeth our abiding in him to be as necessary unto us, that we may bear fruit, as it is unto a branch to abide in the vine to the same purpose; so without our so doing we are of no more use, in the ways of God, than a branch that is cut off and withered, and cast aside to burn. And men do but labour in the fire, who, in the pursuit of their convictions, endeavour after holiness or the due performance of good works, without deriving strength for them from their relation unto Christ; for all that they do is either nothing in itself, or nothing as unto acceptation with God. “We are the workmanship of God, created in Christ Jesus unto good works,” Eph. 2:10. Becoming new creatures by our inbeing in him, 2 Cor. 5:17, we are thereby enabled unto those good works, or fruits of holiness, which God hath ordained that we should walk and abound in. And hence on many accounts is our perseverance; for, 1. By virtue hereof we are interested in the covenant, which is the great means of our preservation, God having engaged therein so to write his law in our hearts as that we shall not depart from him, Jer. 31:33. Now, this covenant is made with us under this formal consideration, that we are the children and seed of Abraham, which we are not but by our union with Christ, the one seed, to whom the promises of it were originally made, as our apostle declares, Gal. 3:16. 2. His care is peculiar for the members of his body: for as “no man hateth his own flesh, but loveth and cherisheth it,” nor will suffer any of his members to perish, if by any means he can prevent it; so is the heart of Christ towards those that are united to him, and therein are “members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones,” Eph. 5:29, 30. And therefore, 3. The care of giving out supplies unto us for assistance against opposition and strength for duties, which is the grace of perseverance is incumbent on him. Our resurrection also depends on this union,—I mean, a blessed resurrection in joy and glory unto light and life eternal; for this resurrection is nothing but the entire gathering up together of the whole body of Christ unto himself, whereof he gave us a pledge, example, and assurance, in his own person. So the apostle assures us, Rom. 8:11, “If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you” (which, as hath been showed, is the means of our union with him), “he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” And this he expressly proveth at large, 1 Cor. 15. And this lands us in eternal glory; which, as was observed before, is nothing but the consummation and perfection of this union with Christ. And hence it appears on how many accounts it is the principle and measure of all other graces and privileges whatever.

And we may see hence how great our concernment is to inquire diligently into this foundation of all grace, mercy, and glory. If we fail here, as too many seem to do, we do but run in vain, and build in vain, and boast in vain, for all will be lost and perish. We may do well to remember what became of the house that was built on the sand, when its trial came: it fell, and its fall was great and irreparable. Such will be the end of the profession of men that doth not spring and arise from union with Christ.

John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. W. H. Goold, vol. 21, Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1854), 149–151.

Christ Over All and the Importance of Understanding Our Situation

by

Christ Over All is a new online venture that attempts to teach Christians about how the Bible applies to all of life. This is an important and necessary venture. However, it is also a difficult venture. Ideally Christian discipleship involves training Christians for vocations in a myriad of fields. Christians with exegetical and theological expertise should partner with Christians with expertise in the various aspects of life to which the Bible is being applied. However, there is a danger when Christians with exegetical and theological expertise wrongly diagnose the situation to which they are applying Scripture.

Stephen Wellum’s article, “Thou Shalt Be Vaccinated: When “Love Thy Neighbor” Does Not Fulfill the Law,” in an example of this. Wellum argues against the claim that persons should vaccinate themselves against Covid-19 on the basis of the love command. He claims:

For what we now know about the truth of this vaccine (which doesn’t necessarily apply to other vaccines) is that it causes more harm than good, as I’ll show below. As such, if we truly love our neighbor, Christians should lovingly warn others of its serious consequences.

Wellum rightly understands that in order to apply the Bible to a situation, we have to understand that situation. Because he thinks that Covid-19 vaccines are harmful, he thinks the way to live out the love commandment is to warn people of their danger. Hence, he charges those who exhort people to receive the Covid-19 vaccines on the basis of the love command of a misuse of the command.

The question is whether Wellum rightly understands the situation to which he is applying the love command. Are the vaccines in question are helpful or harmful? Wellum cites left-leaning organizations like BioLogos as supporting vaccination, but conservative organizations like Creation Ministries International also support vaccination. He notes that left-leaning organizations like BioLogos appeal to the love command, but so do theologically conservative ones like CMI. See CMI’s lengthy article, “Should Christians Vaccinate?” The CMI article is more detailed, makes use of more reliable sources, and represents its sources more accurately than Wellum’s article does.

Ironically, by linking the name of Christ to warning Christians against the vaccine (“if we truly love our neighbor, Christians should lovingly warn others of its serious consequences”; “we can make a strong case that to truly love our neighbor would be to abstain from taking it any further”) Wellum may be guilty of the very charge he makes against those who claimed that to take the vaccine was to love their neighbor.

There are at least two lessons here for those who desire rightly seek for the Bible to rule over all of life.

1. Distinguish between applications are clear and necessary and applications that require a great deal of additional research or inference. Moving from the Bible to real world biblical application on some issues requires right understanding the situation to which the Bible is being applied.

A few qualifications:

a. This is not an argument against making such applications. It is an argument for awareness of the necessary work involved in making such applications—and a spirit of charity towards Christians who interpret the situation differently.

b. Nor is this to say that in complicated situations any Christian interpretation of the situation is acceptable. The Christian must still seek for a true understanding of the situation. Misdiagnosing the situation can result in misapplying the Scripture, and that is not of minor concern.

2. Christians seeking to develop a biblical view of life cannot work in isolation but must work with other mature Christians who together have a deep and wide understanding of both God’s Word and God’s world.

Matthew Rose, A World After Liberalism: Philosophers of the Radical Right

by

Rose, Matthew. A World after Liberalism: Philosophers of the Radical Right. Yale University Press, 2021.

Rose treats the philosophers of the radical right with seriousness, not dismissing them out of hand or claiming that they are wrong in every respect. He also recognizes that liberalism contains serious flaws. Nonetheless, his account makes abundantly clear that the radical right is hostile to Christianity. Furthermore, he elucidates how much of what the radical right is reacting against in contemporary liberal culture are perversions of Christianity. The radical right seeks not merely to undo these perversions but to attack their Christian roots.

Rose writes:

The alt-right is anti-Christian. Not by implication or insinuation, but by confession. Its leading thinkers flaunt their rejection of Christianity and their desire to convert believers away from it. Greg Johnson, an influential theorist with a doctorate in philosophy from Catholic University of America, argues that “Christianity is one of the main causes of white decline” and a “necessary condition of white racial suicide.” Johnson edits a website that publishes footnoted essays on topics that range from H. P. Lovecraft to Martin Heidegger, where a common feature is its subject’s criticisms of Christian doctrine. “Like acid, Christianity burns through ties of kinship and blood,” writes Gregory Hood, one of the website’s most talented essayists. It is “the essential religious step in paving the way for decadent modernity and its toxic creeds.”

Alt-right thinkers are overwhelmingly atheists, but their worldview is not rooted in the secular Enlightenment, nor is it irreligious. Far from it. Read deeply in their sources—and make no mistake, the alt-right has an intellectual tradition—and you will discover a movement that takes Christian thought and culture seriously. It is a conflicted tribute paid to their chief adversary. Against Christianity it makes two related charges. Beginning with the claim that Europe effectively created Christianity—not the other way around—it argues that Christian teachings have become socially and morally poisonous to the West. A major work of alt-right history opens with a widely echoed claim: “The introduction of Christianity has to count as the single greatest ideological catastrophe to ever strike Europe.”

The Anti-Christian Alt-Right by Matthew Rose | Articles | First Things

Rose’s contribution is vitally important because many Christian ministries are now focused threats to the Christian faith from the left. These are real threats, and Christians must address them. These threats are culturally influential, and Christians unprepared to meet these threats will simply absorb unbiblical ideas from the culture.

On the other hand, many of these ministries seem averse to any criticism of the right. At the least damaging, they critique Democrats while never mentioning the problems of their political allies. For instance, the most recent “Christ Over All” podcast critiqued Bill Clinton and Barack Obama for espousing the sexual revolution. But there was no mention that Donald Trump had done the same—not only in his personal life but also in the policies of his administration (see here and here). More seriously, some critics of the left have embraced some of the ideas from the radical right (e.g., Stephen Wolfe’s The Case for Christian Nationalism; cf. page 7 of Kevin DeYoung’s “The Rise of Right-Wing Wokeism“).

Faithful Christians must be aware of threats to the faith from both the political right and the left. Some will charge this concern as a compromising third wayism. To be sure, when one way is true and the other false, proposing a third way is to compromise. But if there are two false options on the table, the Christian must argue for a third way, a biblical way.

In all this, Scripture must be the standard and guide—not just in rhetoric but in truth. Otherwise, Christians run the risk of fleeing from one error into the arms of another error.

Excerpts from Rose’s book are available on the First Things website:

The Anti-Christian Alt-Right

The Outsider (on Samuel Francis)