Last year I had an article published in Bibliotheca Sacra critiquing Charles Hill’s book Regnum Caelorum. Several years ago, I noticed that many amillennial writers were citing this book has having disproved the consensus that the earliest fathers held to a premillennial viewpoint. I have the greatest respect for Hill’s scholarship, so I was a bit daunted to undertake a critique of it (and remained open to the possibility that he was correct on the historical question). But the more I tracked down the primary sources he cited, particularly those from Irenaeus, the more convinced I was that his argument had a serious weakness.

Brian C. Collins, “Were the Fathers Amillennial? An Evaluation of Charles Hill’s Regnum Caelorum,” Bibliotheca Sacra 177 (April-June 2020): 207-20.

Abstract:

Charles Hill’s Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity seeks to reverse the one-time consensus that the earliest church fathers held to a millennial, rather than an amillennial, viewpoint. At the heart of Hill’s argument is the claim that early millennialism and amillennialism were part of systems of eschatology in which fathers who held to the millennial position also held to a subterranean intermediate state whereas fathers who held to the amillennial position also held to a heavenly intermediate state. From this assertion Hill claims that a number of early fathers, along with the New Testament writers, held the amillennial position. This study demonstrates the linkage of millennial views and views of the intermediate state to be faulty on the grounds that the early Irenaeus held to both a heavenly intermediate state and to a millennium.

Craig Blaising, whose scholarship I also greatly respect, also has an article in this issue of BibSac critiquing Hill’s Regnum Caelorum.

A friend asked me to share recommended resources on Progressive Dispensationalism and then suggested I post what I sent him on my website. Here’s a lightly edited version of the email I sent him.

I’d start with the festschrift John Feinberg edited for S. Lewis Johnson, Continuity and Discontinuity. It has a point-counterpoint format featuring John and Paul Feinberg, Willem VanGemeren, O. Palmer Robertson, Allen Ross, Doug Moo, Martin Woudstra, Robert Saucy, Bruce Waltke, Walter Kaiser and more. I found John Feinberg’s essay on systems of discontinuity quite good. In the pairs of essays, I sometimes found myself more in agreement with continuity and sometimes more in agreement with discontinuity. 

The two programmatic, but accessible books that introduced Progressive Dispensationalism to the general Christian public were Blaising and Bock’s Progressive Dispensationalism and Robert Saucy’s The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. I’ve found Blaising’s discussion of the various historical phases of dispensationalism very helpful. Overall, I’ve found Saucy’s book more useful. I wish it had a different title. I’m sure that The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism spurred sales in the 1990s, but Saucy is doing more than just making a case for Progressive Dispensationalism. There’s a lot of valuable material there that may be overlooked today because readers don’t think to turn to that book for a treatment of the covenants or baptism of the Holy Spirit. 

Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church: The Search for Definition, ed. Blaising and Bock is a set of essays laying out Progressive Dispensationalist views on key issues. It also includes responses from three non-dispensationalists.

More recently, there hasn’t been as much on Progressive Dispensationalism in particular. You have to look for what particular authors have been writing. Darrell Bock and Mitch Glaser have been editing books of essays, which originated in conferences. The papers are midway between popular-level and academic. They’re a mixed bag, but there are usually some standout essays. For instance, if you can get past the sensationalist cover and the Joel Rosenberg foreword to The People, the Land, and the Future of Israel you’ll find some excellent essays. Criag Blaising’s “Israel and Hermeneutics” is a must read. (There are also essays by Eugene Merrill, Walter Kaiser, Darrell Bock, Craig Evans, Mark Saucy, John Feinberg, and Michael Vlach.) I recently picked up Israel, the Church, and the Middle East (also edited by Bock and Glaser), and the essays by Averbeck on the covenants and Blaising “A Theology of Israel and the Church” both look good. 

Gerald McDermott recently edited a collection of essays under the title, The New Christian Zionism: Fresh Perspectives on Israel and the Land. It’s not really a Progressive Dispensationalist book, though Blaising and Bock do have essays. McDermott, Joel Willitts, and others who aren’t dispensationalists also contribute. McDermott has an essay in it that distances the book from dispensationalism. I don’t care for the Zionism label, and some of the essays are more in a messianic Judaism stream, which I think misinterprets the function of the law at present. But several of the essays are worth looking into. 

Steven L. James’s New Creation Eschatology and the Land: A Survey of Contemporary Perspectives is not explicitly Progressive Dispensationalistm, but I’m pretty sure this is a published dissertation done under Craig Blaising’s supervision. It’s quite a good book.

Michael Vlach’s little book Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths is an excellent brief book for orientation to dispensationalism. He has several little self-published books. How Does the New Testament Use the Old Testament? and Premillennialism: Why There Must Be a Future Earthly Kingdom of Jesus. B&H published his Has the Church Replaced Israel? And his big book is He Will Reign Forever: A Biblical Theology of the Kingdom of God. Vlach isn’t a Progressive Dispensationalist (he still holds to a postponement view of the kingdom), but he’s willing to be influenced by Progressive Dispensationalism. Matt Waymeyer’s work falls into a similar category. His Amillennialism and the Age to Come is helpful, though not even explicitly dispensational.

Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, is worth reading. Lunde’s introduction is excellent. Walter Kaiser’s position is basically that of traditional dispensationalism, though he eschews the label and Bock gives a good defense of the Progressive Dispensationalist view. I wish they had gotten a good conservative covenant theologian for the third view rather than Peter Enns. 

The Naselli-Compton book on Israel and the church Romans 9-11 that Vlach, Zasepl & Hamilton, and Merkle contributed to is worth reading. Zaspel and Hamilton persuaded me of their position, and I think it is compatible with Progressive Dispensationalism, though that’s not their label.

I also try to read seriously in covenant theology. That’s not a monolithic position. There are many different covenant theologies. And frankly, they’re not all incompatible with progressive dispensationalism. Or at least there is significant insights that can be taken on board. In the end, while I really respect the scholarship of people like Vos and Hoekema, and while I want to distance myself from a lot of sloppy and frankly weird dispensationalism, I don’t find arguments against the future conversion of Israel or the denial of the fulfillment of the land promises exegetically convincing. I think I can get the best of what Covenant Theology or Progressive Covenantalism teach—the promises are all extended to the gentiles and Jesus is at the heart of the fulfillment of all the OT promises—while also affirming that specific promises to Israel aren’t canceled out. I sometimes wonder why there is such an effort to deny a future conversion and return to the land for Israel by contemporary reformed folks when reformed theologians like Jonathan Edwards held to both. I wonder if some of it is just a reaction against dispensationalism combined (at times) with an ignorance of what earlier covenant theologians taught.

In 2020 I focused my daily Bible reading on Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. I wanted to read these books along with a brief commentary that would orient me to my reading.

In the past for these books, I’ve used Barry’s Webb’s The Message of Isaiah, Derek Kidner’s The Message of Jeremiah (both in the Bible Speaks Today series), and Peter Cragie’s Ezekiel (in the Daily Study Bible Series). Craigie is a bit less conservative than the previous two authors, but in general these books were helpful for that purpose.

This year, I choose Herbert Wolf’s Interpreting Isaiah: The Suffering and Glory of the Messiah, Charles Feinberg’s Jeremiah: A Commentary, and Charles Feinberg’s The Prophecy of Ezekiel: The Glory of the Lord. Wolf, a translator of Isaiah for the 1984 NIV, does quite a good job of briefly and insightfully summarizing the thought of each chapter. I picked up Feinberg’s commentary on Jeremiah recalling that Dr. Bob Bell, on of my seminary professors, identified it as one of his favorite on the book. (It appears in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 6, but someone had given me a standalone version). Since I had also been given a copy of Feinberg’s book on Ezekiel, I thought I’d stick with Feinberg through Ezekiel. The Ezekiel commentary served its purpose, but the Jeremiah commentary is superior to it.

On the side, I did some other reading in connection with these books, reading Andrew Abernethy’s The Book of Isaiah and God’s Kingdom: A Thematic-Theological Approach, Andrew Shead’s A Mouth Full of Fire: The Word of God in the Words of Jeremiah (both in the New Studies in Biblical Theology series) Daniel Block’s By the River of Chebar: Historical, Literary, and Theological Studies in the Book of Ezekiel, and Daniel Block’s Beyond the River of Chebar: Studies in Kingship and Eschatology in the Book of Ezekiel. Abernethy’s book is helpful survey of the vitally important theme of kingdom in Isaiah. My one disappointment was the credence he gave to critical scholarship on the authorship of the book. I found Shead’s book most helpful on the issue of Jeremiah’s structure. Block’s two books on Ezekiel are a collection of articles he wrote on this book over the years. Though not all were of equal interest to me, his studies on the theology of Ezekiel in the first volume and his studies in the second volume on the Messiah and on the final vision (Eze. 40-48) were very helpful.

Another resource that I picked up along the way was the NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible. I’m not typically a fan of study Bibles. I’d rather grab a brief commentary like Wolf on Isaiah, or Kidner on Jeremiah because they would typically give me fuller information with not much more reading than the fragmentary notes in a study Bible (notes which too often don’t address the question I have in mind). However, I found the NIVBTSB to be very helpful in orienting me to a passage. Its notes are hierarchical with a notes summarizing major sections and sub -sections of the text before the notes on the individual verses. In this way the NIVBTSB is an ideal companion for Bible reading.

---

The one drawback to the NIVBTSB is the NIV 2011 text. In many ways the NIV 2011 is an improvement on the NIV 1984. The one exception is its attempts to avoid the generic “man” and the generic pronouns “he,” “his,” “him,” etc. I wish the NIV 2011 reflected the original languages more closely in the area of gender. Gender is a hotly contested area in our culture at present, and it seems wisest to allow God to speak to us about this topic rather than trying to conform his words to our way of speaking.

For instance, the translation “God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:28) obscures the representative nature of the first man, Adam. The obfuscation happens by trying to avoid using the generic “man” to stand for man and woman. But part of the teaching of this passage is that man does stand for both men and women, not just linguistically but for the race (Adam), in the home (husband), for the church (Christ).

Another example. I was recently studying Job 14 where Job is speaking of a representative man. On one level this man represents all humans but on another he represents Job himself. There is also likely an allusion back to Adam, the first man, who brought this trouble on mankind. The NIV 2011 obscures this by translating ‘adam as “Mortals.” This translation also allowed the translators to transform all of the singular pronouns (“he,” “him,” etc.) into plurals, which further obscures the fact that the man being referred to is a stand in for Job. This is most problematic in the final verse of the chapter where the loneliness and isolation of this man is portrayed: “He feels but the pain of his own body and mourns only for himself” (NIV 1984). The isolation doesn’t come through with the plural pronouns: “They feel but the pain of their own bodies and mourn only for themselves” (NIV 2011).

I routinely find examples where these kinds of subtle transformations end up obscuring the text.

---

Reading Feinberg on Jeremiah and Ezekiel this year was a step back into the world of mid-twentieth century dispensationalism. For instance, here is a passage I read recently:

“The emphasis here is unmistakably on the Sabbath and the new moon, which alone should indicate the Jewish setting of the passage, and that we are not here on Christian or New Testament ground. The broad context of the last chapters of Ezekiel, it cannot be repeated too often because so often ignored, is not treating Christian truth, though there are definite implications for such, of course. In short, the Sabbath of the Old Testament will be reinstituted for a restored and consecrated Israel. The Sabbath will be enforced as soon as the church is translated because the end of Daniel’s seventy weeks will occur on Jewish ground (Matt. 24:29). Then the Sabbath will continue into the Messiah’s reign, for this is the consummation and culmination of Israel’s, not the church’s, history (study Isa. 66:23 and the broad context there).”

Charles Feinberg, The Prophecy of Ezekiel, 267.

Feinberg seems unaware of the implications of this assertion. The transition from Sabbath to Lord’s Day was a transition from a day marking rest after the original creation to a day marking the new creation inaugurated by the resurrection of Christ. It would be exceedingly odd for God’s people to shift their day of worship back to the seventh day just as the new creation dawns in the millennium.

Furthermore, Feinberg seems to assume that the church’s history ends with the rapture. However, the church as the union of Jew and Gentile into one new man is part of the enduring cross-work of Christ. It is not mere a temporary phase in redemption history.

On the other hand, I was also reading George Schwab’s recent commentary on Hosea where he says, commenting on Hosea 2:21-23:

“On the one hand, the passage addresses historical Israel, the people who abandoned Yahweh in order to worship Baal. They are promised restoration as a religious-political entity on their traditional plot of land, which was fulfilled when Judah returned from exile. On another level, however, this passage is a picture of something much grander and more far-reaching. The scope of the new covenant is universal. According to Paul (quoting from this passage), it will encompass the whole earth and every people group (Rom. 9:25–26). Every Christian can rejoice in this fuller meaning, for he or she is a demonstration of its ongoing fulfillment.”

George M. Schwab Sr., “Hosea,” in Daniel–Malachi, ESV Expository Commentary, 7:192–193.

But it simply will not do to limit Israel’s share in the fulfillment of this passage to the post-exilic period. That period did not see these new covenant fulfillments for Israel. This prophecy includes a future restoration of Israel “as a religious- political entity on their traditional plot of land” in the future day of the Lord.

There is a better way between the older forms of dispensationalism—which divided the church and Israel, and which was insensitive to redemptive historical developments from the Old Testament through the New and into the new creation (millennium and eternal state)—and the recent trend to deny any future fulfillment of prophecies made to the nation Israel.

That better way would see the church joined with Israel into one new man, and it would see the Gentiles become heirs of the covenant promises along with Israel—but in such a way that the specific promises made to the nation are not cancelled but extended.

Right now, I think progressive dispensationalism captures this balance best, but what I’ve described above need not be limited to dispensationalism. For instance, the future fulfillment of the land promises for Israel was envisioned by a number of Puritans, Jonathan Edwards, and David Brown (of Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown fame). There is nothing inconsistent with covenant theology (or, I think, Progressive Covenantalism) and the position outlined above. True, such views have traditionally been limited to millennialists, but there is no reason in principle why they could not be held by amillennialists who believe in an earthly eternal state.

Logos is having a Cyber Monday Sale today.

You can access it via my affiliate link: https://partner.logosbible.com/click.track?CID=436362&AFID=480819

Zondervan Exegetical Commentary

Ruth by Daniel I. Block – I’ve not used this particular commentary, but Block’s commentary on Ruth in the New American Commentary series was excellent. This one covers the book in greater depth.

Matthew by Grant Osborne – While I’d probably turn to Carson (EBC) and Nolland (NIGTC) first, I have found Osborne helpful.

Mark by Mark L. Strauss – While I’d turn to Edwards (PNTC) and France (NIGTC) first, I have found Strauss to provide helpful insights into the Olivet Discourse when I used him to study that passage.

Luke by David E. Garland – There isn’t a commentary by Garland that I’ve not been impressed with. This one is no exception.

John by Edward W. Klink III – There are times when I think Klink may be too imaginative, but he is an insightful literary reader. Helpful to read alongside Carson (PNTC).

Acts by Eckhard Schnabel – An excellent commentary on Acts. One of the best.

Romans by Frank Thielman – Thielman’s commentary competes in a crowded field―Moo (NICNT), Schreiner (BECNT), Cranfield (ICC), and more―nonetheless, having read Paul and the Law in Context I’m interested in just about anything Thielman writes.

Galatians by Thomas Schreiner – This is an excellent commentary on Galatians, ranking right up with Moo (BECNT) as one of the best to get.

Ephesians by Clinton Arnold – Not the first Ephesians commentary I would buy (I would get Thielman [BECNT], Baugh [EEC], and Hoehner first), but he has done a good job editing this series.

Colossians and Philemon by David Pao – I’ve not read this one yet.

1 and 2 Thessalonians by David Shogren – I’ve found this to be a decent contribution.

James by Craig Blomberg and Mariam Kamell – A commentary full of insights. Recommended.

1, 2, and 3 John by Karen Jobes – I’ve not used this commentary extensively, but Jobes’s commentaries have been uniformly good.

Revelation by Buist Fanning – I’m still working through this one, but Fanning’s commentary may be the best commentary on this book. Highly recommend.

There are several in the series by authors who are unknown to me but which I’m interested in because I’ve been impressed by the series thus far: Joel Barker on Joel; Kevin Youngblood in Jonah, Paul Gardner on 1 Corinthians.

NIV Application Commentary

Deuteronomy by Daniel Block – Anything by Block is worth getting. This entry-level commentary by Block is often more insightful than some of the larger commentaries.

Judges, Ruth by K. Lawson Younger – I’ve not purchased this commentary, but I’ve referenced it on Judges and found it helpful.

1 & 2 Samuel by Bill Arnold – Another I’ve not purchased by have found helpful when I referenced it.

Esther by Karen Jobes – An insightful literary reading of Esther.

Daniel by Tremper Longman III – A very helpful literary reading. Even in the passages where I would differ from Longman eschatologically, I still find helpful insights.

2 Corinthians by Scott J. Hafemann – Hafemann did his doctoral work on this book, and his expertise shows.

Philippians by Frank Thielman – Anything by Thielman is worth getting in my estimation.

Colossians and Philemon by David E. Garland – Again, a helpful entry level treatment by a sure-footed commentator.

Hebrews by George Guthrie – Guthrie did his doctoral work on Hebrews and his expertise shines through in this volume.

There are a number of volumes in this series that I’ve not used but whose authors signal that they are likely worthwhile purchases. (In some cases, depending on your purposes, however, you should consider buying the in-depth commentary that the author wrote on the same book.) These volumes would include Hill on 1 & 2 Chronicles; Oswalt on Isaiah; Smith on Hosea, Amos, Micah; Baker on Joel, Obadiah, Malachi; Boda on Haggai, Zechariah; Wilkins on Matthew; Garland on Mark; Bock on Luke; Moo on Romans; Blomberg on 1 Corinthians; Moo on 2 Peter, Jude.

Others

No Quick Fix by Andy Naselli – An excellent readable critique of Keswick theology.

God, Revelation, and Authority by Carl F. H. Henry – Henry’s magnum opus. Required theological reading.

Theology of the Old Testament by Gustav Oehler – Classic Old Testament theology.

The blessings of Israel listed in Romans 9:4-5 connect with the great failure of Israel recorded in 9:30-10:4. The Israelites are blessed because of their descent from the patriarchs. But the great climatic blessing is that the Messiah, who is “God over all,” descended from the Israelites in his humanity.

This climatic blessing encompasses all the previous blessings. Jesus is the fulfillment of the covenants, of the giving of the law, of the worship, and of the promises. “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:4). He is also the true Son of God and the radiance of the glory of God who dwelt in their midst.

But instead of recognizing Jesus as the greatest of their blessings, Israel stumbled over him “as a stumbling stone and a rock of offense” (Rom. 9:32-33). Why? Because the blessing of the covenants, the law, and the worship “they did not pursue … by faith” but by works (Rom. 9:32).

Logos Bible Software is having a Black Friday sale today through November 29th.

You  can access it via my affiliate link: https://partner.logosbible.com/click.track?CID=436361&AFID=480819

Michael Horton, Justification 2 vols. New Studies in Dogmatics

In his first volume Horton undertakes a historical survey of the doctrine from the church fathers through the Reformation. However, Horton is not merely surveying history; he is mounting an argument against the claim by Roman Catholic and Radical Orthodox theologians that the Reformation was suffused with nominalism and that this shift from realism to nominalism accounts for the rise of secularism. In general, I think Horton provides a sound refutation of this thesis while also effectively documenting patristic, medieval, and Reformation views of justification.

In this second volume Horton provides and exegetically-grounded defense and formulation of the Reformation doctrine of justification. He meets the challenges posed by the New Perspective on Paul, particularly the version advanced by N. T. Wright, the apocalyptic reading of Paul championed by J. Louis Martyn, and the radical reading of Douglas Campbell.

Often it seems as though exegesis, church history, and theology are held apart, with different theologians emphasizing one of these three disciplines in their approach to theologizing. Horton brings all three together masterfully. Volume 2 in particular is one of the best books I’ve read this year.

Ryan McGraw reviewed these volumes in the Westminster Theological Journal 81 (2019): 321-32, and a summary of his assessment may also be useful.

McGraw’s overall assessment of Horton’s work is positive. He notes that some problematic areas in Horton’s work—reliance on speech-act theory, openness to theosis, and citations of Barth are either “absent” or “subdued” in this work.

McGraw provides these critiques:

• Does not define nominalism clearly enough, equivocates on the term real, and ascribes to post-Reformation Roman Catholicism Biel’s views.
• Continues to be confusing in his statements about Union with Christ, sometimes making union the ground of justification and others making justification the ground of union. McGraw cannot completely make sense of the contradiction, but he notes there may be a confusion between redemption accomplished and applied.
• Makes anachronistic statements about historical figures and makes some overstated claims.
• Identifies the Sinai covenant as a law covenant in contrast with the gracious Abrahamic covenant. McGraw notes, “The only other place that this author has encountered this kind of reasoning historically is in classic Baptist covenant theologies, which sought to drive a similar wedge between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants.”

I found McGraw’s overall positive and selectively critical review helpful. I too have been puzzled by Horton’s seemingly conflicting statements regarding union with Christ. However, when it comes to the covenants, I find Horton’s exegetical and theological arguments more compelling that McGraw’s objections. Further, as a Baptist, I find the fact that Horton’s view is found most prominently among early Baptists a recommendation of the view!

Counterpoints

Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? – In combination I found that Gaffin and Saucy make a compelling case for cessationism. Sam Storms provides a thoughtful continuationist position, but I don’t think it holds up to the much deeper view of redemptive history presented by Gaffin (who is steeped in the theology of Geerhardus Vos) or to the cogent biblical observations of Robert Saucy.

Five Views on Law and Gospel – Douglas Moo’s article in this volume is worth the price of the book.

Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology – Some helpful (and not do helpful) articles in this volume, but the one I keep coming back to is a response essay by Al Wolters. Careful and wise.

Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism – Worth the price of the book for Kevin Bauder’s cogent defense of separatism.

Three Views on the Rapture, 2^nd edition – The essay by Craig Blaising in defense of a pre-Day of the Lord rapture is the best defense of that position that I’ve read. Though a progressive dispensationalist, Blaising’s argument is framed in such a way as to be acceptable to non-dispensationalists. He has jettisoned many of the weaker dispensational arguments. No one has reckoned with the pre-tribulation position unless he has reckoned with Blaising’s treatment. Moo’s defense of the post-tribulation position was the strongest of the essays in the first edition. However, due to the strength of the replacement essays, I’d judge it the weakest of the 2^nd edition.

Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond  – Blaising contributed an excellent defense of premillennialism. Strimple also provides a competent amillennial argument. Gentry’s entry on postmillennialism is sorely lacking in both cogency and historical accuracy.

Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament – Lunde provides a very helpful introductory essay. The essays by Kaiser and Bock are both well done.

Word Biblical Commentary

These volumes are all selling for $19.99. Here is my assessment of each volume that I think is worth having.

Genesis by Gordon Wenham (2 vols.) – One of the best literary treatments of the book, though concedes too much about the historicity of the opening chapters. Nevertheless, one of the most helpful commentaries on the book.

Leviticus by John E. Hartley – A helpful, detailed look at Leviticus. I have not worked through this volume in depth, but I’ve found it helpful each time I’ve used it.

Ruth, Esther by Fredercik W. Bush – I’ve also not used these in depth, but I’ve found both helpful in occasional use.

Ezra-Nehemiah by H. G. M. Williamson – Not as conservative as Andrew Steinmann’s outstanding commentary, but still very helpful when used with discernment. I’ve read through the entire Ezra portion.

Job by D. J. A. Clines (3 vols.) – I’ve heard good things about Clines’s detailed work, though I’ve not gotten to use this one yet. I have purchased it.

Song of Songs, Lamentations by Duane Garret and Paul House respectively is an excellent commentary. I’ve referenced House’s commentary on Lamentations with profit. I’ve read Garret on Song of Songs in its entirety, and it is excellent.

Hosea-Jonah by Douglas Stuart – Excellent treatment of these Minor Prophets. I find valuable insights every time I consult this volume. His chart at the beginning of the book categorizing the covenant curses and blessings found in the Pentateuch is valuable for study of all the prophets.

Matthew by Donald A. Hagner (2 vols.) – I’ve found this volume helpful when I’ve used it; but I’ve not purchased it personally, prioritizing other volumes over it.

Luke by John Nolland (3 vols.) – I’ve not purchased these volumes yet, but given how helpful I’ve found Nolland’s commentary on Matthew, I’m considering it.

Galatians by Richard Longenecker – I would not rank ahead of Moo (BECNT) or Schreiner (ZECNT), but still helpful when consulted.

Ephesians by Andrew T. Lincoln – Not the first Ephesians commentary I would buy (I would get Thielman [BECNT], Baugh [EEC], and Hoehner first). He unaccountably denies Pauline authorship. Nonetheless, he is attuned to the eschatological aspects of Ephesians, and useful on that point.

1 & 2 Thessalonians by F. F. Bruce – I confess that I’ve not purchased this volume. It is, however, by F. F. Bruce, and he is uniformly helpful.

Pastoral Epistles by William Mounce – Outstanding, conservative commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. I highly commend.

Hebrews by William Lane (2 vols.) – Helpful treatment especially of the Greek. On theology I’d value Hughes and O’Brien (PNTC) more.

2 Peter and Jude by Richard Bauckham – Despite his denial of Peter’s authorship (tied to his infeasible view of the 2 Peter’s genre), Bauckham’s exegetical treatment is helpful. I would, however, pair it with Schreiner’s (NAC) more conservative treatment

The IVP New Testament Commentary Series

This set is easily readable. Someone without seminary training would benefit from these volumes. Some of the authors of these volumes have written more comprehensive commentaries on the same books elsewhere (e.g., Keener on Matthew, Bock on Luke, Fee on Philippians, Towner on the Pastorals). As in any set some volumes will be better than others.

Black’s New Testament Commentary

The one must get volume from this series is Markus Bockmuehl on Philippians.

Socio-Rhetorical Commentaries

There are some weaknesses to this approach to commentary writing, so I’d use these alongside other commentaries. However, I’ve found Craig Keener on the Gospel of Matthew and Ben Witherington on Acts to be very helpful. I’ve also picked up a couple of the others, but these are the standouts, in my opinion.

Lectio Continua Expository Commentary

This as a sermon-oriented commentary series put out by Reformation Heritage Press. The only volume which I’ve looked into has been Beeke on Revelation (it’s written from an idealist perspective that I find untenable). However, I expect them overall to be warm, helpful commentaries. I would thing the 1 Corinthians volume would take a cessationist perspective.

The Works of Charles Hodge

I think that Hodge is valued less these days than he ought to be. I value what I read from Hodge every time I turn to him.

David Wells Collection

This is comprised by Wells’s famous series: No Place for Truth, God in the Wasteland, Losing Our Virtue, Above All Earthly Pow’rs, and The Courage to Be Protestant.

Gordon D. Fee New Testament Studies Collection

This includes several of Fee’s works, including his commentaries in the NICNT set. Price it out. It may be worth it for those commentaries, if you don’t have them. Fee has written the best commentary on Philippians, in my estimation. His commentary on 1 Corinthians is very helpful despite its continuationist approach.  

Thielman’s discussion of the syntax is very helpful.

First adverbial clause: in whom you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation,

Second adverbial clause: in whom you also, when you believed,

Main verb: were sealed….

We should probably not try to repair the broken syntax by supplying some verb in the first clause that could then transform it into a complex sentence with a pattern similar to the second clause. This is simply a broken sentence, or anacoluthon, common occurrence in the Pauline corpus.”

Frank Thielman, Ephesians, BECNT (Baker, 2010), 78-79.

Both occurrences of ἐν ᾧ indicate union with Christ (the second in v. 13 being resumptive of the first) and being part of a series (see 1:7, 11, 13) (Campbell, 193-94; Larkin, 15; Hoehner, 235; Thielman, 79; Baugh, 96).

Most recent commentators do not think that the shift from 1st person to 2nd person between vv. 12 and 13 indicates a shift from Jewish Christians to Gentile Christians (Larkin, 15; Lincoln, 38; Hoehner, 235; Thielman, 78), and they are probably right. But Baugh’s contention that the shift highlights an emphasis in Gentile Christians being “full members of the covenant community in Christ,” anticipating ch. 2 is worth some further consideration (Baugh, 96-97). If I were to follow Baugh, I would understand the “we” to include both Jews and Gentiles and the “you” to focus on the Gentile Ephesians.

The Spirit is the seal, not the agent of the sealing (Lincoln, 40; Baugh, 97). Thielman is probably right that the “seal protects them from the wrath that God will one day pour out on the wicked” (Thielman, 77). It is not a reference to water baptism but to what water baptism signifies: Spirit baptism (Baugh, 98; Bock, 44).

Though I need to give more attention to the interpretation found in the KJV and Thomas Goodwin, namely, that the sealing followed believing (Goodwin, 1:237-38), the recent commentators make a cogent case that the hearing is “the hearing of faith” (Hoehner, 237-38) and that the hearing, believing, and sealing are contemporaneous (Lincoln, 39; Hoehner, 237-38; Thielman, 79; Baugh, 97; Bock 44).

The Bible teaches that speaking and upholding truth is a required characteristic of good rulers.

Fine speech is not becoming to a fool; still less is false speech to a prince.

Proverbs 17:7

If a ruler listens to falsehood, all his officials will be wicked.

Proverbs 29:12

The Bible also warns Christians against defending those who speak falsehood:

“He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.”

Prov. 17:15

The reason for the above admonitions is clear. To speak truth and avoid lies is godly: “God is not a man, that he should lie” (Num. 23:19); “God, who never lies” (Tit. 1:2). To lie is satanic: “there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44). God hands an unrighteous people over to sins that include “deceit” and “slander” (Rom. 1:29-30).

How, then, should Christians evaluate the claims that the President and others are making about fraud in the 2020 election? It is wise to evaluate claims made in the media by the lawsuits which the campaign has filed. To the best of my understanding, the lawsuits do not match the claims of widespread fraud. Further, as I understand the situation, even if the President’s campaign won their lawsuits, the outcome of the election would not change.

Thus, I think it Christians should be very careful about claiming that widespread fraud cost President Trump the election. It is one thing for a Christian to decide to vote for a wicked man who has ruled wickedly because they think he will be less wicked than another wicked man with even more wicked policies. But it is another thing for a Christian to participate in what God calls an abomination: justifying the wicked in his wickedness (Prov. 17:15).

Many Christians are suspicious of left-leaning media. There are valid concerns about such media. But the kind of valid critique that can be made of outlets like the New York Times—”I came to the conclusion long ago that the Times doesn’t care whether the news stories they run are true. They don’t even care whether the stories are by any general measure important. They have an institutional narrative that they want to sell to the world, and they run stories that are useful to that narrative”—is also true of many media sources on the right.

A characteristic of postmodern thought is to dismiss the importance of speaking truth in favor of understanding speech in terms of power dynamics. I fear that too many Christians (probably unwittingly) get their news from right wing outlets that are essentially postmodern. They don’t speak the truth; they do seek power. For Christians to consume such news inevitably leads to worldliness.

David Wells aptly define worldliness as

“that system of values, in any given age, which has at its center our fallen human perspective, which displaces God and his truth from the world, and which makes sin look normal and righteousness seem strange. It thus gives great plausibility to what is morally wrong and, for that reason, makes what is wrong seem normal.”

David Wells, Losing our Virtue, p. 4.

We often think of worldliness in connection with entertainment media. And it most certainly is the case that when Christians consume our culture’s popular movies and music, worldliness infects the church. But it is also true that a great deal of right-wing news and opinion media is also leading otherwise godly Christians to be worldly in the way they think and speak about politics. Our President and his supporters in the media have, for the past four years, made “sin look normal and righteousness seem strange.” Whatever choices Christians made when voting, we should be unified in opposing this kind of worldliness.

---

In full disclosure of the how my assessment of the 2020 election has been shaped, I’ve linked to sources that have informed my thinking. To the best of my knowledge, the following provide reliable information about the 2020 election. The first link is from an agency within the Department of Homeland Security. The remainder are from two reputable, conservative news organizations.

Information from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency: https://www.cisa.gov/rumorcontrol

Fact check articles from the conservative news outlet The Dispatch: https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/

The Dispatch podcast, a political news and opinion podcast from the conservative publication, The Dispatch. They’ve done several episodes on the fraud allegations and post-election legal cases: https://podcast.thedispatch.com/

“The Editors” podcast, a political news and opinion podcast from the editors of National Review, a long-time conservative publication. They too have done several episodes on the fraud allegations: https://www.nationalreview.com/podcasts/the-editors/

Jim Geraghty’s post-election coverage in National Review: https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/where-the-post-election-lawsuits-stand/

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/more-post-election-information/

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/where-the-vote-count-stands/

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/a-careful-voter-fraud-review/

Election Results: Americans Deserve the Truth, Even If It’s Unpleasant   | National Review

Dan McLaughlin’s post-election coverage in National Review: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/no-joe-biden-did-not-only-improve-in-four-major-swing-state-cities/

​​https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/do-not-buy-bad-arguments-about-election-fraud/

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/no-there-were-not-95000-biden-only-ballots-in-georgia/

A National Review article about alleged voted fraud in Gerogia: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/georgia-secretary-of-state-pushes-back-against-voter-fraud-claims-failed-candidate-doug-collins-is-a-liar/

I close by noting that even though the above links are to politically conservative news outlets which do, in my estimation, evince a concern for truth in their reporting and commentary, the contributors are not necessarily Christians. Even those who claim to be Christians are not correct in all of the positions they take. Even with the best of sources, Christians need to be wise as serpents and aware of the danger of worldliness.