Exegesis and Theology

Wilson, Penelope. Hieroglyphics: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

OUP’s Very Short Introduction series provides excellent introductions to a wide variety of topics. They beautifully made and are a handy size for carrying around. The few entries that I’ve read have all been excellent. This introduction won’t teach you how to read hieroglyphs, But it does provide some basic discussion of script and grammar. It also discusses the history of the development of hieroglyphs, their use alongside everyday scripts, the role they played religion and art. The story of how hieroglyphs first began to be deciphered and the present state of the discipline are also summarized.

Maier, Paul L. Eusebius: The Church History. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999.

Eusebius is the first Christian to write a church history. Paul Maier provides an excellent translation. Footnotes indicate points at which later scholarship believes Eusebius to have been inaccurate. At the end of each book within the Church History Maier has added his own commentary, which may provide more background information about the era of Eusebius’s discussion. Sometimes the commentary provides some evaluation of Eusebius’s history and the state of scholar discussion. My edition is a hardback with glossy pages and full-color photographs of significant places and artifacts related to the history.

Brauns, Chris. Unpacking Forgiveness: Biblical Answers for Complex Questions and Deep Wounds. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.

The thesis of Chris Brauns’s work on forgiveness is: “God expects believers to forgive others in the way that he forgives them” (44). That thesis may seem fairly basic until one begins to probe how God forgives believers. Brauns defines God’s forgiveness as: “A commitment by the one true God to pardon graciously those who repent and believe so that they are reconciled to him, although this commitment does not eliminate all consequences” (51). Note that God’s forgiveness is freely and graciously offered, yet conditional upon repentance and belief. Note also that when God offers forgiveness, he is committed to pardon and to reconcile with the sinner. But Brausn draws a distinction between punishment and discipline. Thus forgiveness does not mean that no consequences follow for sin (Brauns points to the consequences David faced for his sin with Bathsheba even after he repented and was forgiven).

Given this, Brauns defines human forgiveness as: “A commitment by the offended to pardon graciously the repentant from moral liability and to be reconciled to that person, although not all consequences are necessarily eliminated” (55). The very NT word that Paul often uses for forgiveness indicates that forgiveness is offered graciously. “Christians should always have a disposition of grace towards those who offend them” (55). Yet, the Christian cannot actually forgive, that is pardon and reconcile with, an offender apart from that person’s repentance. The offer of forgiveness needs to present, but the actual forgiveness is conditional. On the other side, if the person is repentant, Brauns teaches that forgiveness is more than a promise to let things pass. It is a commitment to reconciliation.

Brauns contrasts this understanding of forgiveness with what he calls “therapeutic forgiveness.” Therapeutic forgiveness is an effort to free oneself from bitterness. There are no conditions placed on the offender, and it can be done within the mind of the offended individual. There is no reconciliation required. Brauns lists a number of objections to therapeutic forgiveness. The most significant, apart from the fact that it does not align with the biblical model, are that it fails to reckon with the seriousness of evil and that it fails to force Christians to deal with their own sin.

Brauns’s understanding of forgiveness raises a number of important questions. Forgiveness is more difficult under the biblical model than under the therapeutic model. It cannot be done merely within one’s own mind. It involves interaction and reconciliation between two people. So what if a person is not willing to forgive? Matthew 18 provides the answer to this question. First, Jesus teaches that there should be no limit to the forgiveness offered. Second Jesus teaches that no matter how bad the offense is against us—and Brauns does not minimize the awful sinful ways that some people have been treated—God has suffered the far greater offenses. As God forgives, so must we forgive. Finally, Brauns notes the severe warnings given to those who will not forgive in Matthew 6:14-15; 7:1-2; 18:34-35. “Those unwilling or unable to forgive should fear for their salvation” (123).

On the other hand, if forgiveness is only rendered when a person repents, how should the Christian respond when a person will not repent. Brauns turns to Romans 12::17-21 to answer this question. He discerns three principles in this passage: “Principle #1: Resolve Not to Take Revenge” (130; Rom. 12:17a, 19, 21). “Principle #2: Proactively Show Love” (134; Rom. 12:17b-18, 20). “Principle #3: Don’t Forgive the Unrepentant, but Leave Room for the Wrath of God” (143; Rom. 12:19). When a Christian does this Brauns says he should not “be overcome by hatred.” Instead the Christian must warn the offender that he places himself in the path of God’s judgment. “There is a way to lovingly remind people that God’s judgment is certain (Hebrews 9:27)” (144).

Those who have been grievously sinned against often struggle with bitterness. Brauns also provides biblical counsel in this matter. First, “Wait for God’s justice, and trust his providence” (155; Ps. 73:4-9, 17-27; Prov 24:19-20; Rom. 8:28). Second, “Listen to wise people” (160; Prov. 19:20). Third, “Pursue God’s blessing for yourself and those close to you” (161; Ps. 73:15; Heb. 12:15-17)/ Fourth, “Call bitterness what it is. . . . It may seem like stating the obvious to say that bitterness is sin. But it needs to be said” (162).

Closely connected to bitterness is the mind that often goes back to think about the wrong. Brauns provides counsel on how to not dwell on past wrongs. First, “Burn into your mind what the Bible teaches about forgiveness” (171). Here Brauns summarizes the basic teaching of the book as the primary way to stop thinking about the wrong you have suffered:

“The most basic forgiveness principle is that Christians should forgive others as God forgave them. (See Matthew 6:12; 7:2; Ephesians 4:32.)”

“Christians should have an attitude or disposition of grace toward all people even as God offers forgiveness to all who receive it. God does not forgive all people, but he does offer grace and forgiveness to all. (See John 1:12; 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9.)”

“Therefore, Christians must be willing to forgive all who ask for forgiveness. (See Luke 17:3-4.) Remember: whatever anyone has done to offend you will always pale in comparison to what you have done to offend God.”

“Christians can conquer bitterness by trusting in the justice and providence of God. God is just. Vengeance belongs to him. He will repay. God providentially works all things together for good for those who know him. This includes the // acts of people who intend to harm us. You are not ultimately a victim (See Romans 12:19; 8:28; Genesis 45:5-7.)

“Never excuse bitterness or an unwillingness to forgive. Those unable or unwilling to forgive should question their salvation. Read this sentence aloud: ‘Saying ‘I cannot or will not forgive’ is another way of saying ‘I am thinking about going to hell.’ (See Matthew 6:14-15; 18:21-35.)” (171-72)

Second, “Take a look at Christ in his Word . . . stop scrutinizing your own situation” (172; Heb. 12:1-3; Ps. 77; 121:1-2). Third, “Pray, pray, pray” (173; Phil. 4:2-7). Third, “Say and do the right things” (174). Brauns’s point is that apart from seeking counsel or prayer, “talking about a wrong done to you will make it far more difficult to stop thinking about the matter.” Fourth, “Participate in the God-given means of grace” (174). By this Brauns means fellowship with the people of God, haring the ministry of the Word, worshipping with God’s people, studying the Bible, and praying.

Finally, Brauns looks at Acts 15:36-41 as a case study in what to do when good Christians don’t agree.

This is a careful yet highly accessible book on an unescapable topic. Since every Christian will be faced with the need to forgive and be forgiven, this is a book that is easy to recommend to every Christian.

Haykin, Michael A. G. Rediscovering the Church Fathers. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.

Michael Haykin provides a helpful non-technical introduction to the church fathers. After a chapter discussing why evangelicals should be interested in the fathers, Haykin discusses Ignatius, The Letter to Diognetus, Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil of Caesarea, and Patrick. He concludes with an autobiographical chapter about his interest in the church fathers (which could profitably be read before the other chapters). The book also includes two appendices. The first is a guide to more reading both in secondary sources and in the best patristic writings to begin reading for one’s self. The second appendix is a more academic evaluation of Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, 100-600. It is well worth reading, though it is probably of most interest to those for whom the rest of the book is too basic of an introduction. Nonetheless, for someone who knows little about the early church and who desires an evangelical introduction, this book is a good place to start.

Whitney, Donald S. Family Worship: In the Bible, in History, and in Your Home. Shepherdsville, KY: Center for Biblical Spiritually, 2006.

This brief booklet will take very little time to read. But it has the potential of profoundly shaping a family’s walk with God. This is a book that every family should read and consider together.

Gregory of Nyssa, The Lord’s Prayer, The Beatitudes. Translated by Hilda C. Graef. Ancient Christian Writers. Edited by Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe. New York: Paulist, 1954.

When I was younger I wondered why certain parts of the Bible were highlighted by Christians historically. Why choose these particular portions of Scripture and not others to include in Bible textbooks or to write a book about. I now realize that there are certain passages which draw a great deal of basic truth into a brief space. The Lord’s Prayer and the Beatitudes are two such passages. Gregory of Nyssa betrays the strengths and weaknesses of patristic preaching. Here you will find profound insights that had not occurred to you before, but it will come mixed with some dross.

Edwards, Jonathan. Ethical Writings. Edited by Paul Ramsey. Works of Jonathan Edwards. Volume 8. Edited by John E. Smith. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. [Read sections of the editor’s introduction, “Love the Sum of All Virtue,” “Heaven Is a World of Love,” Dissertation II: The Nature of True Virtue, “Unpublished Letter on Assurance and Participation in the Divine Nature.”]

“The Nature of True Virtue” is one of the two great dissertations written at the end of Edwards’s life and published posthumously. Edwards argues forcefully that there is no true virtue without love toward God, and aspects This is surely right, and aspects of this argument are forcefully argued. On the other hand, the argument that greater amounts of love are due to those with greater degrees of being and that God is thus most deserving as Being in general seems to run into difficulties. Though I do not think Edwards intended a pantheistic meaning to Being in general at all, such phrasing lends to that misunderstanding. In addition, our moral obligations in Scripture do not seem to be tied to being.

Lunde, Jonathan. Following Jesus, the Servant King: A Biblical Theology of Covenantal Discipleship. Biblical Theology for Life, ed. Jonathan Lunde. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.

Lunde does an excellent job in the book relating the what and how of the discipleship to major themes in Scripture such as the covenants, the kingdom of God, the life of Christ and more. Though it has a few flaws (e.g., his division of the Abrahamic covenant into two covenants, his view of Isaiah 53, his view of continuing sign gifts), overall this is an excellent treatment of the topics covered. In particular Lunde does an excellent job of explaining that grace does not lessen God’s expectations for his people but instead empowers God’s people to live lives that more and more meet the high standard of likeness to Christ.

Gunter, W. Stephen, ed. Arminius and His Declaration of Sentiments: An Annotated Translation with Introduction and Theological Commentary. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2012.

This is a readable translation of Arminius’s Declaration of Sentiments, which also provides biographical and historical context. For understanding Arminius’s basic thought, I found this a helpful resource.

Stewart-Sykes, Alistair. Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen on the Lord’s Prayer. Popular Patristics. Edited by John Behr. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004.

Tertullian’s exposition of the Lord’s Prayer is the earliest such exposition in existence. As such it provides a window into some of the earliest Christian thinking about prayer and the Lord’s prayer. Cyprian follows Tertullian’s exposition closely, and at times expresses similar thoughts more clearly. Origen’s wide ranging scholarship shines through in his discussion of lexical and other matters. These treatises contain a number of devotional insights. For instance, Tertullian notes that praying to God as Father is an acknowledgment of affection and of God’s authority. Fathers are authorities, but they are authorities one loves. Later Tertullian says the order of the petitions reflect the biblical teaching, “Seek first the kingdom of God and all these things will be added to you. Christians seek for God’s name to be hallowed, kingdom to come, and will to be done first, but then they pray for bread. Not all of the exegetical decisions made by these early interpreters are sound, however. Origen thinks it is not spiritual to pray for physical bread. He argues that Christians pray for a supersubstantial bread, which is the communication of God’s rationality (word), which is equivalent to immorality, which is equivalent to eating from the tree of life, which is connected to the bread of angels eaten by Israel in the wilderness, which is related to the bread eaten by Abraham with his three visitors the year before Sarah gave birth to Isaac. .

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

This is a model of conservative, well-researched, and readable biblical theology. Köstenberger deals with introductory issues , such as the authorship of John’s gospel and writings. For instance, he has an excellent defense of the authorship of the apsotle John and cogent critique of Richard Bauckam’s argument that a different elder John wrote the Gospel. He also deals with the structure of John and its major themes. The book is thick, but it coveres so much ground that some discussions are surprisingly brief. Nonetheless, I never felt as though the brevity was hindering the depth of the argument.

Rove, Karl. Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight. New York: Threshold, 2010.

Bush, George W. Decision Points. New York: Crown, 2010.

Gerhard, Johann. On the Nature of Theology and On Scripture. Saint Louis: Concordia, 2009. [Chapters 12-22]

These chapters of Gerhard’s Loci deal with the original languages in which the Bible was written, the preservation of Scripture, the perfections of Scripture, the perspicuity of Scripture, and its superiority to tradition. The one misstep Gerhard makes in this section is his argument for the inspiration and inerrancy of the Hebrew vowel points. He is concerned that without the vowel points, the Hebrew Bible would lose its perspicuity. More cogently, he argued against Catholic theologians who argued that the Latin Bible should be given precedence over the Greek and Hebrew originals. On this point, contemporary Roman Catholic scholars would probably sign with Gerhard and against the theologians of the counter-reformation. Gerhard also makes that case that the clarity of Scripture militates against giving tradition an authoritative place over Scripture. As a Lutheran scholastic, Gerhard writes with a logical precision that lays out his opponents position, his position, his opponents objections to his position, and his responses to those objections. One of the great advantages of the Protestant scholastics is that one gets a thorough understanding of the state of the theological question when reading them. In contrast to much modern theological writing, which is often opaque or superficial, the scholastics were both clear and thorough.

Reeves, Michael. Delighting in the Trinity: An Introduction to the Christian Faith. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2012.

Reeves effectively communicates that the Trinity is not a logical formula that Christians must conform to. The Trinity is foundational to the Christian faith and its significance is something for Christians to delight in. Reeves presents a difficult topic in an approachable and understandable style. He blends together theology, church history, and practical application. (Though I confess that I remain mystified as to why conservatives feel the need to quote Barth to support their ponits.)

Beeke, Joel R. and Paul M. Smalley. Prepared by Grace, for Grace: The Puritans on God’s Way of Leading Sinners to Christ. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2013.

The Puritans have been accused of departing from the gospel of grace recovered by the Reformation by teaching that sinners need to be prepared for salvation. Beeke and Smalley demonstrate that these charges arise from a lack of understanding concerning what the Puritans actually taught.

After helpfully laying the background for this debate Beeke and Smalley canvass what individuals taught about preparation, from Calvin to English Puritans, to New England pastors, to post-Reformation theologians on the continent. This survey enables the reader to see firsthand both the commonalities and the differences among theologians of this time regarding preparation. (One interesting difference was the tendency of the Dutch theologians to place regeneration at the first workings of the Spirit in the life of the elect in contrast to the English, who placed regeneration with conversion and saw the prior working of the Spirit as something distinct.) In general, Beeke and Smalley put to rest the charge that teaching preparation was opposed to the gospel of grace. Instead the Puritans saw preparation as the gracious work of the Spirit in bringing a person to the point of conversion. Though Beeke and Smalley are not above criticizing individuals for imbalanced presentations of the doctrine, they reject dismissal of the doctrine itself. Though a historical treatment, this is also a book that stirs the heart to evangelism.

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

This book could be summed up in this phrase: Christians must evaluate culture not only by its content but also by the sensibilities that it fosters. Though simply stated, this is a profound insight. It changes the question that Christians should be asking about their daily activities. The question is not merely, “is this permissible?” but “is this good and wise?” Watching a television show is permissible. But is watching one or two every night wise? What sensibilities are fostered by that habit? What sensibilities should a Christian be fostering?

Myers suggests that pop culture promotes the sensibilities of novelty (as opposed to tradition), immediacy (as opposed to patience and learning), diversion (as opposed to meditation), celebrity (as opposed to community), and youth (as opposed to respect for the wisdom of the aged). It opposes inhibiting the “authentic self” (in contrast to controlling passions and developing virtues). By appealing to the masses, pop culture tends to be intellectually shallow. It also tends to avoid religious themes. What I find striking about his observations is that in every case the sensibilities of Christianity ought to be precisely the opposite.

Myers is not saying that Christians can never consume pop culture. He uses the analogy of a Whopper. Having an occasional Whopper is fine. But a diet of Whoppers is not fine. It is bound to both distort your taste and to harm your health. The upshot of this is that Christians cannot make cultural decisions based on proof-texts. They must instead develop wisdom.

This is a must read book, in my opinion.

Witisius, Herman. The Economy of the Covenants. Translated by William Crookshank. Edinburgh: John Turnbull, 1803. Book 3, ch. 12.

Book 3, ch. 12 of Witsius’s Economy of the Covenants is a lengthy treatment of the doctrine of sanctification. Witsisus covers such topics as the theological definition of sanctification and the different senses of sanctification as it relates to regeneration, effectual calling, and justification (with regard to justification, Witsius shows that the Reformed Scholastics would not have found David Peterson’s thesis in Possessed by God a novel idea). He also looks at what it means to put off the old man and to put on the new man. He looks at the role of the Trinity in sanctification. He contrasts virtues in the natural man with virtues in the spiritual man, and he argues that sanctification is not merely the change of actions but involves new habits (using this term in its ethical sense). Witsius specifies eight means of sanctification. He discusses why God permits the struggle between the flesh and the Spirit in believers. Finally, he discusses what the Scripture means when it calls some people perfect.

Merkle, Benjamin L. “Paul’s Arguments from Creation in 1 Corinthians 11:9-9 and 1 Timothy 2:13-14: An Apparent Inconsistency Answered,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 3 (September 2006): 527-48.

Merkle seeks to address an apparent complementarian inconsistency. Complementarians insist on an order of authority between men and woman in the church since Paul, in 2 Timothy 2, argues from creation. But most do not require women to wear head coverings in worship and men to remain uncovered in worship, a practice that Paul, it is said, also roots in creation. Merkle proposes that 1 Corinthians 11 roots the order of authority between man and woman in creation. But Merkle holds that the head covering is a cultural practice that Paul insisted on because it reflected the creational order. The cultural practice is not itself rooted in creation. This was long my understanding of the passage, but I have since abandoned it. Merkle’s article confirms my sense that relegating the practice of head coverings to a first-century cultural custom does not actually attend well to the actual wording of the passage.It seems to run contrary to what we know about Greco-Roman culture and the historical practice of the church across time and culture.

In the first part of the article Merkle seeks to establish that Paul’s “underlying concern in 1 Corinthians 11 is gender and role distinctions and not merely head coverings.” He does this by seeking to establish that over-realized eschatology is at the root or the varied problems addressed in 1 Corinthians. I found this a fairly unconvincing portion of the paper. To establish this mirror reading as valid, it seems that Merkle should have gone beyond arguing that the problems raised by the book could be understood in light of over-realized eschatology. He should have also demonstrated that Paul’s responses to these problems are correcting the faulty eschatology. This he did not do. Thus I find myself sympathetic with Garland: “Pickett (1997: 44-45) reasonably asks, ‘Why did he not provide them with a more explicitly theological corrective as he does, for example, in Galatians?’ It is far more likely that the influences on them were more amorphous and that their behavior was swayed by culturally ingrained habits from their pagan past and by values instilled by a popularized secular ethics. . . . I think that ‘over-realized eschatology’ has been overplayed by interpreters” (Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT, 13-14). While I grant that Paul’s “underlying concern in 1 Corinthians 11 is gender and role distinctions and not merely head coverings,” this does not mean that the coverings are incidental to Paul. They are the focus of the passage, even if that focus is rooted on deeper concerns.

In the second part of the article Merkle seeks to establish that the creation arguments in 1 Corinthians 11 ground the ordering of gender roles and not the practice of head coverings, per se. There is truth to this argument. It is the underlying realities that are grounded in creation. But Merkle then draws an unwarranted conclusion: “Therefore Paul’s main concern is not head coverings, since that was merely a cultural outworking of an unchanging truth” (533; cf. 538). He gives five reasons for this conclusion:

“First, the fact that Paul introduces his arguments the way he does makes little sense if head coverings are Paul’s main concern. In verse 3 Paul begins by saying, ‘But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.’ That something more important is at stake seems obvious that since Paul relates the functional relationship between man and Christ, woman and man, and Christ and God.” To the contrary, the passage begins not in verse 3 but in verse 2. In verse 2 Paul begins with a commendation that they hold to the traditions that Paul delivered to them. Given the inclusio with v. 16 and the content in between, these traditions include the practice of head coverings. Nor is it surprising that the next verses lay the theological foundation for the practice. The laying of theological foundations up front does not mean that Paul was uninterested in the practice that they undergird.

Second, Merkle takes the hair comparison to indicate that the real issue is that “it is wrong for a woman to blur such [gender/role] distinctions.” The issue is not what is worn or not worn but what “the meaning or message that is conveyed by one’s appearance.” But this ignores the logic of Paul’s argument, which takes the covering, whether it be hair or the physical covering compared to hair, as a symbol that the one covered is under authority. Paul’s point is not simply that gender distinctions are blurred when women wear their hair like men. Follow the chain of γαρ’s in vv. 7-9 leading to διὰ τοῦτο in v.10. I also doubt that a shaved head refers to a masculine hair style. It seems more likely that Paul is referring to the removal of the natural covering God has given women.

Third, Merkle takes Paul’s argument from nature in vv. 14-15 to “suggest that God’s creational gender/role distinctive are in view” and that “nature teaches us that it is shameful for a man to appear like a woman by having long hair” (535). While granting that gender/role distinctions underlie this whole discussion, Merkle is wrong to say that Paul’s point in these verses simply has to do with men and women not looking like each other. Paul explains the significance: “her hair is given to her for a covering.” This would indicate that the nature of this covering, whether it be hair or whether it be an additional covering worn in worship, is significant to Paul in this passage.

Fourth, Merkle takes verse 16 to indicate that “such a universally accepted custom suggests the presence of an underlying principle governing the need for such a practice” (536). There is no argument here, except to note that it does not follow the presence of the underlying principle negates the significance of the principle’s symbol.

Fifth, Merkle argues that since the head covering is “a sign or symbol that pointed to a greater reality,” one must conclude that “Paul is not concerned about head coverings per se. Rather he is concerned with the meaning that wearing a head covering conveys” (536). Again it does not follow that concern for the “greater reality” means the symbol is not of concern to Paul.

The underlying assumption that Merkle brings to the article is that head covering was a uniform cultural practice in the Greco-Roman world that carried a uniform meaning throughout that world. This assumption is expressed when Merkle writes, “women need to war head coverings when they pray or prophesy because in your culture that is one of the accepted cultural distinctions between men and women” (537). It also assumed in his statement of the conclusion: “Therefore, Paul’s main concern is not head coverings, since that was merely a cultural outworking of an unchanging truth” (533). But Merkle nowhere interacts with the literature or primary sources that reveal what the actual customs were in the Greco-Roman world. My understanding is that Greeks, Romans, and Jews all had different customs regarding head coverings. If so, there was not a uniform cultural understanding. Yet, as Merkle acknowledges, verse 16 indicates there was a uniform church practice. I find it significant that Paul begins the passage by indicating that this is a tradition that he delivered to the Corinthian church (11:2) and that this was not a tradition unique to the churches that he planted but was a tradition universally observed by the churches (11:16). Furthermore, in the argument in between these verses, Paul does not mention culture at all. He provides creational grounding and analogies to nature. In addition, he specifies that the covering is to be worn during prayer and prophesying, which removes the practice from a broad cultural realm to the realm of worship. Finally, Paul says, not that the head covering should be worn because of the culture, but that it should be worn because of the angels (11:10). These factors all point away from understanding the practice a merely a cultural application.

The last two sections of Merkle’s paper deal with 2 Timothy 2. I benefited a great deal from the observations in the final section. .

Hammerling, Roy. The Lord’s Prayer in the Early Church: The Pearl of Great Price. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

I found this book most useful for gathering the sources in which the Father’s discuss the Lord’s Prayer. Hammerling’s own discussion is somewhat dry and often critical. Nonetheless, there are several parts that provide helpful summaries of patristic teaching.

Grant, Edward. The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional, and Intellectual Origins. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Grant argues that the Scientific Revolution could not have taken place without advances in science in medieval Europe from the twelfth century forward. While granting that foundations of science existed in other cultures and that Europe drew on earlier scientific advances in those cultures, Grant argues that the unique combination of factors that made the scientific revolution possible only existed in post-medieval Europe. He particularly points to three factors, the translation of Greek and Arabic scientific works into Latin in the middle ages, the rise of the medieval university, and a conception of theology that made science possible.

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

This is another superb entry in OUP’s “Very Short Introduction” series. The value of the book is probably best shown by select quotations from it:

“One easily overlooked feature of printing was its ability to reproduce images and diagrams. Illustrations posed a problem for the manuscript tradition since the ability to render drawings accurately depended upon the copyist’s draftsmanship, and often upon his understanding of the text. Consequently, every copy meant degradation for anatomical renderings, botanical and zoological illustrations, maps, charts, and mathematical or technological diagrams. Some copyists simply omitted difficult graphics. Printing meant that an author could oversee the production of a master woodcut or engraving, which could then produce identical copies easily and reliably. Under such conditions, authors were more willing and able to include image sin their texts, enabling the growth of scientific illustration for the first time (13-14).

“”It is hard to imagine the flood of data that poured into Europe from the New World. New plants, new animals, new minerals, new medicines, and reports of new peoples, languages, ideas, observations, and phenomena overwhelmed the Old World’s ability to digest them. This was true ‘information overload,’ and it demanded revisions to ideas about the natural world and new methods for organizing knowledge” (16).

“When early modern thinkers looked on the world, they saw a cosmos in the true Greek sense of that word, that is, a well-ordered and arranged whole. They saw the various components of the physical universe tightly interwoven with one another, and joined intimately to human beings and to God. Their world was woven together in a complex web of connections and interdependencies, its every corner filled with purpose and rich with meaning. Thus, for them, studying the world meant not only uncovering and cataloguing facts about its contents, but also revealing its hidden design and silent messages. This perspective contrasts with that of modern scientists, whose increasing specialization reduces their focus to narrow topics of study and objects in isolation, whose methods emphasize dissecting rather than synthesizing approaches, and whose chosen outlooks actively discourage questions of meaning and purpose. Modern approaches have succeeded in revealing vast amounts of knowledge about the physical world, but have also produced a disjointed, fragmented world that can leave human beings feeling alienated and orphaned from the universe” (21).

“At the present time, applications of magia naturalis and the whole idea of an interconnected world of sympathies and analogies are sometimes dismissed as irrational or superstitious. But this harsh judgment is faulty. It results from a certain smug arrogance and a failure to exercise historical understanding. What our predecessors did was to observe various mysterious and apparently similar phenomena in nature and to extrapolate thence into a more universal statement–a law of nature–about connections and the transmission of influences in the world. This extrapolation led to one tenet that they held that we do not; namely, that similar or analogous objects silently exert influence upon one another. Once that assumption is made, then the rest of the system builds upon it rationally. They were trying to understand the world; they were trying to make sense of things and trying to make use of the powers of nature. They moved inductively from observed or reported instances to a general principle and then deductively to its consequences and applications. We might choose to say, informed as we are by more recent studies, that the action between Sun and sunflower, or Moon and sea, or magnet and iron, can be better explained by something other than hidden knots of sympathy. But that does not permit us to say that their methods or conclusions were irrational, or that the beliefs and practices that came from them were ‘superstitious.’ If that leap were allowed, than every scientific theory that comes ultimately to be rejected in the course of the development of our understanding of the world–no doubt including some things that we today believe to be true explanations of phenomena–would have to be judged irrational and superstitious as well, rather than simply mistaken notions that were arrived at rationally given the ideas, perspectives, and information available at the time” (35).

“In order to understand early modern natural philosophy, it is necessary to break free of several common modern assumptions and prejudices. First, virtually everyone in Europe, certainly every scientific thinker mentioned in this book, was a believing and practising Christian. The notion that scientific study, modern or otherwise, requires an atheistic–or what is euphemistically called a ‘sceptical’–viewpoint is a 20th-century myth proposed by those who wish science itself to be a religion (usually with themselves as its priestly hierarchy). Second, for early moderns, the doctrines of Christianity were not opinions or personal choices. They had the status of natural or historical facts. Dissension obviously existed between different denominations over the more advanced points of theology, just as scientists today argue over finer points without calling into question the reality of gravity, the existence of atoms, or the validity of the scientific enterprise. Never was theology demoted to the status of ‘personal belief’; it constituted, like science today, both a body of agreed-upon facts and a continuing search for truths about existence. As a result, theological tenets were considered part of the data set with which early modern natural philosophers worked. Thus theological ideas played major part in scientific study and speculation–not as external ‘influences’, but rather as serious and integral parts of the world the natural philosopher was studying” (36).

Kjelgaard, Jim. Outlaw Red. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1953.

Caro, Robert. Master of the Senate. The Years of Lyndon Johnson. Knopf, 2002.

This volume provides a history of the Senate from its inception until Lyndon Johnson’s election as senator, a biography of Richard Russell, the most influential Southern Senator of the time and LBJ’s Senate mentor, and Johnson’s shaping of the positions of minority leader and majority leader into positions of real power in the Senate.

Caro, Robert. The Passage of Power. The Years of Lyndon Johnson. Knopf, 2012.

This volume tells the story of how LBJ was brought onto the Kennedy ticket, his failed efforts to hold onto power as vice president, the JFK assassination from Johnson’s perspective, and Johnson’s first year as president (filling out Kennedy’s term). This volume and the previous provide an excellent treatment of the civil rights struggle of the time as well as how the civil rights legislation of that time moved through Congress.

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

This is a thick book of serious theology; it is certainly not a light read. But it is a worthwhile read. Oliphint aims to defend the aseity of God while not trimming the Bible statements that speak of God’s real interaction with his creation (Open Theism drops aseity; appeals to anthropopathism or anthropomorphism can trim the actual statements of Scripture). Oliphint sees the incarnation as a way forward. Just as the incarnate Son remained fully God while also taking on a human nature that brought limitations (Jesus necessarily remained omniscient as God while as a man was ignorant of some things), so God retains the attributes that are essential to his nature while entering into covenant with us and thereby picking up additional covenantal attributes that account for his relation with us. This brief summary does not do justice to the careful argumentation that Oliphint presents.

Johnson, Terry L. Contemporary Worship: Thinking About Its Implications for the Church. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2014.

Terry Johnson has written an excellent little book that in which he raises concerns about much of contemporary worship. He is concerned that much contemporary worship has less biblical content that older forms of worship. In this he highlights not only the content of music but also the order of service. He notes that older forms of worship included not only praise but confession of sin, thanksgiving, and extended time given to prayer, sequential reading of Scripture, and the sacraments. Johnson ties the shift to a move from worship as doxological to worship as evangelistic.

Johnson is also concerned about worship that targets demographics and in doing so divides congregations, in changes driven by pragmatism, in assuming that popular culture can by absorbed into worship without changing the meaning of worship, in further assuming that aesthetic judgments are all relative, and in despising traditions that are rich with theological value.

There are, of course, ministries that tend in the contemporary direction that do not fall under all of Johnson’s critiques while there are other ministries that might think themselves traditional which do fall under these critiques. Be that as it may, Johnson’s concerns about much American worship are biblical. It would be to the health of the church if they were given a wide hearing.

Altschuler, Glenn C. All Shook Up: How Rock ‘n’ Roll Changed America. Pivotal Movements in American History. Edited by David Hackett Fischer and James M. McPherson. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

This history primarily looks at Rock ‘n’ Roll in the 1950s and early ’60s with a brief look at the music from the Beatles through the 1980s toward the end of the book. Altschuler documents the initial concern of parents, community leaders, and office holders about the sexual nature of rock lyrics and performances. He documents that personalities such as Pat Boone and Dick Clark presented a moral face to the music, and that labels cleaned up lyrics for recordings. These moves made it possible for rock to take root in American culture. Altschuler then documents the return to more sexualized lyrics, themes that stoked “generational conflict,” and eventually music that promoted the political issues of the New Left. By the 1980s, however, even the Right appeals to the music of the counter-culture, as exemplified by Ronald Reagan’s invocation of Bruce Springsteen. Though Atschuler writes as one sympathetic to the genre, it seems clear by the end of the book that the early critics’ concerns—that the music promoted sexual immorality and rebellion against authority—were clearly justified by the development of the genre and the effects on American culture that Atschuler documents.

Lane, Anthony N. S. “Calvin’s Use of the Fathers: Eleven Theses.” In John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.

In this essay Lane is urging caution in determining Calvin’s patristic sources. He notes that in Calvin’s time citation of a father does not mean that the author has read that father. It may simply mean that he has read another source that mediated knowledge of that Father. Thus in determining what Calvin knew from those he quoted, knowing what sources Calvin had available to him at the time he wrote certain works is important.

Lane also looks at the different ways that Calvin uses sources. He proposes that in the Institutes Calvin appeals to the Fathers in support of his arguments on disputed points. In the commentaries Calvin is mainly looking for sparring partners. He is able to advance his viewpoint by critiquing an alternative viewpoint. Lane argues that disagreements in the commentaries sometimes signal Calvin’s respect for his interlocutor.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeil. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960. [2.15-17]

This section of the Institutes covers the threefold office of Christ and the work of redemption.

Books

Allen, Diogenes and Eric O. Springsted. Philosophy for Understanding Theology. 2nd ed. Louisville: WJK, 2007.

This book helpfully relates philosophical thought to the theological issues that it impinges upon. It is organized chronologically.

Lewis, C. S. The Great Divorce.

Brand, Chad O., ed. Perspectives on Israel and the Church: Four Views. Nashville: B&H, 2015.

This book presents the following four perspectives, (1) the traditional covenantal view by Robert L. Reymond, (2) the traditional dispensational view by Robert L. Saucy, (3) the progressive dispensational view by Robert L. Saucy, and (4) the Progressive Covenantal View (which seems to be loosely parallel to New Covenant Theology) by Chad O. Brand and Tom Pratt, Jr.

Over the years I’ve greatly appreciated Robert Reymond’s writings on Scripture, theology proper, and Christology. I’ve also known that he was staunchly opposed to dispensational theology. However, I was interested to see his response to progressive dispensationalism. I’ve found that too often covenant theologians attack either the most stringent forms of dispensationalism or what they think are the logical consequences of dispensationalism (consequences often denied by the dispensationalists themselves). I thought that a four views format would force closer interaction with what dispensationalists actually claim. I was, however, disappointed. Reymond spent an inordinate amount of space arguing that, despite their protestations, dispensationalists really do believe in two (or multiple) ways of salvation. All dispensational scholars today clearly believe that salvation for all people in all eras by grace alone through faith alone. Reymond, however, fastens on a Dallas Seminary doctrinal statement that makes the object of the faith the promises of God in some eras rather than faith in the Messiah. There are three problems with this focus. First, what is reflected in the DTS statement is an awareness of progressive revelation not an inclination toward two ways of salvation. Second, some dispensationalists actually lean more toward Reymond’s position on this issue than DTS’s. Some acknowledgement of this by Reymond would have been appropriate.

When Reymond actually turns to look at the future of Israel and the land, Reymond uses John Hagee as his representative dispensationalist. Hagee is not even entirely orthodox. He is certainly not a representative dispensational scholar. Sadly, this is too often par for the course for covenant theologians who write critiques of dispensationalism. They find fringe figures who make outrageous statements or take indefensible positions rather than interact with dispensational scholars.

Finally, Reymond does not really interact with the progressive dispensational view. In his own chapter he simply notes that some think that progressive dispensationalists will simply become premillennial covenant theologians. He then notes that they have not made that transition yet and are therefore “a long distance away from historical covenantal theology.” He defers all other comments to his response to Robert Saucy’s chapter. But in the response, Reymond does not really interact with Saucy’s comments. Reymond’s argument follows the following lines: Progressive dispensationalists are premillennial. Premillennialism is wrong. Therefore, Progressive Dispensationalism is wrong and no further attention should be paid to it.

Reymond spends most of his time critiquing what he understands to be the gross errors of dispensationalism, but he does give some space to articulating his own view. He holds that the OT land promises to Israel are types. Christians are the real inheritors of the land promises “in their fulfilled paradisiacal character” (34). Indeed, “ethnic Israel per se was never the centerpiece of God’s covenant program.” That program has always focused on “true spiritual Israel” (36). Indeed, Abraham himself never believed the land promises would be fulfilled literally. Hebrews 11 teaches that Abraham “spiritualize[d]” the promise and applied it to “future heavenly kingdom realities” (43). Though Reymond says “the future messianic kingdom will embrace the whole of the newly recreated cosmos,” he insists that it “will not experience a special manifestation that could be regarded in any sense as ‘Jewish’ in the region of the so-called Holy Land or anywhere else” (60). In addition, Jesus in his parable of the landowner’s son teaches a “a biblical ‘replacement theology'” in which the nation of Israel is replaced by an “international church” (47). Israel, apart from the remnant is now “lo-ammi, ‘not my people,’ only now with a finality about it” (49). What of God’s promises to national Israel? Reymond’s thesis is that Romans 9 teaches that God made no promises to national Israel. He only made promises to true, spiritual Israel (51).

There are a number of problems with Reymond’s argumentation. In the first place, it is not clear that a covenant promise can be a type that has only a spiritualized fulfillment. A promise is very different from the institution of a sacrificial system or a temple. Second, though both Genesis itself, opaquely, and the New Testament, clearly, indicates that the land promise will extend to all the nations, it is not clear why Israel, to whom the promise was explicitly given, should be excluded from this promise in the restored earth. Third, Reymond’s interpretations of the parable of the landowner’s son and of Romans 9 are not the necessary interpretations of those texts. Neither text requires an interpretation that God has never really concerned himself with national Israel and has now cast off national Israel altogether. Indeed, Romans 11’s promise of a restoration of national Israel tells against such a position.

At the opposite end of the spectrum from Robert L. Reymond is Robert L. Thomas. As with Reymond, I’ve found Thomas’s writings, in particular his commentaries on Revelation and Thessalonians, helpful over the years. However, in this essay Thomas displayed what I believe are some of the key weaknesses of traditional dispensationalist argumentation. For instance, Thomas did a lot of quoting from Milton Terry and Bernard Ramm and asserting that the other views don’t measure up to the hermeneutical standards that Terry and Ramm set. I don’t find this line of approach persuasive. Why are Terry and Ramm the standard? It would seem that Thomas would need to demonstrate why his hermeneutical approach is better than competing approaches rather than simply asserting it. This is especially the case since Thomas ends up with strained interpretations of NT passages such as Acts 15. At one point he claims that the NT authors don’t always interpret literally. They don’t have to because they were inspired. We, however, ought not follow the interpretive practices of the NT authors because we are not inspired. I find this a troubling conclusion and an indication that something is amiss with Thomas’s hermeneutic. Scripture itself should provide the hermeneutical standard by which we measure our interpretation—not Bernard Ramm or Milton Terry.

Thomas does make some helpful comments in the course of his essay. For instance, he notes, “Of the promises made to Abraham, the land promise is the most specific, not lending itself to possible variations of interpretation. It fixed specific geographic boundaries and did not lend itself to generalizations, as did the promise of becoming a great nation and the promise of being a worldwide blessing.” He also gives some helpful listing of land promises in the Psalms and prophets, but these are given almost without comment. One section of the essay looks at passages in which Jesus and the apostles might be expected to cancel Israel’s promises and did not. There is some helpful material here, especially when Thomas is countering arguments that certain passages do cancel promises to Israel. What is missing, however, is a positive argument. A lengthy section comparing three commentators’ views on passages in Revelation could have been better spent making a positive argument.

I expected to agree with the Progressive Covenantal/NCT chapter more than I actually did. Given that PC/NCT seems to be a diverse group perhaps greater agreement would have been the case with different authors. Brand and Pratt lay as the foundation for their view that since God is one, he people must be one. Therefore, there cannot be any distinctions within the people of God. This is actually an odd argument for Trinitarians to make. God is not merely one; God is one and many. Shouldn’t the conclusion be, therefore, that God’s people are one and many. In any case, it is not entirely clear to me that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premise. They also look to passages that speak of “one body,” “one flock,” “one faith” and so forth. These passages do affirm that Jew and Gentile are now united in one new man. Progressive Dispensationalists would agree that there is one people of God, the redeemed through all the ages. But the authors seem to want to use this point to deny that God ever could refer to the nation of Israel as his people. Against this, however, is the fact that God covenanted not only with the true remnant of Israel. He covenanted with the nation of Israel. Thus it is appropriate for him to refer to the nation as his people in one sense while also recognizing that some in that nation are not truly his people in another sense. This is not a move back to a two peoples of God view. It is simply a recognition of the way language works in varied contexts.

Brand and Pratt also argue on the basis of John 4 that Jesus relativizes any kind of holy land. He is now the place to which people must come to worship truly. The end of the temple and its worship meant the end of any place/land focus. But this seems to relativize a whole strand of redemptive history. The curse did not merely affect man in his spiritual life. It affected all of creation, including the physical world. This is why land is a fundamental component of the Abrahamic covenant. Israel is at the nucleus of the promise, since it is through Abraham and his seed that blessing comes to the whole world. But, as even the Old Testament indicates, the land promise will be extended to the whole world. This extension, however, does not exclude Israel from enjoying what God has promised.

Brand and Pratt reject the idea that the church replaces Israel. They instead argue that the true people of God within Israel are the root into which Gentiles are added. Thus Israel is not replaced. It is expanded to include Gentiles. However, this seems to misunderstand the teaching of Ephesians about Jew and Gentile being brought together in one new man. In addition it seems to allude to the root and branches metaphor in Romans 11. But in Romans 11, Israel is not the root. Israel is the natural branches.

Brand and Pratt also, following N.T. Wright, interpret “all Israel” in Romans 11 as church. Even Wright concedes that he is in the minority of scholarship on that interpretation. I find Douglas Moo and Thomas Schreiner’s interpretation that “all Israel” refers to the salvation of a great number of ethnic Israelites in the future to be the more exegetically tenable position. Interestingly, both Moo and Schreiner have been associated with PC/NCT. This is an indication of the difficulty in sorting out what is core to PC/NCT and what is distinctive to individuals.

Overall, I thought that Robert Thomas developed untenable interpretations of New Testament texts in order to maintain his position on Old Testament Texts. Brand and Pratt, on the other hand, trimmed the Old Testament promises to maintain their interpretation of New Testament texts. Ideally, both Testaments should be given their voice in a way that neither are trimmed but such that both Testaments are shown to fit together. It is this goal that I think Robert Saucy accomplished.

Robert Saucy provided the best essay in the book. He was the one author that seemed to stay on topic throughout. The others seemed to get drawn off on related side-issues that were not entirely germane to the topic at hand. Saucy looks at texts both in their original context and in their canonical context. He lets Old Testament passages say what they say in their original context, and he allows later revelation to extend the meaning of passages. But he does not allow later revelation to contradict or reinterpret previous revelation. A partial fulfillment or an extended fulfillment does not change what a passage means. Saucy also had the most careful discussion of typology. For instance, he notes that types can be understood as shadows that point forward to future realities. Types can also be understood as correspondences between earlier and later historical occurrences. Too often traditional and progressive theologians want to understand all types in relation to the former kind of type. In all Saucy had the most careful discussion of hermeneutics among the authors.

Saucy also provided the one clear positive description of how Israel and the Church relate (in contrast with the other authors who at times seemed more focused on critiquing opposing positions than in presenting a positive vision). Saucy argues that Israel has the role of mediating salvation throughout salvation history. This role is rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant, continues with Israel’s role as a kingdom of priests in the Mosaic Covenant, and is predicted to continue in the future by the prophets. The redemption that Israel mediates includes both internal salvation for individuals and a restoration of creation and social structures. In all of this Israel is predicted to mediate salvation to the Gentiles without the Gentiles being absorbed into Israel. The nations remain the nations. Christ is the focal point of the promises. But this does not mean that the promises fail to have application to his people. To the contrary, through Christ his people find the promises are fulfilled for them.

As the promises are fulfilled in the present era, it is important to see that it was Israelites who first brought the gospel to the Gentiles. Next it is important to see that the church is God’s people, both Jew and Gentile. But the church is not the new Israel that takes over the promises given to national Israel. Finally, though Old Testament promises are presently being fulfilled, not all Old Testament promises are presently being fulfilled. There are still future promises for national Israel that remain unfulfilled. God will bring these promises to pass. In arguing these points Saucy provides solid exegetical and theological arguments. His reviews of other positions were both gracious and insightful critiques.

Black, David Alan, ed. Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views. Nashville: B&H, 2008.

Typically four views books allows each participant to state his case followed by brief responses from each of the other contributors. The four views book is unique in allowing only one perspective a rejoinder. Daniel Wallace presents the view that Mark ended his Gospel with verse 8. Maurice Robinson argues that Mark’s Gospel originally included the longer ending. Keith Elliot posits that both the beginning and ending of Mark’s Gospel were lost. The current beginning and the longer ending were replacements. David Alan Black makes the case that Mark himself added the longer ending to his Gospel at a later point than its first writing. Darrell Bock, who holds Wallace’s view (indeed, who was instrumental in leading Wallace to this view, according to Wallace’s essay) concludes the volume by providing a rejoinder to the other three positions.

I thought that Wallace’s essay was the best written of the four perspectives. However, I found his view (and Bock’s) that Mark intended the Gospel to end at verse 8 less than convincing. The number of dissenters to this view is growing, and I did not find that Wallace dealt sufficiently with the cogent critiques of this position given elsewhere. Wallace also deferred much of the coverage of internal evidence to J. K. Elliot. Elliot, however, undermines his case by arguing (apart from any manuscript evidence) that the opening of Mark is secondary. He makes the case that the internal evidence indicates that Mark’s opening is even less Markan than the Longer Ending. Since the evidence is strongly against the opening of Mark being secondary, Elliot ends up casting doubt on the validity of the claims that the Longer Ending could not have been written by Mark.

Black’s essay was an outlier as it dealt primarily with the Synoptic problem. His solution is also fairly speculative.

I thought that Robinson’s essay was also strong. Even apart from his majority text view, he provided a series of cogent arguments, dealing with external evidence (including early patristic evidence) and internal evidence. He did not deal with all of Wallace’s arguments, however, which is why it would have been better if each author was allowed to respond to the others rather than leaving no response to Wallace and allowing Bock to respond to the other three.

Caro, Robert. Means of Ascent. The Years of Lyndon Johnson. New York: Knopf, 1991.

This volume covers the period from Johnson’s just after Johnson’s first failed run for the Senate through his first successful Senate campaign. The first part of the book is a bit slow, but the book reads like a novel as the campaign comes to its climax. Caro documents that Johnson flat out stole the election. Liberal reviewers complained that Caro presented a too sympathetic portrait of Johnson’s opponent, Coke Stevenson. Caro responded in a New York Times article that in this race Johnson presented himself as a conservative. Liberal vs. political views weren’t an issue in the campaign and thus were not an issue in this book, despite, Caro’s stated personal preference for liberal positions. In my view the mini-biography Coke Stevenson contained in this book is one of the best parts of the book.

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

For a careful, brief summary of Arminius’s life and thought, this is the book to get. Stanglin and McCall are both Arminian scholars, so they write with sympathy toward Arminius. They are also careful scholars. Finally, this is not a polemical book, unlike Roger Olson’s book on Arminian theology. Though they believe Arminius to be right, they allow his exegesis and theology to speak for itself. Highly recommended.

Kevan, Ernest. Moral Law. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1991.

The relation of the Mosaic Law to the Christian is a difficult knot to untie. There are clear continuities. The commands to have no other gods than the true God or to honor one’s parents clearly remain in force for Christians today. Commands regarding the sacrificial system or cities of refuge are clearly not applicable today. Likewise certain New Testament texts seem to indicate that the Law remains applicable today while other New Testament texts seem to abolish it for the Christian. A long-held approach to this knot, one held by Kevan, is that the law can be classified under the categories of moral, civil, and ceremonial law. The civil and the ceremonial parts are said to be done away while the moral part endures. I find these categories appropriate theological categories that can be usefully applied to the law just as theologians often impose categories on Scriptural data (think of the different ways of classifying the attributes of God). But I don’t think these categories can be read back into Scripture statements on the law. For instance, when Jesus speaks in Matthew 5 on the endurance of the law, it would be inappropriate to conclude that Jesus is speaking of the moral law alone there. Likewise, when Paul claims in 1 Corinthians 9 that he is not under the Law, it would be inappropriate to conclude that Paul is speaking only of the ceremonial and civil law. I think it is better to recognize that the Mosaic Law is part of the Mosaic Covenant. The Law is therefore a unified thing. When the New Testament speaks of the Law, it is speaking of this unity. Christians are not under the Mosaic Law, as a whole, because they are under the New Covenant. This is not a covenant without law, however. In the New Covenant the law is written on believer’s hearts. This means that there is a law the exists subsequent to the Mosaic code. Further. If the Mosaic code is the application of natural law to a particular place and time in history and redemptive-history, as I think it is, then there is a law prior to the Mosaic code as well. This is why it is always wrong to make idols or to murder but why it is not always wrong to build houses without parapets on the roof. This law that transcends covenantal arrangements could be called moral law. Thus despite some significant disagreements with Kevan about process, there is a great deal of substance that I am in agreement with. His writings about the dangers of antinomianism are especially good.

Articles

Hallo, William W. “Biblical History in Its Near Eastern Setting: The Contextual Approach.” In Israel’s Past in Present Research: Essays on Ancient Israelite Historiography. Edited by V. Philips Long. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study. Edited by David W. Baker. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999.

Worth reading for a useful approach to making use of ANE background information.

Hunn, Debbie. “The Baptism of Galatians 3:27: A Contextual Approach,” Expository Times 115 (2005): 372-75.

The common view of commentators is that Galatians 3:27, “as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ,” refers to water baptism. Hunn notes, however, that in its context baptism is the proof that “Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female” are one in Christ through faith. Water baptism cannot serve as this proof because “it proves only that the baptizer found [these distinctions] irrelevant.” It does not provide a window into the mind of God. However, noting that all were baptized by the Spirit would serve as proof. To the objection of F.F. Bruce that “the Galatian people in reading 3:27 would hardly think of anything but their baptism in water,” Hunn notes that both the Gospels and Acts refer to Spirit baptism with the terms βαπτίζω and βαπτισμός. She concludes, “Therefore, since baptism has multiple referents in the NT, students of the Bible should consider multiple possibilities when the NT leaves the type of baptism undefined.” In favor of Spirit baptism, Hunn notes the close parallels with between Galatians 3:27 and 1 Corinthains 12:13 which is clearly about Spirit baptism. She also notes that Galatians 3:23-29 and 4:3-7 follow parallel lines of argumentation. In 3:27-28 the proof of sonship is baptism into Christ. In 4:6 the proof of sonship is the reception of the Spirit. This parallel also argues that Spirit baptism is in view in 3:27.

I have long thought, against the majority of commentators, that Galatians 3:27 referred to Spirit baptism and was happy to see Hunn confirm some of my exegesis as well as advance additional arguments that I had not considered before.

Note: I was alerted to this article by a footnote in Thomas Schreiner’s commentary on Galatians in which he lists her, alongside Dunn and Garlington, as holding to a metaphorical view of baptism in this passage. Hunn, however, explicitly rejects Dunn’s metaphorical view in her article.

Luther, Martin. “A Simple Way to Pray.” Translated by Carl J. Schindler. Luther’s Works. Vol. 43. Edited by Helmut T. Lehmann and Gustav K. Wiencke. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968.

Luther wrote this treatise to instruct his barber in how to pray. Luther provides helpful practical advice such as thinking through Scripture in four ways: instruction, thanksgiving, confession, and petition. In this way meditation on Scripture can be turned into prayer. Luther also provides examples of how the petitions of the Lord’s prayer, the commandments of the Decalogue, and the phrases of the Apostle’s Creed can be expanded into fuller prayers. This is a warm, pastoral work of great value.

Luther, Martin, “Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed,” Translated by J. J. Shindel and Walther I. Brandt. Luther’s Work. Vol. 45. Edited by Helmut T. Lehmann and Walther I. Brandt. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1962.

In this article Luther begins by demonstrating from Scripture (Rom. 13:1-2; 1 Peter 2:13-14; Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:14; Matt. 26:52; Lk 3:14) that God has ordained temporal government. He then notes that if all people were Christian, there would be no need for government since Christians are governed in their hearts by the Holy Spirit. But as it is, there are two kingdoms. Unbelievers are in the temporal kingdom and are under law. They are subject to the sword. Christians are in the spiritual kingdom and are under the Spirit. Luther argues that true Christians, which he says “are few and far between” are “subject neither to the law nor sword, and have need of neither.” But for the benefit of others Christians willing submit to temporal government, and all that it entails such as taxes. This is part of his love to his neighbor. Likewise Christians can serve as magistrates for the love of neighbor.

In the second part of this work Luther looks at the extent of temporal government’s authority. He argues that since God’s kingdom and the temporal kingdom are different kingdoms, they have different laws. The temporal government concerns itself only with “life and property and external affairs on earth.” God’s kingdom concerns itself with the soul. He notes that Romans 13:7 gives government the authority to demand honor, respect and taxes. Peter allows the government to issue human ordinances, but it cannot “extend its authority into heaven and over souls.” Similarly, Christ recognized this distinction when he distinguished those things that are rendered to Caesar and those which are rendered to God. Luther also appealed to Psalm 115:16, “He has given heaven to the Lord of heaven, but the earth he has given to the sons of men. In the creation mandate God only gives humans dominion over the “external domain.” Men do not rule over each other in spiritual matters. Finally, Luther says that Peter’s claim in Acts 5:29, “We must obey God rather than men” distinguishes temporal authority and the limits placed on it from God’s authority. The upshot of this is that the state cannot make heresy a crime for such it beyond its competence. It is the responsibility of the church to restrain heresy. And on this matter Paul says, “Our weapons are not carnal” (2 Cor. 10:4-5). Further within the church there is no authority. Christ is the only authority in the church. Bishops and priests are servants who cannot impose law but can only teach and guide through God’s word. “Christians do every good thing of their own accord and without constraint.”

In the third part of this treatise, Luther counsels those who are princes on how to go about seeking wisdom to be a wise and godly ruler.

Luther made some real advances in this treatise. He broke with the Roman Catholic claim that all authority is mediated through the church. He also resisted the radical Reformation position that Christians should not participate in government. Luther also cogently argued that the temporal government does not have the authority or competence to rule on matters of doctrine.

Luther also makes some significant mis-steps. The most significant is the claim that Christians are under no authority other than Christ’s, with the implication being that Christians are not part of the temporal kingdom except for the sake of love to neighbor. While not being a Luther scholar, I am aware of the claim that after the Peasant revolt of 1525 Luther changed some of his more antinomian positions. It would be worth knowing whether this was one of them.