Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Best Books Read in 2021

by

Not counting books on ethics and commentaries on Galatians, these are the ten best books I read in 2021. Were I to count the books in the other categories Magnuson’s text on ethics, Udemans’s The Practice of Faith, Hope, and Love, and Moo’s commentary on Galatians would displace Pennington and Bartholomew.

Ussher, James. “Immanuel, Or The Mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God.” In The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher. Vol. 4. Dublin: Hodges, Smith, and Co., 1631.

This work is Scripture-saturated, devotional in tone, and theologically deep. A rare work that combines all three elements. It makes me want to read more Ussher.

Leeman, Jonathan. One Assembly: Rethinking the Multisite and Multiservice Church Models. Crossway, 2020.

I think Leeman achieves his goal of establishing that multiservice and multisite models are at variance from the ecclesiology of the New Testament. I think he effectively makes his case that ekklēsia refers to the assembly of God’s people. I’ve been reading the biography of William Tyndale concurrently with this book, and Tyndale translated ekklēsia as congregation. I think English Bible translations would benefit from reverting to Tyndale on this point. I’m not sure that the references to the universal church refer to the eschatological assembly of all God’s people, but I don’t think that claim is integral to the argument.

If I were teaching ecclesiology, I would use Greg Allison’s Sojourners and Strangers as my text with this book by Leeman as required reading.

Troxel, A. Craig. With All Your Heart: Orienting Your Mind, Desires, and Will Toward Christ. Wheaton: Crossway, 2020.

This is an excellent, devotionally rich book that examines what it means to grow in sanctification with regards to knowing, loving, and choosing, all aspects of what is collectively understood in Scripture as the heart.

Daniell, David. William Tyndale: A Biography. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.

Taylor, Mrs. Howard. Borden of Yale. Bethany House, 1988.

Our son William Russell Collins, born this year, was named after both William Tyndale and William Borden of Yale, and I read these biographies as we awaited William’s birth. For a Yale University Press volume, David Daniell’s biography is not merely a detached, scholarly study of Tyndale but a stout defense of the Reformation that Tyndale promoted through his Bible translation and writings. Borden of Yale is a devotional biography that stirs the heart to be entirely devoted to Christ.

Gribben, Crawford. An Introduction to John Owen. Crossway, 2020.

This brief book combines a survey of Owen’s life with a survey of his theology. For instance, it begins with Owen’s birth and a consideration of his views of baptism and concludes with his death and a consideration of his views of eschatology. I understood Owen to be a preterist based on the sermons in volume 9 of his work, but Gribben indicates that Owen’s eschatology shifted to premillennialism at the end of his life. His discussion of this shift if fascinating.

Bartholomew, Craig G. The God Who Acts in History: The Significance of Sinai. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020.

Bartholomew uses the Sinai event to examine how various philosophers and theologians have viewed God’s action in history. Bartholomew surveys and critiques Maimonides perfect-being theology, which posited that God cannot speak. I think that Bartholomew rightly picks up on some of the recent formulations of immutability and simplicity, which would seem to preclude any interaction between God and his world. In contrast to this perfect-being theology, which Bartholomew also links with Aquinas and classical theism generally, he prefers the work of Colin Gunton. But as Gunton was a Barthian and a social trinitarian, and I’m not sure that is not best way forward.

Pennington, Jonathan T. Jesus the Great Philosopher: Rediscovering the Wisdom Needed for the Good Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2020.

Pennington’s basic thesis is that the Bible is raising and answering the same questions raised by ancient philosophy. The opening chapters did a good job of sketching the concerns of ancient philosophy and demonstrating that the Old and New Testaments address these concerns. The next chapter, on emotions, had a helpful survey of Greco-Roman and biblical teaching about emotion. I found the next two chapters, on relationships and happiness, to be less satisfying. The chapter on happiness covered some of the same ground that Pennington has covered elsewhere in more detail. The chapter on relationships dealt with political philosophy/theology, and I thought the treatment fairly superficial.

Jesus the Great philosopher is pitched at the educated layman, with an easy-to-read style and pop culture references. The pop culture references often distracted from the message of the book; I doubt Jesus the Great Philosopher would approve recommending R-rated movies that feature nudity. In the chapter on emotions, Pennington spoke of God’s emotions without even nodding to the debates about impassibility. In a book that seeks to show the connections between ancient Greek philosophy and the Bible, the absence of discussion about Greek metaphysics and their relation to Christian theology was striking. Systematic theology in general does not make much of an appearance in this volume. Pennington seems most at home in the worlds of biblical studies, surveys of ancient philosophy, modern psychology, and middle-brow best sellers. A final weakness is a lack of attention to the antithesis. Pennington has such a positive view of Stoicism and positive psychology that he sometimes reads as though Christianity completes ancient philosophical systems that were basically headed in the right direction. Attention to Kavin Rowe’s work on Stoicism would have led to a greater appreciation of Christianity’s distinctiveness.

Eliot, George. Middlemarch.

Two major themes of this book are marriage and financial troubles.

The marriage of Dorothea to Mr. Casaubon exemplifies an idealistic wife, who desires to learn and aid her husband in his great work, and a husband who prioritizes a futile project over his wife. His jealousy and distrust of her leads to her misery, and even in death his jealousy causes him to dishonor her. 

The marriage of Dr. Lydgate to Rosamond exemplifies a man who marries a beautiful wife whom he thinks adores him only to find that her inflexible self-centered pursuit of status, which led her to marry him, will be their ruin. It will bring them into financial straits that will cause him to violate his principles and in the end bring dishonor upon them both.

Fred Vincy and Mary Garth’s trajectory is the reverse of Lydgate and Rosamond’s. Fred starts off financially reckless, and his recklessness brings difficulty to Mary’s family because her father unwisely agreed to back Fred’s debts. Mary will not have Fred until he reforms his ways, which he happily does.

Religion also plays a significant role in the book. Dorothea is religiously zealous, and this seems to play a role in her unwise choice in marrying Mr. Casaubon. The less orthodox Mr. Fairbrother is presented in more favorable terms that the orthodox Mr. Tyke. And the seemingly pious Mr. Bulstrode is shown to be a hypocrite. This all matches Eliot’s own unbelief. However, it must be said that Eliot avoids making Bulstrode a caricature of a hypocrite. She presents him as a man who truly desires to be pious but who also desires to be wealthy and respected. When these desires clash, the rationalizations by which he seeks to continue to view himself as being the former while pursuing the latter are the kind of rationalizations that every Christian should beware of.

The one marriage that did not come off persuasively was Dorothea’s second marriage to Will Ladislaw. There are enough significant character flaws in Ladislaw that the happy marriage that is said to follow does not seem as convincing as the happy marriage of Fred and Mary. 

Graff, Garrett M. The Only Plane in the Sky: An Oral History of 9/11. Simon & Schuster, 2019.

This is an excellently composed oral history of September 11th, which weaves together, with minimal connective notes, the actual words of those who experienced September 11th in New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, aboard Air Force One, and in other parts of the country.

Galatians Commentaries Read in 2021

by

In 2021 I devoted time to the study of Galatians. I tried to read several historical commentaries on Galatians along with what I think are the best recent commentaries.

Eric Plumer, Augustine’s Commentary on Galatians: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Notes. Oxford University Press, 2003.

The introduction to this commentary is very informative. The commentary itself was written early in Augustine’s career, and it is fairly unremarkable. If I were to choose again, I would have chosen to Jerome as a representative patristic commentary. I dipped into Jerome’s commentary and it seems to be a more significant treatment of the book. However in the debate over whether Paul truly rebuked Peter (Augustine) or whether Paul and Peter were playacting (Jerome), Augustine is correct.

Thomas Aquinas. Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Translated by F. R. Larcher. Albany, NY: Magi, 1966.

The recent appreciation of Thomas among the Reformed has included among its arguments the claim that Aquinas was not simply a philosophical theologian but a biblical exegete as well. However, this commentary shows that Thomas really did not grasp the book of Galatians. For instance, in summarizing Paul’s argument, Aquinas contrasts the rituals of the Old Testament with the grace conveyed by the New Testament sacraments: ” if grace is conferred in the sacraments of the New Testament, which have their efficacy from the passion of Christ, then it is superfluous to observe, along with the New Testament, the ritual of the Old Law in which grace is not conferred nor salvation acquired, because the Law has led no one to perfection” (8). Thomas excludes the moral law from Paul’s works of the Law, and he draws the contrast not as Paul does between the Mosaic Law as a whole and the new covenant entered into by faith alone but between the sacraments of the Old Law which cannot confer grace and the sacraments of the New Law, which can justify (54-55).

Aquinas does have to reckon with the language of Paul in Galatians, which is forceful in its assertion that no one can be justified by works. Here is an example of one of Aquinas’s comments on this matter: “For the works are not the cause making one to be just before God; rather they are the carrying out and manifestation of justice. For no one is made just before God by works but by the habit of faith, not acquired but infused. And therefore, as many as seek to be justified by works are under a curse, because sin is not removed nor anyone justified in the sight of God by them, but by the habit of faith vivified by charity” (80). Aquinas is correct in the first sentence: works are the manifestation, not the cause of justification. But Aquinas then goes on to speak of justification through and infused habit of faith vivified by charity. This is not faith as the Reformers conceived it, a hand receiving the free gift of justification, but is a conception of faith that involves divinely empowered works. Aquinas is reading Galatians through the lens of the medieval sacramental system for salvation rather than allowing Galatians to correct that system.

Also worth noting is Aquinas’s commentary is more oriented toward systematic theology than redemptive history. For instance, Aquinas spends most of his space on 4:4 verse refuting Christological heresies. He has no ear for redemptive-historical matters. The phrase “made under the law” is a conundrum for him because 5:18 says that “if you are led by the Spirit, you agree not under the law.” Instead of observing that 5:18 is a redemptive-historical assertion of the dawning of the new covenant made possible by Christ being under the law and fulfilling our, Aquinas opts to solve the discrepancy by making a scholastic distinction: “under the law” can mean “observance of the law” or it can mean “oppressed by fear of the law.” The former is the meaning in 4:4 and the latter in 5:18, according to Thomas.

Luther, Martin. Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4.  Luther’s Works. Vol. 26. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann. Saint Louis: Concordia, 1999.

Luther, Martin. Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 5-6; 1519, Chapters 1-6. Luther’s Works, Vol. 27. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann. Saint Louis: Concordia, 1999.

Luther is often criticized for reading his sixteenth century context into Galatians rather than reading Galatians in its first century context. It is true that Luther moves quickly to applying the book to his own context, and there may be points here or there where this critique is justified. In general, however, Luther seems to be making valid application of the book to his own time. Coming to Luther’s commentary after reading Augustine’s and Aquinas’s commentaries, it is notable how much better a grasp Luther has of Paul’s argument and of redemptive history Luther has in comparison.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians. Translated by William Pringle. 1854; reprinted, Bellingham, WA: Logos, 2010.

Calvin’s lucid brevity is most welcome after reading Luther’s verbose exposition of Galatians. Calvin is a master commentator who gets to the nub of the exegetical or theological issue in a passage and renders a sensible conclusion. Calvin is essential reading on Galatians.

Machen, J. Gresham. Notes on Galatians. 1972; repr., Solid Ground Christian Books, 2006.

This work reprints articles on Galatians 1-3 that Machen wrote in the 1930s for the periodical Christianity Today (a different magazine from the current Christianity Today). It also includes various class resources, articles, and reviews by Machen. The most valuable of these is his review of E. D. Burton’s Commentary on Galatians. Machen expresses appreciation for Burton’s linguistic studies, but he argues that Burton reads Paul as a modern liberal rather than within his historical context. For instance, Burton reads Paul as critiquing aspects of Old Testament religion rather than adopting Paul’s view that a redemptive-historical shift has taken place. Burton claims that Paul was defending his right to proclaim the gospel of the uncircumcision but that he was tolerant of the other apostles preaching a different gospel of the circumcision. Furthermore, he understands Galatians to be primarily an argument for “Christian liberty and spiritual religion” (Burton’s words) in contrast to “ceremonialism and externality” (Machen’s words). These misunderstandings lead Burton, Machen says, to adopt errors equivalent to those held by the Judaizers Paul was opposing. 

Ridderbos, Herman. The Epistle to the Galatians. New London Commentaries. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1961.

Ridderbos’s commentary on Galatians was the first commentary on Galatians in the New International Commentary on the New Testament Series (my copy was printed in London under the New London Commentaries label, but the content is the same). Though Fung and DeSilva have subsequently replaced Ridderbos in the NICNT set and though Ridderbos’s contribution is much briefer than modern commentaries, Ridderbos is still worth getting and reading. I always find Ridderbos theologically insightful, and this remains true here. 

Schreiner, Thomas R. Galatians. ZECNT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.

Schreiner’s commentary on Galatians is one of the best recent commentaries on the book. I think that overall his understanding of the book is correct. Schreiner has a good understanding of biblical, Pauline, and systematic theology. He also writes with pastoral concern.

Moo, Douglas J. Galatians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013.

If I were to have only one commentary on Galatians, it would be Moo’s. Moo and Schreiner are similar in their theological viewpoints and in their understanding of the book, though they diverge on various exegetical decisions. I didn’t always prefer Moo’s conclusions, but I often did. Moo was clearer about the role of the Law in biblical and Pauline theology.

Gordon, T David. Promise, Law, Faith: Covenant-Historical Reasoning in Galatians. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2019.

Gordon gets a lot right in this book, which is note quite a commentary on Galatians, even though it works sequentially through the book. Gordon’s purpose is to argue for a third way between what he calls “the dominant Protestant approach” and the New Perspective(s) on Paul. On some points Gordon is, in my view, correct. I agree that νόμος in Galatians typically refers to the Sinai covenant. I agree that Paul’s reasoning in Galatians is covenant-historical; that is, it recongizes that different covenants are in force in different historical periods. I further agree that Promise, Law, and Faith in Galatians track with the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and new covenants, respectively. I agree that certain forms of covenant theology and the New Perspective both go wrong by teaching a mono-covenantalism. Gordon also has a helpful, lengthy excursus on δικαιοσύνη. On the other hand, I think Gordon leans too far in the direction of the New Perspective in prioritizing ethnic considerations of soteric. Gordon says that Paul is arguing from justification, not for it. On this score I think Moo is are surer guide. Gordon also writes with a wit that is sometimes acid and, in my opinion, less than edifying. I gained much from this volume, but I cannot recommend it wholeheartedly.

NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible

I continue to be impressed with the notes in the NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible. I’ve tended to stay away from study Bible’s because I’ve found that they rarely provide the kind of information I’m looking for. I’ve tended to think that I’m better off with a brief commentary, such as a Tyndale Commentary or a Bible Speaks Today volume. But Simon Gathercole’s note on Galatians helpfully orients the reader and provides a helpful summary of Paul’s train of thought through the letter.

In general the NIV 2011 translation is a good translation. The major problem with the translation is its attempt to be gender neutral. Galatians 4:5-7 is a case in point. The NIV 2011 translation, “that we might receive adoption to sonship” (4:5), is better than the NRSV, and NASB 2020 which translate, respectively, “that we might receive adoption as children” and “that we might receive the adoption as sons and daughters.” However, in verse 7 the NIV 2011 switches from “sons” (4:6) to “child”—even though the same Greek word is used and the same context of sonship and inheritance is in place.

It is no more appropriate to change the male imagery of sons and sonship in Galatians 4 than it would be to change the female imagery of bride in Ephesians 5 to the neutral image of a spouse.

“As I explained in the introduction, the gender-specific ‘sons/sonship’ is used here and elsewhere in the commentary in order to preserve the first-century concept of inheritance (almost always involving male  offspring) and the relationship between the ‘sons’ and the ‘Son’ (4:5-6). The term refers, of course, to male and female believers equally.”

Moo, Galatians, BECNT, 196, n. 1.

Other Notable Galatians Commentaries:

Here are some other Galatians commentaries that I did not have a chance to read through in 2021.

Perkins, William. The Works of William Perkins. Volume 2. Edited by Paul Smalley. Reformation Heritage, 2015.

I began reading this commentary this year and I hope to complete it. I’ve not yet read far enough to render a verdict.

Lightfoot, J. B. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. 1865; reprinted, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999.

This is an older commentary that several of the new commentators mentioned as worth reading. I wish I had had time to read it this year.

F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

I’ve not read this commentary through in its entirety, but I’ve regularly found it helpful when I’ve consulted it.

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. WBC. Nashville: Nelson, 1990.

This is another commentary that I’ve not read entirely through but which I’ve found help in consulting. I don’t find it as reliable as Moo, Schreiner, or Bruce, but I still find it helpful.

Das, A. Andrew. Galatians. CC. Saint Louis: Concordia, 2014.

I’ve only read the front matter, but this looks to be an excellent recent Lutheran commentary on Galatians.

Keener, Craig S. Galatians: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2019.

As a Methodist Keener represents a different viewpoint on Galatians from the above commentators. He is also a master of extra-biblical background material. I find Keener to be a skilled commentator, though I read him with an alertness to theological differences.

Ethics Books Read in 2021

by

Magnuson, Ken. Invitation to Christian Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues. Invitation to Theological Studies Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2020.

This is an excellent introduction to Christian ethics. Parts 1 and 2, which deal with the philosophical and biblical foundations for ethics, are excellent. Magnuson does a good job of surveying and critiquing major approaches to ethics. He also lays out a Christian approach to ethics that accounts for the major aspects of ethics: commands, virtues, and goals. Magnuson upholds he authority of Scripture, and his chapters on the role of the Bible in Christian ethics (including his discussion of the Christian and the Mosaic law) are excellent. Parts 3, 4, and 5 deal with specific areas of ethical concern: “Marriage and Human Sexuality,” “The Sanctity of Human Life,” and “Social Order and the Environment,” respectively. The chapters in parts 3 and 5 were stronger than the chapters in part 5. In the chapter on homosexuality, I thought Magnuson was overly dependent on Preston Sprinkle, though he dissented from him at all the right places.

Grudem, Wayne. Christian Ethics: An Introduction to Biblical Moral Reasoning. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018.

Grudem’s Christian Ethics has the same strengths and weaknesses as his Systematic Theology and his Politics. Positively, Grudem is a devout man who has ransacked the Scriptures to see what they say about a host of ethical topics. As a concordance to ethics, this book excels. Grudem also writes with a high view of Scripture’s inspiration, inerrancy, and authority. He rightly understands how the Christian relates to the Mosaic law, an important issue in a biblically-oriented ethic book. Grudem also writes accessibly. This is a book that people without formal theological training can read and benefit from.

Nonetheless, Grudem’s work contains some significant weaknesses. The subtitle is An Introduction to Biblical Moral Reasoning. However, Grudem is skeptical of theological moral reasoning. He is afraid that reasoning from broad theological principles to ethical conclusions introduces too much subjectivity into ethics. There is some truth to this concern, but instead of rejecting theological moral reasoning, it is better to pair it with reliance on specific biblical texts. Both approaches are mutually reinforcing. In fact, the subjectivity that Grudem decries is not entirely absent from his book. For instance, in the chapter on self-defense Grudem relies heavily on Proverbs 25:26, “Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.”  Grudem argues that a Christian who does not exercise self-defense (later in the chapter he argues for using guns in self-defense) is a “polluted fountain” whose “testimony of the Christian’s life would be tarnished and diminished by acting in a cowardly way” (555).Grudem assumes  that “giving way before the wicked” is giving way before “a violent attack.” But this is not necessarily the best interpretation of the proverb. Some think that the proverb refers to a righteous man who gives way to pressure or temptation from the wicked and compromises his integrity (Lange, Keil and Delitzsch, Bridges, Garrett, Steveson, Waltke, Steinmann) while others think it refers to a situation in which the wicked have gained supremacy over the righteous (Toy, Van Leeuwen, Ross). (Kitchen accepts both interpretations and Fox is ambiguous.) Grudem’s use of this verse is not compatible with the former interpretation. But even if the latter interpretation is adopted, it is not clear that it applies to the kind of situation Grudem envisages. It is one thing to say that it is a tragedy for righteous people in public life to be overcome by wicked people. It is another to say that if a righteous man doesn’t shoot the wicked person who is about to rob him by gun point, he is “a polluted fountain.” Reasoning theologically from Genesis 9’s teaching that all human life bears the image of God and Exodus 22:2-3’s teaching that a thief may only be killed at night (when one may suspect he is after someone’s life rather than merely their positions), it is reasonable to conclude that if giving way before a violent man can spare one’s own life and result in not taking another’s life, that would be the preferred option.

Grudem’s methodology of collecting Scripture passages about given topics does not explicitly have a place for assessing the situation to which those passages must be applied. However, that is an aspect of ethics that Grudem cannot avoid. Possibly because it is not a stated part of his methodology, Grudem handles secondary sources poorly. Often he’ll interreact with only a few newspaper level sources that already share his perspective on the situation.

These are significant weaknesses that hinder the profitability of this text. However, it remains useful as a concordance of Scripture passages relevant to major ethical topics. 

Frame, John M. Doctrine of the Christian Life. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008.

I re-read portions of this book again this year. In particular, I was looking at how Frame’s normative, situational, and existential perspectives align with triads I was finding in other writers. This is how I thought this issues through:

Frame raises a number of triads in Part 1 of DCL. C. S. Lewis and Ken Magnuson also have triads and Oliver O’Donovan has two approaches to ethics.

Elements in ethical judgmentsNormSituationPerson
Frame’s perspectivesNormativeSituationalExistential
Ethical approachesDeontologicalTeleological[none listed]
Three ingredients to good worksRight standardRight goalRight motive
Types of ethicsCommand ethicsNarrative ethicsVirtue Ethics
Three subjects of ethical predicationPersonsActsAttitudes
Lordship attributeAuthorityControlPresence
MagnusonActsEndsAgents
 DeontologicalTeleologicalVirtue
C. S. LewisFair PlayPurpose of human lifeInternal Rectitude
Wayne GrudemActual behaviorResultsPersonal Character
Oliver O’DonovanOrdered moral field Ordered moral subject
  • It’s apparent to me that there are a variety of legitimate triads in ethics, though a triadic division is not always necessary. Oliver O’Donovan’s Ordered moral field would contain both norms and situations.
  • How these triads relate to each other is not always clear.
  • Frame’s Persons, Acts, and Attitudes is similar to Magnuson’s Agents, Acts, and Ends (Lewis seems to exactly align with Magnuson.) But
    • Frame aligns Persons with the normative perspective / deontological ethics while Magnuson (rightly, I think) links Agents with virtue ethics.
    • Frame aligns Acts with the situational perspective / teological ethics, while Magnuson (again, rightly) links Acts with deontological ethics.
    • Frame and Magnuson’s triad diverges in that where Frame has Attitudes, Magnuson has Ends. Here I think Magnuson’s triad is superior to Frame’s.
      • I’m not sure, in Frame’s triad, what Persons stands for in distinction from Acts and Attitudes since persons act and they have attitudes. Nor am I certain why Frame aligns Persons with the normative perspective.
      • For Magnuson Agents clearly refers to the inner man, virtues, character etc. in distinction from what the person does and what his goals are. Interestingly, Frame notes, “Both ‘persons’ and ‘attitudes’ are good candidates for the existential perspective” (DCL, 11, n. 8). Note also that in another of Frame’s triads (“elements in ethical judgments”) person is aligned to the existential perspective and virtue ethics. I think that indicates that Frame’s three subjects of ethical predication triad isn’t well-formed.
  • If we follow Magnuson’s Agents, Acts, and Ends formulation, I think we do get a correlation with virtue ethics, deontological ethics, and teleological ethics. Frame correlates these ethical approaches to the person and the existential perspective, the norm and the normative perspective, and the situation and the situational perspective.
    • Agents, virtue ethics, existential perspective, and the person do all seem to align.
    • Acts, deontological ethics, the normative perspective, and norms also seem to align.
    • Ends and teleological ethics align with each other but seem distinct from the situational perspective and the situation. I think Frame could fit the situational perspective with ends and teleological ethics by saying that our ultimate situation is eschatological, but that is not what is going on when persons are applying norms to a situation. In this case I think persons (with the right virtues and right ends) are applying norms to a situation.
  • Frame’s triads also align deontological ethics with command ethics (in that he algins both with the normative perspective) and teleological ethics with narrative ethics (in that he aligns both with the situational perspective). I think the first alignment works, but I think the second alignment is apples and oranges. This is probably due to the fact that there are more than three types of ethics or ethical approaches. And while some will algin more with one of the perspectives, some will align with multiple perspectives.
  • It is helpful to say that in making ethical choices Persons apply Norms to Situations. I also find it helpful to say that in evaluating ethical choices we need to look at Agents, Acts and Ends.

But these two triads are not different ways of saying the same thing. Persons in the first triad includes Agents and Ends in the Second, and Situations in the first triad is absent from the second.

Thus a more accurate chart would look like:

NormSituationPerson
NormativeSituationalExistential
   
Right standardRight goalRight motive
ActsEndsAgents
Deontological ethicsTeleological ethicsVirtue ethics
Fair PlayPurpose of human lifeInternal Rectitude
Actual behaviorResultsPersonal character
   
Ordered moral field Ordered moral subject

Mitchell, C. Ben. Ethics and Moral Reasoning: A Student’s Guide. Edited by David S. Dockery. Reclaiming the Christian Intellectual Tradition. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013.

A brief (under 100 pages) introduction to ethics. Surveys key ethical portions of the Bible: the Decalogue and Sermon on the Mount, ethical issues that arise in the Bible, ethical theories and the present challenge of ethical relativism, key evangelical thinkers (John Murray, Carl Henry, Arthur Holmes, Stanley Hauerwas, Oliver O’Donovan, Gilbert Meilaender), and approaches to the use of the Bible in ethics. Its brevity requires it to be very introductory.

Tinpe, Kevin and Craig A. Boyd, eds. Virtues and Their Vices. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.

This book provides a helpful introduction to virtue ethics and to several virtues and vices. The essay quality is good but varies by writer. Note also that several contributors are Roman Catholic and that Catholic theology informs their discussion.

Udemans, Godefridus. The Practice of Faith, Hope, and Love. Translated by Annemie Godbehere. Edited by  Joel Beeke. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2012.

The title demarcates the three main foci of this book. Under the heading of Faith Udemans exposits the Apostles’ Creed, under the heading of Hope he exposits the Lord’s Prayer, and under the heading of Love he exposits the Decalogue. I’ve read this book slowly over a number of years, and this year I read his exposition and application of commandments 5-10 in the Decalogue. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

Miller, Patrick D. The Ten Commandments. Interpretation. Louisville: WJK, 2009.

The real value of this book is the way Miller traces each commandment through the entirety of Scripture. Miller is not a conservative interpreter, so his exegesis and application must be read with great discernment.

Meilaender, Gilbert. Bioethics: A Primer for Christians. 4th ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020.

In this brief volume Meilaender orients Christians to think carefully about bioethics in general and covers procreation (especially artificial reproduction), abortion, genetic therapy, prenatal screening, suicide and euthanasia, organ donation, human experimentation, embryonic research, refusing treatment.

Tollefsen, Christopher O. Lying and Christian Ethics. New Studies in Christian Ethics. Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Tollefsen makes a philosophical case for the position that lying is never acceptable (though some non-verbal deception may be). Aside from some reasoning tied particularly to Catholic tradition, this book makes a persuasive case. It also helpfully surveys the views of Augustine and Aquinas, whose view Tollefsen shares, and those of Cassian, Bonhoeffer, and Richard Niebuhr, who argue for opposing views.

Grudem’s treatment of this topic in the Piper festschrift and in his ethics book is also good. John Murray’s chapter on this topic in Principles of Conduct is also very good.

Newkirk, Matthew. Just Deceivers: An Exploration of the Motif of Deception in the Books of Samuel. Pickwick, 2015.

Newkirk seeks to make an exegetical case, primarily but not exclusively from the Books of Samuel, that deception, including lies, which do not cause “unjust harm or disadvantage to another person” are permitted by Scripture.

Those who take the position that lying is never permissible will distinguishing lying from withholding some of the truth from those who ought not know it, from ambiguous language, or from ambiguous actions. Newkirk treats all of these flatly under the category of deception. This is an important factor in evaluating Newkirk’s work because it narrows the examples which serve as defeaters to the lying-is-never-acceptable position.

The narratives relevant to Newkirk’s challenge to the thesis that lying is always wrong (but that ambiguous speech or actions are not necessarily always wrong) are (using Newkirk’s labels and evaluation):

B: Samuel’s lie to the Bethlehemites (1 Samuel 16:1-5)

C & D: Michal’s lie to deceive the messengers of Saul and, subsequently Saul (1 Samuel 19:12-17)

E: Jonathan’s lie to Saul about David’s absence from the feast (1 Samuel 20:6, 28-29)

G: David’s lie to Achish regarding his raiding activity (1 Samuel 27:10)

R: Joab and the Tekoite wise woman’s lie to David (2 Samuel 14:1-21)

T: Hushai’s lie to Absalom when he gave him poor military counsel (2 Samuel 17:5-14)

H: The woman’s lie to Absalom’s servants about the location of the messengers from Hushai to Abimelech (2 Samule 17:19-20)

These are all narratives that include lies which Newkirk argues receive positive evaluation/characterization. However, I do not think that the narrator’s evaluation of C, D, G, or R is positive.

C& D: Newkirk neglects the negative element of Michal having and using an idol in the deception and the ambivalent characterization of her in general. He relies too much on the success of her deception and the fact that her lie gets the last word in the account to conclude that the narrator’s characterization of the episode is positive.

G: Newkirk argues that the characterization of this lie is positive because it shows that David is characterized as a royal figure bringing territory under Israelite control. However, in the broader context, David finds himself conscripted to fight against Israel and Ziklag is sacked with the women and children captured. Thus it seems that the narrative presents negative consequences for his lies. While positive consequences do not justify lies, negative consequences can signal that lies are at best problematic at worst sins that bring punishment.

R: Newkirk weighs this passage positively because he sees parallels between the Tekoite and Abigail, David’s wife. The more pertinent information seems to be that Joab is behind the deception, and Newkirk has identified Joab’s other deceptions as unjustified. Further, the result of this deception is that Absalom is brought back and into a position where he can undertake a coup against David.

In two of these episodes (B, T), I doubt that a lie takes place:

B: Newkirk claims that Samuel lied when he said he has come to sacrifice to Yhwh when he really came to anoint David king. However, telling only part of the truth to people who ought not have the full truth is not a lie.

T: Newkirk says that Hushai lied when he said that Ahithophel’s counsel was not good. Likewise, he said Hushai lied when he said that David would not stay with the people (since he did 17:21) and when he said that David would hide himself in a pit since Hushai last saw David on the Mount of Olives (a mount being the opposite of a pit). However, given then Hushai, even on Newkirk’s own account, scrupulous to speak ambiguously rather than lie outright when presenting himself to Absalom as an advisor, given that David was certainly not going to remain on the top of the Mount of Olives, and given that he did not know that David stayed with the people, it seems strange to call these lies. Hushai is a counselor providing hypotheticals, not a reporter of David’s actual movements. With regard to the statement that Ahithophel’s counsel is not good, Newkirk grants that this too could be ambiguous language (good for whom?).

Episodes E and H are the most challenging for a lying-is-always-wrong thesis.

E: Since David and Jonathan are characterized positively, Newkirk wants to characterize Jonathan’s lie to Saul at David’s behest positively, though he grants (“the author does not provide specific data to assess confidently.” Against this positive evaluation is the fact that David’s next lie is to the priest Ahimelech at Nob, a lie which ends up with the priests being killed, and David recognizing his culpability.

H: The woman who hid the messengers to David lied by telling Absalom’s servants that the messengers had already crossed the river when they were actually hiding under a well she had covered. Newkirk draws a parallel to Rahab, and since he thinks the Bible characterizes Rahab’s lie positively, he concludes this lie should be characterized positively as well.

However, it is difficult to reason from a single narrative example (or a handful of narrative examples if one broadens out beyond the books of Samuel) to the conclusion that the Bible condones some lying given blanket statements in Scripture condemning lying or relating God’s character to truth in distinction from lying. Newkirk attempted to contextualize these passages to narrow the scope of their blanket statements. These efforts were not convincing.

Newkirk’s book provides a valuable service in identifying key narratives in which lying seems to be approved in Scripture. However, I thought Newkirk failed to convincingly demonstrate his thesis.

Yancey, George. Beyond Racial Gridlock: Embracing Mutual Responsibility. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006.

Part 1 of this book outlines four secular models for thinking about racism, two from the political left and two from the right. At present many conservative Christians are rightly concerned that left-wing approaches to addressing racism are shaping Christian thought, but too often they simply adopt secular viewpoints from the right as if they were biblical. Yancey’s book helpfully critiques secular approaches from all sides as sub-biblical. In part 2 of this book Yancey seeks to formulate a biblically-based approach to racism that takes into account the sin natures of both majority and minority groups. This is an insightful book that deserves wide readership

Job 12:12—Are the Aged Truly Wise?

by

Question: Is Job affirming that wisdom is with the aged and understanding in length of days?

Positions

1. Job affirms that the aged have been able to what verse 11 describes—test words with their ear—and that he too has received wisdom from such men (Lange, 401).

2. Job is speaking sarcastically in response to the friends who assert that wisdom is found with the wise (Alden, 152).

a. Eliphaz (15:10) and Bildad (8:8–10) both affirm that it is the aged who are wise (Alden, 152).

b. Elihu disputes the claim that the aged are always wise (32:9) (Alden, 152).

3. Job is quoting the friends in verse 12; he contrasts their claim with his own in verse 13 that it is God who is truly wise (Driver and Gray, 116-17; Gordis, 138).

• Job is not directly countering the friends claim that the aged are wise, but he sets up a contrast that “obliquely” contradicts it (Gordis, 138).

4. Job affirms that the aged are wise, but he contrasts their wisdom with God, who is the wisest of all (KD 4:353-54).

• An antithesis between verses 12 and 13 is indicated by the forward placement of עִמֹּו and לֹו in v. 13 (KD 4:353-54).

5. Job notes in v. 11 that claims for wisdom need to be tested. Verse 12 gives a wisdom saying to be tested. Verse 13 relativizes the wisdom of the aged by ascribing to God, who is the oldest of all, wisdom and understanding along with counsel and might (Habel 219-20; Newsom,  cf. Jones 119).

6. Verse 12 is using titles of God and should be translated “With the Aged One is wisdom and with the Long-lived one is understanding” (Hartley, 210, 213; noted in Habel, 219-20).

Rejected Positions

1. Job affirms that the aged have been able to what verse 11 describes—test words with their ear—and that he too has received wisdom from such men.

• The latter part of this position, “that he too has received wisdom from such men,” is absent from the text.

2.  Job is speaking sarcastically in response to the friends who assert that wisdom is found with the wise.

a. This view rightly recognizes that v. 12 is affirmed by the friends and rejected (or qualified) by Elihu. Therefore, within the context of the book it cannot be affirmed without qualification.

b. However, there is no contextual indication that Job is speaking sarcastically here.

3. Job is quoting the friends in verse 12; he contrasts their claim with his own in verse 13 that it is God who is truly wise.

a. This view rightly recognizes the contrast between vv. 12 and 13.

b. However, there is no indication in the text that Job is quoting the friends in v. 12 and speaking in his own person in v. 13. Gordis must add to his translation, “You say” and “But I say.” As Rowley says, “But if Job was really citing this opinion merely to reject it, we should expect this to be more clearly indicated” (Rowley, 94).

4. Job affirms that the aged are wise, but he contrasts their wisdom with God, who is the wisest of all (KD 4:353-54).

a. This position is attractive because Job 12:12 is a generally true statement elsewhere affirmed in Scripture (Lev. 19:32; Prov. 16:31; 20:29; Isa. 3:5; 1 Tim. 5:1).

b. It also rightly observes the contrast between vv. 12 and 13.

c. But the claim that Job affirms the aged are wise sit in tension with the fact that the friends affirm this statement while Elihu rejects it (or qualifies it).

d. Thus, more must be said that what this position says.

6. Verse 12 is using titles of God and should be translated “With the Aged One is wisdom and with the Long-lived one is understanding” (Hartley, 210, 213; noted in Habel, 219-20).

a. In favor of this position, verse 13 refers to God with a pronoun. Verse 12 would provide the antecedent to that pronoun.

b. However, I’m unsure that the adjective יָשִׁישׁ can be translated “the Aged One” and whether the phrase וְאֹ֖רֶךְ יָמִ֣ים can be translated “the Long-lived One.”

Acceptable Positions

5. Job notes in v. 11 that claims for wisdom need to be tested. Verse 12 gives a wisdom saying to be tested. Verse 13 relativizes the wisdom of the aged by ascribing to God, who is the oldest of all, wisdom and understanding along with counsel and might.

a. This position handles well the flow of thought from vv. 12-13.

b. It recognizes the antithesis between verses 12 and 13 as indicated by the forward placement of עִמֹּו and לֹו in v. 13 (KD 4:353-54).

c. It is compatible with the recognition that Eliphaz (15:10) and Bildad (8:8–10) both affirm that it is the aged who are wise while Elihu disputes the claim that the aged are always wise (32:9) (Alden, 152).

d. It also recognizes that the claim in v. 12 ought not be rejected outright. It instead qualifies it by pointing to God as the oldest and wisest of them all.

Bibliography: Aledn, NAC; Driver and Gray, ICC; Gordis, The Book of Job; Habel, OTL; Jones, EPSC; Keil and Delitzsch; Lange; Newsom, NIB; Rowley, NCB.

Does Titus 1:12 permit Christians to make ethnic or racial stereotypes?

by

In answering this question, I’m going to reverse the question so that those who would affirm that Titus 1:12 permits racial stereotypes and generalizations have their position described in the three objections. These objections will be followed by a contrary consideration. I will then provide my own understanding of Titus 1:12 and a reply to the three initial objections.

Are ethnic stereotypes or generalizations impermissible for Christians?

Objection 1:  Paul affirms that the saying, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” is true testimony (Titus 1:12-13).

Objection 2: The statement that Paul asserts as true is an ethnic stereotype.

Objection 3: If Paul is willing to affirm an ethnic stereotype or generalization as true, Christians should be willing to make true ethnic stereotypes or generalizations.

On the Contrary, Proverbs 17:5 says, “Whoever mocks the poor insults his Maker.” Applying the principle in this proverb to race/ethnicity, Christians should beware that racial stereotypes and generalizations of people dishonor God who made people of every race or ethnicity (cf. Hays, NSBT, 50-51).

I Answer That, Since there is an absurdity in a Cretan giving true testimony that Cretans are always liars—meaning that either the Cretan is lying or there is an exception to the always—Paul was making use of the liar’s paradox as a humorous way to make a serious point (Köstenberger, EBTC, 319-22; cf. Yarbrough, PNTC, 496). By invoking the liar’s paradox, Paul is explicitly acknowledging exceptions to the statement—namely the Cretan prophet who uttered the statement (Ngewa 2009: 348). In addition, the Cretan Christians would have recognized that they were delivered from the sins enumerated (Marshall, ICC, 202).

The saying does seem to have picked up on widely acknowledged vices that characterized Crete (Mounce, WBC, 398; Marshall ICC, 201-2; Towner, NICNT, 700-2), though Paul seems to be targeting the “opponents” to his work in Crete rather than all Cretans (Mounce, WBC, 404). Paul’s statement in verse 13 may not be saying that Epimenides’s statement was true of all Cretans but that it was true of his opponents. By recognizing that this critique comes from a respected Cretan himself, Paul avoids the charge that he has a foreigner’s bias against Crete (Marshall, ICC, 203). In addition, Paul is critiquing those who are attempting to Judaize Cretan Christians by linking the Judaizers with characteristic Cretan sins that they would think they had transcended (Towner, NICNT, 703).

Reply to Objection 1: The original context for the statement that all Cretans are liars is due to an objection to the Cretan claim that Zeus had died and that his grave was in Crete. “If then this testimony is true, observe what a difficulty! For if the poet is true who said that they spoke falsely, in asserting that Jupiter could die, as the apostle says, it is a fearful thing! Attend, beloved, with much exactness. The poet said that the Cretans were liars for saying that Jupiter was dead. The apostle confirmed his testimony: so, according to the apostle, Jupiter is immortal: For he says, ‘this witness is true’! What shall we say then? Or rather how shall we solve this?” (Chrysostom, NPNF1 13:528). Thus, Paul was not endorsing the truthfulness of the larger argument against the Cretan claim that Zeus had died but making a more general statement about the truthfulness of the assessment as it relates to his opponents in Crete (cf. Mounce 2000: 404).

Reply to Objection 2: A stereotype is “A preconceived and oversimplified idea of the characteristics which typify a person, situation, etc.; an attitude based on such a preconception” (OED, s.v. stereotype, 3.b.).  Paul’s statement is not an example of stereotyping since, Paul was likely aware of the liar’s paradox involved in his statement (cf. Thiselton, Collected Essays, 217; Köstenberger, EBTC, 322, n. 84) and since he was affirming its truth as it applied to his opponents rather than universally of all Cretans (Mounce, WBC, 404; Towner, NICNT, 703).

Reply to Objection 3:  Paul, in this epistle, requires believers to avoid slander (1:3), be kind (1:5), to utter only “sound speech that cannot be condemned,” (2:8), “to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people” (3:2), to “avoid foolish controversies, [and]… dissentions” (3:9). If Titus 1:12 is an ethnic stereotype, Paul contradicts the teaching of the rest of the epistle (Thiselton, Collected Essays, 222). Thus Titus 1:12 does not permit stereotypes. Generalizations, when defined as “an excessively broad or general statement based on limited or inadequate evidence” (OED, s.v. generalization, 1.b.), are also impermissible. Whatever generalizations (in the sense, “the action or process of forming or expressing a general concept or proposition on the basis of inference from particular instances,” OED, s.v. generalization, 1.a.) a Christian makes about a group of people must not be slander (1:3), must be uttered in a spirit of kindness (1:5), must be sound and above refutation (2:8), must be done with gentleness and courtesy and not with an intent to malign anyone (3:2), and must be made in such a way that they do not promote foolish controversies or inflame dissensions (3:9).

New Journal Article: The Futurist Interpretation of Revelation: Intertextual Evidence from the Prologue

by

In the most recent issue of BJU Seminary’s Journal of Biblical Theology and Worldview, I have an article that argues that the allusions to the Old Testament in the prologue to Revelation (1:1-18), when taken together, point readers to interpreting Revelation according to a futurist approach, which understands Revelation as being primarily about the ultimate Day of the Lord. My conclusion:

The Apostle John begins the book of Revelation with a cluster of OT allusions which together focus on the coming of the Messiah in a Day of the Lord to judge the nations and to establish his kingdom on earth to be ruled by redeemed mankind. This focus within the prologue serves as a signpost to readers for how they should approach the remainder of the book. Though not every allusion, on its own, decisively points to a futurist reading, when they are considered together, the futurist orientation of the prologue is clear

I also contributed a book review of Ben C. Blackwell, John K. Goodrich, and Jason Maston, eds., Reading Revelation in Context: John’s Apocalypse and Second Temple Judaism. My conclusion:

Reading Revelation in Context provides an interesting introduction to a segment of Second Temple literature. However, it fails to demonstrate the importance of this literature for understanding Revelation. Presuming that the authors chose the best companion texts, the lack of a strong connection between many of the texts and Revelation was notable. The most convincing parallels were due to the texts drawing on the same Old Testament material as Revelation. This reinforces what is plain from the numerous allusions to the Old Testament in Revelation: the most important source for rightly reading Revelation is antecedent Scripture.

Interpreting the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)

by

The parable is set up by the lawyer’s question, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (10:25). This is a question about salvation. It can be understood as equivalent to “What must I do to share in the resurrection of the righteous at the end?” (cf. Dan. 12:2). Or, How can I obtain “the eschatological blessings of the righteous as opposed to the rejection of the unrighteous”? (Bock, 1023).

Jesus directed the lawyer to the Law: “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” (10:26). The lawyer responded by conflating Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. Deuteronomy 6:5 requires the love of God with one’s complete being. Leviticus 19:18 requires loving one’s neighbor as if he were one’s self (Snodgrass, 350; cf. Jones, 50). These commands summarize the law, and Jesus echoes Leviticus 18:5 in affirming this to be the right answer: “do this, and you will live” (Crowe, Perfect Life, 81). In context, Jesus is speaking of eternal life.

However, the way Jesus phrased this affirmation implied that the lawyer was not yet fulfilling the law and thus still lacked eternal life (Garland, 438-39).

The lawyer, who begin with the intent of testing Jesus (10:25), now finds himself on the defensive, so he asks a question to justify himself. (Bilkes notes, “he wished to scrutinize Christ’s words, all the while shielding himself from any scrutiny. Isn’t that a picture of our natural tendency as well, especially as religious people? Instead of justifying God and putting ourselves to the test, we are prone to do the exact opposite” [83].) He seeks to limit the definition of neighbor to manageable proportions. If “neighbor” is properly restricted, he “can then proudly announce, ‘All of these I have fully loved from my youth'” (Garland, 439).

Jesus, however, replied with a parable that reversed the question and removed all limits on the definition of neighbor. The setting is a man on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho who is beaten, robbed, and left for dead (10:30). Two men, a priest and a Levite, then pass him by without helping (10:31-32). The reasons for their neglect are not given (though some suggest that they wished to maintain ritual purity, Jewish law required them to seek to save a life, or even take care of a corpse, rather than maintain ritual purity; Edwards, 321, n. 114). The point is that the most law-observant and religious classes among the Jews failed to act as neighbors (Bock, 1031).

It was common at this time to refer to “priests, Levites, and all the people.” The expectation of the story is thus that a Jewish layperson will be the neighbor, in contrast to the corrupt religious establishment (Garland, 442; cf. Bock, 1031). However, Jesus subverts these expectations by having the Samaritan act as the neighbor (10:31). The Samaritan has compassion and shows love at significant cost to himself (10:33-35).

Jesus’s question at the conclusion of the parable shows that he has transformed the question from “Who is my neighbor?” to “Am I being a neighbor?” This transformation removes the limits that the lawyer was seeking to impose (Bock, 1019, 1034; Garland, 445).

The lawyer knows the right answer to the question: “The one who showed him mercy” (10:37), but notice that he was not willing to say “the Samaritan.” His prejudice remains (Garland , 446). So Jesus commands him, “You go, and do likewise” (10:37).

Christians do not typically respond to questions about how to obtain eternal life with the answer, do the Law and you will live. This was just as true in the early church (cf. Acts 16:30-31) as today (Snodgrass, 356). However, the answers “do this and live” and “believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” are both true answers to the question of how to obtain eternal life. If one kept the law perfectly, he would obtain eternal life (Crowe, Perfect Life, 82-83). “The reason why God justifies us freely is, not that the Law does not point out perfect righteousness, but because we fail in keeping it, and the reason why it is declared to be impossible for us to obtain life by it is, that it is weak through our flesh, (Rom. 8:3)” (Calvin, 60). This parable demonstrates that it is impossible to keep the law well enough to obtain eternal life by it. The man sought to justify himself, and he failed (Horton, 92). Only Jesus perfectly kept the law (Crowe Last Adam, 180), and his “resurrection proved that he was able to ‘do this and live'” (Crowe Perfect Life, 83). Blessedly, because he is perfectly merciful and compassionate eternal life is found in him.

This does not undermine the applicability of Jesus’s “go, and do likewise.” Jesus’s obedience is to be imitated by his followers. True faith manifests itself in works. Thus, Christians love their neighbor as themselves by being neighbors to all. In particular, they should be aware of those in their culture who due to race or ethnicity or social class, etc. are shunned and not shown love. Love must transcend these distinctions (Hays 2003: 170-71). No limits can be placed on love (though love needs to be defined biblically)(Snodgrass, 357).

Bibliography: Bilkes, Glory Veiled and Unveiled; Bock, BECNT; Calvin, Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists; Crowe, The Last Adam; Crowe, Why Did Jesus Live a Perfect Life?; Edwards, PNTC; Garland, ZECNT; Hays, From Every People and Nation, NSBT; Horton, Justification, NSD; Jones, Biblical Christian Ethics; Snodgrass, Stories with Intent.

What Does It Mean to “Love Your Neighbor as Yourself”?

by

What does it mean to “love your neighbor as yourself“?

Proposed Answers:

1. It means to love one’s neighbor “as much as oneself” (noted and rejected by Aquinas, 729; cf. Jones, 50; seems to be held by Poole, 107; Osborne, ZECNT, 823) or “in the same way that you love yourself” (noted and rejected by Wolterstorff 188).

2. It means to love your neighbor “on a par with love of yourself” (Wolterstorff, 188).

• “Weak neighbor-love combined with intense self-love would not qualify as satisfying the command” (Wolterstorff, 188).

3. It means to “love your neighbor as person like yourself” (Jones, 50; cf. Wolterstorff, 188; Edwards, 372, n. 49).

a. This reading fits best with the Golden Rule: “So whatever you wish others would do to you, do also to them” (Matt. 7:12; cf. Luke 6:31) (Jones 50).

b. “The command is to be interpreted as an instance of the standard “just as . . . so also” rhetorical structure. You love yourself, right? Okay. Then love your neighbor as well” (Wolterstorff, 188; Edwards, 372, n. 49).

4. It means to look after your neighbor’s “interests” in a “real and sincere” manner, just as one looks after his own interests” (Davies and Allison, 243-44; cf. Schnabel, 303).

• “People have a basic self-interest which they should extend to their neighbour” (Schnabel, 303).

5. It means to love others “for the same reason why your love yourself” (Aquinas, 729)

• The reason for loving both self and others is for God to be glorified (Aquinas, 729; citing 1 Cor. 10:31).

6. It means to love others “in the same manner that you love yourself” in that you want God’s good for them (Aquinas, 729).

Rejected Answers:

1. It means to love one’s neighbor “as much as oneself” (citing Aquinas, 729) or “in the same way that you love yourself” (citing Wolterstorff 188).

a. To love others “as much as oneself” is “contrary to the order of charity” (Aquinas, 729). That is, not all people are to be love to the same degree, but loves are to be ordered (Dt. 6:5; Gen. 2:24; Ex. 20:12; Gal. 6:10; Eph. 4:25; 1 Tim. 5:8; see also Augustine, 1.27-28; Lombard, 3.29; Udemans, Kindle loc. 451; à Brakel, 4:54; Wolterstorff, 188).

b. “Taken in a quantitative sense, ‘as yourself’ would strictly mean “no less and no more than yourself.” But the Bible does not require across-the-board equalization of benefits (implied in ‘no less’), and it commends self-sacrifice even to the point of preferring the lives of others to one’s own (excluded by ‘no more’)” (Jones, 50).

2. It means to love your neighbor “on a par with love of yourself”(Wolterstorff, 188).

a. Wolterstorff is correct to note that there can be a culpable lack of intensity of love toward neighbor.

b. Nonetheless, this formulation falls under the same critique as view 1.

5.  It means to love others “for the same reason why your love yourself” (Aquinas, 729).

a. Theologically Aquinas is correct that Christians should both self and others with God’s glory in view.

b. It is doubtful that this theological truth is being conveyed by the as.

Acceptable Views

3. It means to “love your neighbor as person like yourself” (Jones, 50).

a. The parallel with the Golden Rule is compelling.

b. The grammatical/rhetorical observation is compelling.

c. This view rightly avoids reading the as quantitatively.

4. It means to look after your neighbor’s “interests” in a “real and sincere” manner, just as one looks after his own interests” (Davies and Allison, 243-44).

a. This view is similar to view 3.

b. The weakness of this view is that it drains the affective force of the word love in its description of looking after their interests.

c. Nonetheless, sincerely looking after others’ interests is part of what it means to love them.

6. It means to love others “in the same manner that you love yourself” in that you want God’s good for them (Aquinas, 729).

a. Theologically Aquinas is correct that the manner of love is desiring God’s good for self and others.

b. The as is not directly communicating this truth, but it would be included in the as read with the broadest theological background.

Conclusion: View 3 is the best, but views 4 and 6 are entailments of view 3.

Bibliography: Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew; Augustine, De doctrina christinana; à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service; Edwards, Mark, PNTC; Jones, Biblical Christian Ethics; Lombard, Sentences; Schnabel, TNTC; Osborne, ZECNT; Poole, Annotations; Udemans, The Practices of True Faith, Hope, and Love; Wolterstorff, Justice: Rights and Wrongs.

Interpretation of Psalm 18:26 / 2 Samuel 22:27

by

Does the use of the term פתל of God in Ps. 18:26 or the use of תפל in 2 Sa. 22:27 imply that God acts deceptively or does wrong?

Note: The MT of Ps. 18:26 reads תִּתְפַּתָּֽל while the MT of 2 Sa. 22:27 reads תִּתַּפָּֽל. 1. Keil and Delitzsch seem to think that the latter is a form of the former word (2:689), and Youngblood adapts this view with the thesis that a play on the name Ahithophel is being made (Youngblood, 581-82). 2. Others think that Ps. 18:26 perserves the correct reading and that 2 Sa. 22:27 reads as it does due to scribal error (McCarter, 458-59; Firth, 514). 3. Steinmann holds that תפל is the correct reading in 2 Samuel 22 and פתל is the correct reading in Psalm 18 but that the meaning of the word in this context is the same as פתל (424-25). A decision between these options is difficult to make.

Possible Positions

1. The word פתל/תפל is best translated “perverse” and it refers to God’s judicial actions toward sinners (Clement of Alexandria, in Blaising and Hardin, 140; Luther, 123-24; Calvin, 286-87; Poole, 27; Gill, 597-98; Keil and Delitzsch, 2:689; Ross, 1:453).

a. Ps. 112:10 and Isa. 47:10-11 teach that God “turns everything for [the wicked man] opposite of what he hoped for” (Luther, 123-24).

b. Lev. 26:21-24 teaches that God will “walk contrary” to those who “walk contrary” to him (Calvin, 286-87; Poole, 27; Gill, 597-98), and Proverbs 3:34 teaches that God will scorn the scornful (Poole, 27).

c. God “can match them in their capacities, twisting their wickedness around to come back upon them” (Ross, 1:453)

2. The word תפל/פתל refers to “cunning” or “wisdom”, and it refers to God meeting sinful cunning with wise judgments that will “entangle and ensnare” the wicked (Spurgeon, 263; also Kidner, 111; Bratcher and Reyburn, 175-76; Omanson and Ellington, 1131; Wilson, 346; Harman, 193; Youngblood, 681-82; Longman, 115).

a. This view recognizes a play on words that harmonizes the sin with the judgments (cf. Bratcher and Reyburn, 175-76).

b. “Here the repeated reciprocity between noun and verb is broken at last-perhaps as an illustration of the broken relationship created by human ‘crookedness.'” (Wilson, 346).

c. Examples include God’s dealing with Jacob through Laban, or his dealing with Balaam (Kidner, 111).

3. The word פתל/תפל is best translated “perverse” and it refers to how God “seems” to sinners (Augustine, 172; Faussett, 140; Hoffner, in loc).

a. “This is an appropriate translation of denominative Hithpael forms, i.e., those whose root is nominal or adjectival (GKC §54e; IBHS §26f).”

b. This translation avoids saying that God is “perverse.”

4. The word פתל is best translated “acts corruptly” and indicates that God causes the wicked acts of the wicked to return to their own judgment (VanGemeren, 208).

Rejected Positions:

3. The word תפל/פתל is best translated “perverse” and it refers to how God “seems” to sinners.

a. According to GKC §54e and IBHS §26.2f, the Hithpael stem can indicate showing oneself to be a certain way or feigning or pretending to be a certain way. However for God to “show himself” perverse is view 1. For God to “pretend to be” perverse is not the same as seeming to be perverse.

b. The passage is thus best understood as God being or acting in a certain way toward the crooked rather than him just seeming to be such.

4. The word פתל is best translated “acts corruptly” and indicates that God. causes the wicked acts of the wicked to return to their own judgment.

a. The word פתל does not mean “act corruptly” (see BDB, CHALOT, DCH).

b. This translation impugns the character of God.

Acceptable Positions:

1. The word פתל/תפל is best translated “perverse” and it refers to God’s judicial actions toward sinner.

a. “Perverse” is probably not the best translation of פתל, but it does capture what is taking place in this verse.

b. Lev. 26:21-24; Ps. 112:10; Isa. 47:10-11 are illuminating cross-references that rightly reveal how God opposes the wicked.

2. The word פתל/תפל refers to “cunning” or “wisdom”, and it refers to God meeting sinful cunning with wise judgments that will “entangle and ensnare” the wicked.

a. This view picks up on the meaning of פתל the best.

b. This view picks up on the word play in which God meets wicked cunning with holy cunning.

c. This view picks up on the literary device of breaking the “reciprocity between noun and verb” due to crookedness (Wilson, 346),

Conclusion: View 2 is the best view, but the passages cited by adherents to view 1 (Lev. 26:21-24; Ps. 112:10; Isa. 47:10-11) are helpful cross-references that illuminate God’s opposition to the wicked.

Bibliography: BDB; CHALOT; DCH; Psalms Commentaries: Augustine, On the Psalms, ACW; Blaising and Hardin, ACCC; Bratcher and Reyburn, UBS Handbook Series; Calvin, Commentary; Faussett, in JFB; Gill, Exposition of the Old Testament, vol. 3; Harman, Mentor; Kidner, TOTC; Longman, TOTC; Luther, Works, vol. 10; Poole, Annotations on the Holy Bible, vol. 2; Ross, KEL; Spurgeon, Treasury of David; VanGemeren, REBC; Wilson, NIVAC. Samuel Commentaries: Firth, AOTC; Hoffner, EEC; Keil and Delitzsch; Long, TOTC; McCarter, AB; Omanson and Ellington, UBS Handbook Series; Steinmann, CC; Youngblood, REBC.

William Tyndale on Law and Grace

by

“Behold, though Moses gave the law, yet he gave no man grace to do it or to understand it aright, or wrote it in any man’s heart, to consent that it was good, and to wish after power to fulfil it. But Christ giveth grace to do it, and to understand it aright, and writeth it with his holy Spirit in the tables of the hearts of men, and maketh it a true thing there, and none hypocrisy.

The law, truly understood, is those fiery serpents that stung the children of Israel with present death. But Christ is the brazen serpent, on whom whosoever, being stung with conscience of sin, and looketh with a sure faith, is healed immediately of that stinging, and saved from the pains and sorrows of hell.”

William Tyndale, “An Exposition Upon the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Chapters of Matthew,” in The Works of the English Reformers: William Tyndale and John Frith, ed. Thomas Russell (London: Ebenezer Palmer, 1831), 2:229