Exegesis and Theology

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

Speed

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

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

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

New UI

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

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

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

Search Print Library

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Search Improvements

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

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

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

Factbook Improvements

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

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

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

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

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

Machine Translation

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

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

Mobile App

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

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

Verdict

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Glodo contributed a chapter on dispensationalism to Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Perspectives. The editors should have asked a dispensationalist to write the first part of the chapter, in which dispensationalism is described, and asked Glodo to respond. Glodo did not demonstrate an accurate understanding dispensationalism and was therefore not in a good place to critique it.

He opens the chapter with this list of “dispensationalist distinctives”:

• “the claim that there are two peoples of God, Israel and the church.” This is not the view of Progressive dispensationalists.
• the church and Israel have “their own distinctive programs for salvation.” He clarifies in a footnote that dispensationalists reject the accusation that Israel was justified through the law, so it is not clear what is being asserted here.
• “the separation of earthly and spiritual promises in the Old Testament.” In reality, dispensationalists object to the separation of the earthly and spiritual promises.
• “the removal (rapture) of the church out of the world prior to a literal one-thousand-year earthly reign of Jesus Christ,” The majority of dispensationalists hold instead that rapture occurs prior to the final Day of the Lord judgments; resurrected and transformed saints are present during the millennium.
• “the reconstitution of national Israel in the land of Palestine during that millennial period.” True; however, this view has also been held by a number of covenant theologians, including various Puritans, Jonathan Edwards, and David Brown.
• “the temple will be rebuilt and its worship will resume until the consummation of the ages.” Not all dispensationalists hold to the resumption of the sacrificial system.

Glodo then charges dispensationalists with a “literalism” that “almost presupposes an innate lack of self-awareness, which characterized modernist interpretation in general.” This is at best a dated charge. It fails to interact with significant hermeneutical discussion that both traditional and progressive dispensationalists have undertaken. For instance, Buist Fanning’s recent commentary on Revelation in Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series does not fairly come under this critique.

Glodo then turns to survey the history of dispensationalism, tracing its history from Darby, Inglis and Scofield through Chafer, Walvoord, and Pentecost to Ryrie and Progressive Dispensationalism. In the midst of this survey Glodo links dispensationalism with Christian Zionism. However, while he observes that Christian Zionism is “fundamentally inconsistent” with dispensational theology, he fails to acknowledge that this is recognized by both traditional and progressive dispensationalists. Not all dispensationalists are Christian Zionists.

Glodo’s discussion of Progressive Dispensationalism is also poorly done.

• He observes that Progressive dispensationalism holds to “one people of God” and a unified, progressing plan of God. But instead of further summarizing the Progressive Dispensationalist position, he pivots to a statement of Ryrie that objects to identifying Progressive Dispensationalism with dispensationalism.
• He includes a lengthy quote from Blaising that makes clear that Progressive Dispensationalism recognizes literary aspects of texts in its interpretation (thus refuting his charge of unself-aware literalism). But he dismisses Blaising by objecting that Progressive Dispensationalists are nonetheless too literal in their interpretation of Apocalyptic literature (again, a look at Fanning should put the lie to this assertion).
• He misreads Bock’s belief that the Antichrist will rebuild the temple as an affirmation of the reinstitution of the sacrificial system in the Milennium. The actions of the Antichrist are not the same actions as those of the Christ!
• He quotes an anonymous scholar, whom he identifies as a progressive dispensationalist, as saying that if God has the temple rebuilt, he’ll provide new revelation regarding how to worship in it. To this Glodo asserts, “While emphasis on new revelation is normally more muted in dispensationalism, especially in light of heretical traditions such as Islam and Mormonism, which rest on later ‘revelation,’ it should nonetheless be a matter on which dispensationalism should be pressed” (538). This is a cheap shot. Aside from the fact that the quotation is not sourced, this scholar is not speaking of continuing revelation at present. He is speaking about revelation that might be given after the return of Christ to earth. Surely Covenant Theologians do not believe God will be silent and will reveal nothing beyond what is currently revealed after Christ returns.

Glodo’s analysis section is no better. He begins by acknowledging that dispensationalism has been developing in recent decades, but he chooses to focus his critique of the classic dispensationalism of Darby and Scofield. Sadly, this is par for the course among covenant theologians. Aside from brief comments in multiple views books, I have never read or heard covenant theologian engage substantively with Progressive Dispensationalism. Instead, I note the two tendencies: (1) engagement with popularizers instead of scholars; (2) engagement with Darby and Scofield rather than the most recent dispensational scholarship. Glodo cites no dispensationalist scholarship more recent than the 1990s.

I have personally learned much from covenant theologians, and I think they would learn much from Progressive Dispensationalists—if they would be willing to listen.

Last Friday the Supreme Court over-ruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This is something that Christians have longed prayed for, worked for, and voted for. Though this decision opens the opportunity for states to prohibit the killing of the unborn, there remains much to continue to pray for, work for, and vote for.

In relation to this last item—the Christian’s vote—there is an emphasis among a number of Christian commentators that is morally troubling. Douglas Wilson is representative:

And this means that every last Christian, David French and Kevin Williamson included, ought to look for some way to express their gratitude for Donald J. Trump. This would not have happened without him. Because he kept his campaign promise to appoint a particular brand of justice to the Supreme Court, and because God then gave him the opportunity to appoint three of them, this decision was made possible. Elections have consequences, and the election of Trump in 2016 had this consequence. I want to make a particular point of expressing my gratitude to Trump because when he, God’s intended instrument for accomplishing this marvelous thing, announced his candidacy, I did not recognize in him anything good. I expended quite a bit of energy opposing him, and during the primaries I had a good deal of fun at his expense. In the general election of 2016, I did not vote for him. He had made a promise to appoint the kind of judges I would like, and I was way too sophisticated to believe something like that.

Wilson’s primary point is not about our prayers of thankfulness, however. (Note that he does not counsel thankfulness for George W. Bush, who appointed Samuel Alito, the author of the Dobbs opinion, or George H. W. Bush, who appointed Clarence Thomas). He moves instead into Christian political strategy:

But these heartland evangelicals ignored the voices of their more fastidious brethren, and went into a back room at Trump Tower to cut a deal with the Donald. They said that they would support him—whether an Access Hollywood tape turned up or not—if he would just give them solid judges in return. Deal? Deal. In return for this remarkable deal, one that actually went through and actually worked, they got patted on the head by more urbane set of gospel-centered and/or red-letter Christians, and were relegated to the ranks of rubes and cornpones. But these slick and sophisticated Christians display a remarkable lack of self-awareness. They are still unable to perceive who the shrewd ones were. It is as though simple Simon went off to the fair, got taken to the cleaners for the third year in a row, and then went home to call his older brother names for being such a chump.

Wilson’s comments are theologically troubling. He seems to assume that since God providentially used the judicial appointments that former President Trump made, support for President Trump was justified. But this simply does not follow. God can and does use morally compromised people to achieve his will. He can also justly judge those same people for their wrongdoing. Support for a particular candidate has to be based on moral considerations and not simply on the achievement of morally significant political goals.

Wilson’s comments are morally troubling because he has no biblically grounded moral case for his change of position regarding the former President. What changed between Wilson’s initial moral objections and his current objections to “slick and sophisticated” “gospel-centered” “fastidious” Christians who never came around to supporting former President Trump? He liked the outcome of Trump’s presidency. There is a name for this ethic: utilitarianism. It is unbiblical.

A biblical ethic deals not just with ends but with acts, ends, and agents (to use the terminology adopted by Ken Magnuson). Or, in Wayne Grudem’s words, it deals with actual behavior, results, and personal character. Or to use John Frame’s terminology, it has to do with a right standard, a right goal, and a right motive. Wilson is only looking at the ends, the results, the goal in his analysis.

Wilson mocks “fastidious” Christians who would not compromise their moral convictions to support President Trump and instead argues for a transactional ethic in which Christians support immoral and unfit candidates in exchange for policy wins. Wilson is in grave danger here: “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 17:15).

Wilson fails to articulate the moral standards to which Christians should adhere when voting. Wilson’s argument also fails to deal with the significance of virtue in making ethical choices. He would be more convincing if Christians who supported former President Trump had maintained their principles and held President Trump to account when he did wrong. Instead, many Christians defended the former president when he acted lawlessly and pressured their representatives in Congress not to hold him to account. This is neither conservative nor Christian. Why, after Trump tried to stay in office through various underhanded and unconstitutional means, does he still get cheered at Christian events while Vice President Pence, who adhered to the constitution and prevented a constitutional crisis, get booed? For many, the support of Trump inculcated vices rather than virtues. No attention was paid to the “personal character” impact of the ethical decision to support the former President.

The casualties are not only among the Trump supporters. It is difficult to be without a tribe. And many exiled from their conservative turned populist tribe have moved to the left politically and theologically. Unlike Wilson, it is of little concern to me if someone who used to support open carry now supports red flag laws. That’s the kind of thing Christians can agree to disagree about. However, it is very concerning to see Christians who used to support biblical teaching about men and women now defend women pastors.

When professing Christians turn egalitarian, they are conforming to this present evil age. When professing Christians turn utilitarian, they are conforming to this present evil age. I find it difficult to see the options that Americans were faced with in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections as anything less than God’s judgment. That judgment should have led to repentance across the American church. Instead, it led to a doubling down on our worldliness. While we can thank God for mercy in the midst of judgment in the form of the Dobbs decision, we dare not presume upon God’s mercy.

McKelvey locates Jeremiah’s teaching about the new covenant within chapters 30-33, the book of consolation. He claims that New Testament quotations of 31:31-34 are meant to evoke this entire section and that this whole section deals with the new covenant. Within this section, David is a central focus, which indicates that the new covenant “extends and fulfills the Davidic covenant” (193). Something similar can be said of the relationship between the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants to the new covenant. The Mosaic covenant is contrasted with the new covenant, being “the only nonpermanent covenant” among these covenants (194). This section also emphasizes the land promise and the restoration of Israel to the land. McKelvey sees an initial fulfillment of this aspect of the new covenant in the return from exile. McKelvey wishes to emphasize that the new covenant is connected to the previous covenants. Even though Jeremiah indicates that the new covenant “is not like the Mosaic covenant (3:32),” he stresses that “it achieves that to which the Mosaic administration typologically pointed” (197).

McKelvey also warns against Baptist readings of the now covenant, which he thinks are eschatologically overrealized. Specifically, he does not think that the statement that all in the covenant will know the Lord will be true until Christ returns. In contrast to the Baptist understanding of the new covenant, McKelvey argues that Jeremiah 32:39 demonstrates that the children of believers are included within the new covenant. Since children of believers are included in the new covenant, they should receive baptism, the sign of the new covenant.

McKelvey identifies Ezekiel 34:20-31 and 36:22-37:28 as the key new covenant texts in this prophet. In the first passage Ezekiel predicts that God will remove self-serving leaders and replace them with the Davidic Messiah (he notes again the close connection between the Davidic covenant and the new). The latter passage promises the Spirit, transformed hearts, restoration to the land, and the establishment of the Davidic king.

When he turns to Isaiah, McKelvey observes that the first part of the book contains numerous predictions of a coming Davidic king while the latter part of the book predicts a coming servant of the Lord. McKelvey identifies these figures and notes that this coming Messiah will bring about the new creation in fulfillment of the new covenant.

McKelvey’s chapter, especially the section on Jeremiah contains a great deal of helpful exegetical data. As a Baptist, I disagree that the holding that all new covenant members are regenerate and know the Lord over-realizes the eschatology of the covenant. To be sure there are eschatological aspects to the covenant that await fulfillment, such as the land promises. But that fact that everyone in the covenant knows the Lord is part of what makes the new covenant the new covenant.

McKelvey’s claim that Jeremiah 32:39 includes the unregenerate children of believers in the new covenant fails to take into account the context of this statement. Jeremiah 32:39 is a millennial promise. The Israelites referred to in this verse are gathered back not simply from Babylon or Persia but from “all the countries,” and they are made to “dwell in safety.” Furthermore, they will begiven “one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever.” Thus, the children spoken of here would be Israelite children born during the Millennium, and this verse would refer to all Israel being saved.