The Puritan, [Lloyd-Jones] argued, is not ‘the strong man’. He is ‘a very weak man who has been given strength to realise that he is weak. I would say of all men and women that we are all weak, very weak, e difference being that sinners do not appreciate the fact that they are weak, whereas Christians do.’ it was this knowledge of their own frailty, he believed, which made the Puritans careful how they lived and led them to avoid all that is doubtful. ‘sober mess and restraint are the key-notes of the character of the Puritans. Have you any objection to them? If you have, you cannot regard yourself as a Christian because these are two essentially Christian virtues.'”
Iain Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The First Forty Years, 98.
Large Numbers in Numbers
The large numbers in the census’s in the book of Numbers have troubled critics and evangelicals alike for some time. The numbers, for various reasons, seem too large to be realistic. These are the issues raised:
1. Israel’s army seems much too large in comparison to other armies of the time. Egypt and Assyria were the great military powers, but their armies consisted of only tens of thousands of men. The censuses in Numbers places Israel’s military at around 600,000 (ZEPB, 4:465; cf. Allen, EBC, 709; Harrison, WEC, 45-48).
2. Joshua seems to present an Israelite army with numbers more comparable to other militaries of the day. Joshua 8:3, 11, 12 places the size of Joshua’s army at 30-40,000, depending on how the numbers are understood (ZPEB, 4:465).
3. Most commentators estimate that if an army of males over the age of 20 numbers 600,000, then the total population would be between two to three million people. They note that providing sanitation, food, and even room for setting up camp would provide major difficulties. In such a situation morale would be a problem (Gray, ICC, 12; ZPEB, 4:465; ISBE2, 3:565; cf. Harrison, WEC, 45-48).
4. Archaeologists estimate that the population of the entire area of Canaan did not reach 3 million people at this time. Yet Numbers 13:27-29 presents Israel as afraid to attempt to conquer the land, a strange fear if it possessed such numerical superiority. Also the large numbers in Numbers make it difficult to explain how, after the conquest, less numerous Canaanites were able to keep the Israelites pent up in the hill country (ZPEB, 4:465; ISBE2, 3:565). Related to this, Exodus 23:29-30 says that the Canaanites would not be driven out by Israel all at once due to the smallness of Israel.
5. Some numbers seem internally inconsistent. Numbers 3 includes legislation on the redemption of the first born, and 3:43 provides the number of firstborn. The comparison of numbers between chapters 1 and 3 leads to the conclusion that "the ratio of firstborn males to adult males is 1:27." Thus "each family would need to have on average 27 males and possibly as many daughters" (ISBE2, 3:565; cf. Gray, ICC, 13).
These issues have generated a number of proposed solutions. One popular solution is to understand אלף as a military group rather than as a thousand. There is clear evidence elsewhere in Scripture that אלף can indicate a captain over troops (אלוף; Gen. 36:15; Ex. 15:15) or a troop of men (Judg. 6:15; 1 Sam. 10:19). In this view, Numbers 1:21, "six and forty ‘elep and five hundreds" is interpreted as "forty-six clans/troops and (comprising) five hundred men." (DTOP, 408). This interpretation runs into some serious problems, however. Numbers 1:46; 2:32 clearly take אלף as thousand (Harrison, WEC, 46).
Another common solution is to propose that the numbers are symbolic. Some say they are purposely inflated to underscore the theological truth that God has multiplied Abraham’s seed (Allen, EBC, 688; ZPEB, 4:465; ISBE2, 3:565). But this raises the question of the value of a theological point based on invented numbers. Furthermore, the large numbers of the Numbers’ censuses are consistent with Exodus 12:37-38, which indicates that the Israelites who left Egypt numbered around 600,000 men besides women and children, and with Judges 20:2, which indicates that shortly after the conquest a voluntary army of 400,000 was quickly gathered (Gane, Leviticus/Numbers, NIVAC, 497; DOTP, 408). Unless the symbolism proposed in Numbers is extended to these other passages, a contextually unlikely proposition since both are separate historical reports, it is best not to treat the numbers in the Numbers’ censuses as inflated or symbolic.
Some have suggested that the numbers were corrupted in transmission (ISBE2, 3:565). But this would require the same corruptions to have occurred at Exodus 12:37-38 and at Judges 20:2 as well. Others say there is not enough information for a solution (ISBE2, 3:565-66).
Since the alternative proposals are not satisfactory, the objections to taking the numbers of Numbers at face value must be examined in greater detail.
1. The greater size of Israel’s army relative to those of Egypt and Assyria is not as great a problem as may first be supposed. The censuses in Numbers mark the number of men in the entire nation who are aged 20 and above and who are able to fight. The number of fighting men in an entire nation is bound to be higher than the armies of nations, even nations such as Egypt and Assyria.
2. Joshua 8 may not be as great an obstacle as it first appears. What the ESV translates as "all the fighting men" and the NIV as "the whole army" (cf. HCSB), is better translated "all the people of war" (KJV, NKJV, NASB) (8:1, 3, 11). Howard notes, "This phrase ‘all the people of war’ is found in the Old Testament only in the Book of Joshua (8:1,3,11; 10:7; 11:7). These uses seem to emphasize the unity of the entire nation in doing battle (cf. the concern for unity in 1:12-15), even though it was most likely only the men who actually engaged in battles" (Howard, NAC, 203; Woudstra, NICOT, 134, n. 4). The 30,000 of Joshua 8 thus need not have been all the men of Israel but rather were a selected force (Calvin, Joshua, 123). Also, the numbers in Numbers are consistent with the numbers elsewhere in Israel’s early history (Exodus 12:37-38; Judges 20:2). This makes the numbers in Joshua 8, rather than those of Numbers, the outlier.
3. The wilderness narratives in Exodus and Numbers note repeatedly the difficulty of providing food and drink to the people along with the miraculous provision of food and water. Sanitation was regulated in the Torah. The issue of room to camp is not as easy to address since there is disagreement on the route of the Israelites. Nonetheless, E. J. Young notes that "if the people were encamped in the plain of Er-Rahah before Jebel es Safsaf, they were in a plain about four miles in length and quite wide, with which several wide, lateral valleys join (Young, Introduction, 89). The wilderness narratives are also frank in their description of the people’s low morale at various points. These objections are therefore either addressed in the text or are not accurate in their statement of the problem.
4. The disparity in population between Israelites and Canaanites may not be a major problem. The Israelites were afraid of the Canaanites for their physical (not numerical) size and for their fortified cities. The Canaanites had home field advantage, fortified cities, and experienced fighting forces. Exodus 23 may not be so much about the relative population sizes as about the transition period needed to establish a civilizing presence in the land after the current one is removed, though it must be admitted that this is a stronger challenge than the others.
5. The ratio between firstborn males and other males also seems to be a greater problem than some of the others. It seems to be an issue of internal consistency. One plausible solution is that the redemption of the firstborn applies only to those born between the exodus from Egypt and the events of chapter 3 (Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 268).
In the end, the objections against taking the numbers of Numbers have responses that are more convincing than the alternative explanations. In fact, some of the solutions to the large numbers of Numbers result in a population so small that one wonders what Pharaoh was worried about (Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 266; a similar argument could be mounted with regard to the Canaanites in Joshua, though the emphasis there is admittedly on the power of Yahweh rather than on the size of Israel; Josh. 2:9, 24; 9:24). The numbers in Numbers 1 should therefore stand as a historical fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham to multiply his seed and make him into a great nation (Theodoret of Cyrus, The Questions on the Octateuch, 87).
In his treatment of these verses Calvin reminds his readers of the need to keep the supernatural working of God in view while interpreting such passages as Numbers 1. His comments are worth pondering:
Such is the perverseness of men, that they always seek for opportunities of despising or disallowing the works of God; such, too, is their audacity and insolence that they shamelessly apply all the acuteness they possess to detract from his glory. If their reason assures them that what is related as a miracle is possible, they attribute it to natural causes,—so is God robbed and defrauded of the praise his power deserves; if it is incomprehensible, they reject it as a prodigy. But if they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the interference of God except in matter by the magnitude of which they are struck with astonishment, why do they not persuade themselves of the truth of whatever common sense repudiates? They ask how this can be as if it were reasonable that the hand of God should be so restrained as to be unable to do anything which exceeds the bounds of human comprehension. Whereas, because we are naturally so slow to profit by his ordinary operations, it is rather necessary that we should be awakened into admiration by extraordinary dealings (John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses arranged in the Form of a Harmony, 1:22).
Youth and Wisdom
While young men become geometricians and mathematicians and wise in matters like these, it is thought that a young man of practical wisdom cannot be found. The cause is that such wisdom is concerned not only with universals but with particulars, which become familiar from experience, but a young man has no experience, for it is length of time that gives experience.
Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, 1142a11-15.
Israelites as Outsiders in Numbers 1:52
In Numbers 1:52 the Levites are instructed to guard the tabernacle from outsiders, from non-Levites. God designed the tabernacle system both as a symbol of God’s nearness and as a symbol of the distance still required between God and man. In Numbers the distance of God is emphasized. As foreigners, were separated from the people of God in this era, so non-Levites were separated from tabernacle service. God did permit people to approach him, and the tabernacle symbolized his presence, but strict limitations were placed on the approach at the pain of death. A sinful people in the presence of God were always in danger of being consumed (Ex. 33:5).
This warning in chapter 1 about who may approach the tabernacle prepares the reader for Korah’s rebellion. The non-Levitical tribes should have led Israel in battle against the Canaanites, but when they failed to obey God in this manner and then pressed in upon the Levitical duties, God consumed them as he had warned Moses he would do.
This warning also highlights the benefits of the new covenant. Not only is the barrier between foreigner and Israelite broken down (Eph. 2:14), but the restrictions on non-Levites are removed. In fact, God’s people are now “a holy temple in the Lord” and “a dwelling place for God by the Spirit” (Eph. 2:22). Even the bodies of individual believers have become the temple of God’s Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19). The typical Israelite could not draw near to the symbolized presence of God in the midst of the people, but the Christian cannot escape the indwelling presence of God.
This marvelous access into the presence of God is possible because of the propitiatory death of Jesus. His death tore the barrier between God and man (Matt. 27:51). The wrath of God that threatened to break out, and did break out, against the Israelites, was satisfied by the sinless Christ. Christians can now enter boldly into the presence of God (Heb. 4:14-5:10).
This does not mean that all warnings cease or that personal holiness is of no issue since imputed righteousness has been procured. No, the very fact that the believer was purchased by the blood of Christ to be the temple of the Spirit means that his body needs to be holy (1 Cor. 6:18-20). Those who destroy God’s temple (the church) will be destroyed by God, and those who build it with shoddy material are saved only with great loss (1 Cor. 3:10-17).
Christians today should rejoice in the blessing of intimate access to God, while at the same time allowing the Old Testament restrictions remind them of high privilege they enjoy and the sacred responsibility that it bestows.
Genesis 1:26-28 as the Statement of the Bible’s Theological Center
The resurgence of the biblical theology movement of the past thirty years or so has given rise to a host of issues attendant to that discipline, including the search for a center, or organizing principle, around which the biblical data might be ordered. . . . It is the thesis of this article that such a center does exist and that it lies in the concept of the kingdom of God, the only concept broad enough to encompass the diversity of biblical faith without becoming tautological. . . . Theology must make a statement about God (the subject) who acts (the verb) to achieve a comprehensive purpose (the object).
If this is the case, not only would one expect that statement to be the interlocking and integrating principle observable throughout the fabric of biblical revelation, but he would also expect it to be enunciated early on in the canonical witness in unmistakable terms. Hence, Genesis should most likely provide the seed-bed in which the anticipated proposition is to be found. And a careful reading of that book of beginnings reveals a statement of purpose that is so striking in its clarity and authority that there can be little question it is the very formula we seek to establish the Bible’s own theological center: ‘Then God [the subject] said, “Let Us make [the verb] man [object] in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule [purpose] over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky. . . .” God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth’ (Gen. 1:26-28).
The theme that emerges here is that of the sovereignty of God over all His creation, mediated through man, His vice-regent and image. Thus Genesis, the book of beginnings, introduces the purposes of God, which remain intact throughout the Old and New Testaments despite the sin of man and the impairment of his ability to be and do all that God had intended. The failings of His creation—a major theme of human history and of the Bible itself—are unable to frustrate the ultimate purposes of God, for the language of eschatology is replete with the overtones of redemption and salvation that bring about a renewal of all that God desired to do in creation. There will be a new heaven and new earth wherein dwells righteousness (Rev. 21:1; cf. Isa. 65:17; 66:22).
Eugene H. Merrill, “Daniel as a Contribution to Kingdom Theology,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, ed. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 211-12.
Numbers 1 and the 144,000 of Revelation
Several commentators point out that in the OT a census was typically conducted to muster an army or to assess its strength. Thus they see the census of Revelation 7 as a parallel to Numbers 1. Revelation 7, according to these commentators, is about mustering an eschatological army of witnesses.[1] This view is bolstered by some verbal parallels between the two chapters: εκ φυλης in Revelation 7:5-8 corresponds with εκ της φυλης in Numbers 1:21-4; "of the sons of Israel" is repeated in both chapters; and both lists mention Joseph as a tribe.[2] The fact that Revelation 14 indicates that all of them are men strengthens the military view of this census.
Those taking this view typically understand the 144,000 of Revelation to be symbolic of the church, but this is doubtful. Revelation 7 divides its attention between Israel on the earth of a specific number and a numberless multitude from all nations in heaven. Israel is clearly the focus in the first part of chapter 7 because of the detailed listing of the tribes. One could argue that the census and listing of tribes is just a device to cause the reader to think of God mustering an army, but this expedient is not necessary for those who believe Israel still has a role to play in the future. Given the OT prophecies of Israel fulfilling its role as a witness to the nations (Ex. 19:3-6; Deut. 4:5-8), and given the partial fulfillment already in the NT (Matt. 15:24; Acts 1:6-8; 2:5, 41; 9:15; 10:44-48; 13:1-3), it is more natural to see this army as an army of witnesses sent to the nations. The numbering of 12,000 from every tribe could well signify completeness, though this need not rule out numerical prediction. Because of God’s sovereignty, symbol and reality can often coincide. If the passage is meant to parallel Numbers 1, the smallness of the numbers in Revelation may point up the fact that it is a remnant of Israel which God is restoring.
Revelation 14 returns to the 144,000. It seems that this chapter looks forward to the end when Christ is enthroned on Mount Zion.[3] This army of Israelite men accomplished what the army of Numbers 1 failed to achieve: they are in the land, indeed on Mount Zion. They have remained faithful, as symbolized by their virginity[4] and as evidenced by their honesty. This latter point especially contrasts with Numbers because the complaints that arise against God in this book and give rise to rebellion are, in fact, lies against God. Note also the difference in the task of these armies. In the OT the armies of Israel were to conquer Gentile nations both in judgment on them and to give Israel space to live out its witness to them; in the NT the army of Israel is purely a force of witnesses (the judgment is being carried out immediately by God himself). As Numbers progresses, it will begin to record the failures of Israel, but in the end, the text of Revelation assures us, God’s people will fulfill their role as witnesses to God, and they will live in the promised land forever.
[1] Beale and McDonough, "Revelation," in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 1107; cf. Osborne, BECNT, 313.
[2] Beale and McDonough, 1107.
[3] There is debate about whether Mount Zion in this passage is in heaven or on earth. The fact that a voice is heard from heaven favors an earthly scene. Osborne, BECNT, 525; cf. Thomas, 2:190.
[4] Again, symbol and reality do not need to be set at odds. There is no reason to think that the 144,000 were not actually virgins. The virginity of the 144,000 may strengthen the thesis that these men were mustered for service in the Lord’s army, for the OT indicates that soldiers refrained from sexual activity while in the field (Deut. 23:9-10; 1 Sam. 21:5; 2 Sam. 11:8-11). Osborne, BECNT, 529. Thomas notes this interpretation but dismisses it because he finds the military imagery inconsistent with martyrs who do not resist. Thomas, 2:196. But in reality this need not be inconsistent. The army mustered in Revelation need not fight in the same way as the army mustered in Numbers. They can be an army of martyred witnesses.
Books and Articles Finished in October
Books
Lewis, C. S. The Abolition of Man. HarperSanFrancisco, 1947.
A natural law argument against reducing all value judgments to mere personal sensations. Lewis argues for the necessity of a natural law by showing the impossibility of functioning without one.
VanDrunen, David. A Biblical Case for Natural Law. Studies in Christian Social Ethics and Economics. Edited by Anthony B. Bradley. Grand Rapids: Acton Institute, n. d.
VanDrunen argues successfully for the existence of natural law. His deployment of the concept with in a Klineian two-kingdoms model is on shakier ground. For instance the Noahic covenant is about making space for the other redemptive covenants to be worked out (see esp. Jer. 33:20-21); it is a covenant also instituted in connection with a sacrifice of atonement. It is thus not a covenant about making space for a common kingdom. VanDrunen also seems to equivocate between biblical kingdom language and the way kingdom language is used in the history of theology. This is especially problematic because VanDrunen ends up connecting theological kingdom language to the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants whereas in the Bible the kingdom of God is most closely connected with the Davidic covenant, a covenant that gets very little attention from VanDrunen.
Van Drunen’s hope that natural law can provide the basis for common morality is also on shakier ground that his argument for the existence of natural law. Attempts to reason from natural law apart from explicit Scripture are often unconvincing. This is even further exacerbated by the prevailing religious pluralism in which there are real competing value systems at work in a society. Though the Fall has not eradicated mankind’s sense of the law, it has so distorted it that competing systems are now in place. Finally, secularists and/or pluralists are no more inclined to concede to natural law than they are to concede to Scripture.
Watson, Thomas. The Godly Man’s Picture. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth.
Watson begins by challenging his readers to self-examination about their conversion, helpfully sketches out in concrete terms what a godly life is, and concludes with comfort for believers who recognize their failure to measure up. Excellent.
Lewis, C. S. That Hideous Strength. New York: Collier, 1946.
This, the last of Lewis’ Space Trilogy, is the hardest to get into on first read. The characters seem to be entirely different, the setting is earth, and the action is minimal. In fact the first hundred pages seem to be about the debates of college professors about trivial college matters. But rereading shows this book to be the one of the three with the greatest depth. Lewis is working on many different levels (pay attention to weather and lighting). Also reading Lewis’ essay “The Inner Ring” and his book The Abolition of Man will prepare readers for many of the themes of That Hideous Strength. Brushing up on Arthurian legends won’t hurt either, though the book works fine standing on its own.
Articles
Wenkel, David. “The Logic and Exegesis behind Calvin’s Doctrine of the Internal Witness of the Holy Spirit to the Authority of Scripture.” Puritan Reformed Journal 3, no. 2 (July 2011): 98-108.
Overly, Paul. “Some Thoughts on the Meaning of Music from a Christian World View.” In Barrett, Michael P. V. The Beauty of Holiness: A Guide to Biblical Worship. Greenville, SC: Ambassador, 2006.
Argues that Christians need to evaluate music according to its culturally assigned meaning as well as according to its formal elements, which contribute to its meaning.
Beall, Todd S. “Contemporary Hermeneutical Approaches to Genesis 1-11.” In Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth. Edited by Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008.
A good evaluation of non-literal approaches to Genesis 1-11.
Averbeck, Richard E. “The Sumerian Historiographic Tradition and Its Implications for Genesis 1-11.” In Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context. Edited by A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoffmeier, D. W. Baker. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994.
Helm, Paul. “Review of God Without Parts: Simplicity and the Metaphysics of Divine Absoluteness by James E. Dolezal.”
Favorable review of a 2011 WTS dissertation that defends divine simplicity against modern philosophical detractors.
Hall, Gregory V. “Applying a New Perspective Understanding to Romans 2:12-16,” Ashland Theological Journal (2010): 31-39.
Summarized New Perspective approaches to this passage but did not advance beyond what anyone would gather simply by reading Dunn or Wright’s commentaries on this passage.
Barnes, Peter. “Prayer: Some Suggestions,” Banner of Truth (Aug-Sep 2011): 1-3.
Eagleman, David. “The Brain on Trial.” The Atlantic, August 2011.
An argument that reduces (almost?) all human behavior to brain functioning beyond the scope of any individual will and the suggested legal ramifications to such a view.
Gruenke, Jennifer, and Justin D. Barnard. “Don’t Put the Brain on Trial.” Public Discourse, October 4, 2011.
An argument that the scientific claims in Eagleman’s article were overstated and that the current legal system is already prepared to handle the extreme kinds of cases discussed by Eagelman.
Frame, John. “Review of David Van Drunen, A Biblical Case for Natural Law (Grand Rapids: Acton Institute, no date).”
Affirms the concept of natural law but takes issue with the exegetical arguments VanDrunen uses to establish his two kingdom’s approach.
Helm, Paul. “Natural Law and Common Grace.” Helm’s Deep, November 1, 2008.
Helm argues that natural law and common grace are aimed at affirming the same thing. Only by the confusing of Counter-Reformation teaching with medieval teaching do they end up opposed.
Saucy, Mark R. “Canon as Tradition: The New Covenant and the Hermeneutical Question.” Themelios 36, no. 2 (2011).
An argument against D. H. Williams and others who seem to give patristic tradition some level of authority in doctrinal formation. Saucy argues that the fathers are not sufficient guides for right interpretation because they fail to appreciate the canon’s emphasis on the new covenant as a necessary hermeneutical guide.
Ward, Wayne E. “The Worship of the Church.” In The People of God: Essays on the Believers’ Church. Edited by Paul Basden and David S. Dockery. Nashville: Broadman, 1991.
Hiestand, Gerald. “Augustine and the Justification Debates: Appropriating Augustine’s Doctrine of Culpability.” Trinity Journal 28, no. 1 (Spring 2007): 115-139.
An argument in favor of Augustine’s doctrine of justification over against that of Calvin, Hodge, and others in the Reformation tradition. He favors Augustine’s view that justification is equivalent to regeneration (there is a real, essential change rather than only a forensic change in justification). He ties this to the fact that Augustine more consistently held to a realist view of why people are culpable before God rather than a view that moves toward placing greater stress on the imputation of Adam’s sin forensically. Michael Horton’s Covenant and Salvation provides a more traditional Reformation view of justification that does not neglect its connection to transformation.
Walters, Stanley D. “Reading Samuel to Hear God,” Calvin Theological Journal 37 (2002): 62-81.
A helpful article that deals with Samuel’s canonical location and with its structure.
Van Til on Sola Scriptura
Certainly, Van Til believed in sola Scriptura in the traditional Protestant sense: that only Scripture serves as the supreme authority for human thought and life. . . . Nevertheless, Van Til did not hold a mechanical view of sola Scriptura, as if we could develop our knowledge from Scripture alone, without any use of our own reason or senses. He understood that in any instance of knowledge, there is simultaneous knowledge of God, the world, and the self. We cannot know one thing without relating it to other things and to ourselves. We cannot know God rightly unless we know him as Creator of the world and as our own Creator-Redeemer. We cannot know Scripture without relating it to ourselves and to the world of our experience. General and special revelation always work together, though certainly the latter must provide the ultimate criteria for understanding the former.
John M. Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought (P&R, 1995), 121.
Books and Articles Finished in September
Books
DeYoung, Kevin. Why Our Church Switched to the ESV. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.
A helpful, non-technical comparison between the ESV and NIV that shows the benefits of a translation that seeks to remain transparent to the form and metaphors of the original languages when possible.
DeYoung, Kevin and Greg Gilbert, What Is the Mission of the Church? Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.
See previous post.
Webb, William J. Corporal Punishment in the Bible: A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic for Troubling Texts. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011.
William Webb applies his problematic Redemptive-Movement hermeneutic to corporal punishment. The central problem with his approach is that it seems difficult to avoid a Whiggish view of history (or in this case, ethics) with this kind of hermeneutic. He seems to imply that the judicial use of corporal punishment on criminal adults is ruled out with the redemptive-movement at its present stage. But why should an increasingly secularized 21st century West determine this. Why not a more Christianized 19th century? Or why the West; what of the East? Corporal punishment is still practiced in Singapore. Which is more humane, locking up people up in prisons for extended periods of time or instituting corporal punishment for certain crimes? These are questions that Webb fails to wrestle with. He also unhelpfully mixes discussions of child-rearing with passages that seem to deal with criminal punishments. He furthermore gives his readers false options by implying that either one adopt his redemptive-movement hermeneutic or accept as still valid various provisions of the OT Law.
Fitzpatrick, Elyse M. and Jessica Thompson. Give Them Grace: Dazzling Your Kids with the Love of Jesus. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011
The discussions of the law and the gospel could have benefited from some recognition of the third use of the law. Nonetheless, as the practical discussions unfolded, it seemed that this category was implicit. Readers would also benefit from reading and keeping in mind John Frame’s cautions on redemptive-historical preaching as they read this book. As with redemptive-historical preaching, the emphasis here is on the indicative, and there should be some cautions about not avoiding the imperatives for fear of moralism. Those caveats given, this is a good book. The overall thrust of the book is that parents should not try simply to produce good children. They should instead seek for gospel opportunities in discipline situations. This does not mean that discipline disappears but rather that it is contextualized with the gospel. The book also stresses that following the right formulas will not necessarily produce good children but that God’s grace is necessary to transform children’s hearts. Thus parents must consistently pray for God’s work of grace in the hearts of their children.
Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical & Global Perspectives. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002.
Good overview of various ecclesiological proposals and the state of the discipline. Negatively, it is slanted toward unorthodox views.
Ryle, J. C. Expository Thoughts on Matthew. 1856; repr., Banner of Truth Trust, 1986.
Ryle designed this work for family devotions and it is worthy of continued use for that purpose over 150 years from its original publication.
Hannah, John D. An Uncommon Union: Dallas Theological Seminary and American Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.
Hannah provides an interesting institutional history. It doesn’t have the same narrative quality as George Marsden’s history of Fuller Seminary or Gregory Wills’ history of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Hannah goes into more detail about curricular changes and other details which break up the narrative. But the discussion of how Dallas emerged from the Bible Conference movement and developed in relation to fundamentalism and evangelicalism was interesting. Hannah placed Dallas somewhat between fundamentalism and the neo-evangelicalism spearheaded at Fuller Seminary.
Goheen, Michael W. A Light to the Nations: The Missional Church and the Biblical Story. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011.
I think this has been the most disappointing and most profitable book that I’ve read recently. Disappointing because I came to the book with high hopes and found that I disagreed with his basic thesis. Profitable because it is not only full of wise thoughts but because even when I disagreed I found my thinking helpfully provoked. Goheen did not convince me that the church is defined by its mission. It seems that the church most be more than a “come and join us people.” Its definition must include the what for which people join. Nonetheless, missions is vital to the church, and Goheen’s discussion of mission and missions remain helpful. I also disagree with Goheen’s relation of the church to Israel. This ended up being a major theme of the book. Nonetheless, Goheen has sparked an interest into researching further OT prophecies about the role of Israel in spreading the gospel to the Gentiles.
Wilson, Douglas. What I Learned in Narnia. Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2010.
One of the reasons Lewis’s books are so enjoyable for Christians is that they help them see with fresh eyes the foolishness of evil and the wisdom of a God-oriented life. These lessons are not sermonizing within the stories. They are baked into the narratives themselves. And they are the kind of things that stick in the mind and are recalled unbidden when similar circumstances or ideas arise in real life. Wilson highlights these lessons in this book. An enjoyable read.
Articles
Schreiner, Thomas R. “A Biblical Theology of the Glory of God.” In For the Fame of God’s Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper. Edited by Sam Storms and Justin Taylor. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.
A helpful overview of the centrality of the glory of God in every part of the biblical storyline/canon.
Dever, Mark. “The Church.” In Understanding the Times: New Testament Studies in the 21st Century: Essays in Honor of D. A. Carson on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Edited by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Robert W. Yarbrough. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.
A basic unpacking of the doctrine of the church in terms of its four ancient attributes and two/three Reformation marks. Includes helpful thoughts on church membership
Kidd, Reggie M. “What John Frame Taught Me about Worship.” Speaking the Truth in Love: The Theology of John M. Frame. Edited by John J. Hughes. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2009.
He likes Frame, Clowney, Old, and Webber. But the essay is pretty thin on content.
Wolters, Al. “Reflection by Al Wolters.” in Four Views on Moving beyond the Bible to Theology (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology). Edited by Gary T. Meadors. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.
When I referenced this book for my dissertation, I found that Wolters had the most perceptive reflection on the four views presented. In the dissertation, I drew on him for his critique of Vanhoozer’s theodramatic view. This time I read him to refresh my mind on his critique of Webb. Here too he was perceptive. He notes several problems with a redemptive-movement hermeneutic: (1) It treats ANE ethics monolithically. There were multiple ethics in multiple cultures. Further, some may have been more advanced that Israel if one assumes the “ultimate ethic” that Web lays. (2) His approach depends on the Bible reader having access to ANE background information that many ordinary readers don’t have access to and that even scholars did not have access to before the nineteenth century. Even today scholarly knowledge of the ANE is patchy. (Wolters is clear that he is not against making use of ANE background materials.) (3) “There appears to be no standard by which to measure what an ‘ultimate ethic’ might be. A clue to what is in fact the implicit and unacknowledged standard for Webb is provided by the proximity in the diagram of ‘Ultimate Ethic’ to ‘Our Culture.’ To be sure, the latter is qualified by the words in parentheses: ‘where it happens to reflect a better ethic than Y,’ but no criterion is provided by which we can judge that ‘our culture’ on this or that point reflects a better ethic than Y. This is a remarkable statement when we recall that Y represents ‘the concrete words of the text,’ that is, the biblical text. For all practical purposes it seems that Webb’s ‘Ultimate Ethic’ is pretty well equated with ‘Our Culture,’ at least insofar as the latter is the bearer of human and liberal values. It looks for all the world as though the values ‘we’ hold trump the explicit ethical instruction of Scripture” (p. 306).
McDaniel, Stefan. “Flogging: The Best Hope for Our Broken Prison System?” The Public Discourse (2011).
It was interesting to happen across this article shortly after having finished Webb’s book on corporal punishment. It comments on Peter Moskos’s work, In Defense of Flogging, which raises the issue of whether flogging might be more humane than locking people up in prison. He tentatively proposes the flogging be an option that those convicts who are not a danger to society may choose instead of a prison term. This is interesting because Webb rhetorically reacts in horror at the idea of corporal punishment as a punishment for adult criminals. But what if Webb’s trajectory toward from Scripture toward our culture isn’t a trajectory to that which is more humane after all? This article at the very least raises that question.
Campbell, Donald K. “The Church in God’s Prophetic Program.” In Essays in honor of J. Dwight Pentecost,. Chicago: Moody, 1986.
Lewis, C. S. “The Inner Ring.” In The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses. HarperCollins, 2001.
An excellent application of the tenth commandment to friendship. The best fictional correspondence to this address in Lewis’s writing is the character of Mark Studdock in That Hideous Strength.
Osborne, Grant. “Hermeneutics and Theological Interpretation.” In Understanding the Times: New Testament Studies in the 21st Century: Essays in Honor of D. A. Carson on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Edited by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Robert W. Yarbrough. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.
When I was writing my dissertation on theological interpretation of Scripture, I found the literature so voluminous and diverse that I struggled in finding a structure for my analysis. In the end I focused on the role of tradition, the place of pre-critical interpretation as it relates to authorial intent, and how theological interpretation relates to biblical and systematic theology. I was therefore pleased to see that Grant Osborne’s survey of the same material covers these same key areas. Furthermore, I think he points his readers in the right direction on every point. He sees tradition as valuable but supplementary to Scripture, which retains its primacy. He argues that seeking authorial intention is correct and viable. One difference is that he seems to see Childs as a move forward after the collapse of the Biblical Theology Movement. I think that Childs carries many of the same weaknesses. That criticism aside, Osborne’s introduction to theological interpretation is a fine one.
Strange, Dan. “Not Ashamed! The Sufficiency of Scripture for Public Theology.” Themelios 36, no. 2 (2011): 238-60.
Strange provides a description of both Common-Kingdom (emphasis on natural law as the authority for the common kingdom) and Confessional-Kingdom (emphasis on the authority of Scripture for all of life) models of engagement with public life. He sides with the Confessional-Kingdom approach. His survey is helpful and his application to the UK is useful even for those in the USA.
Bookman, Douglas. “The Scriptures and Biblical Counseling.” In Introduction to Biblical Counseling. Edited by John F. MacArthur, Jr. and Wayne A. Mack. Dallas: Word, 1994.
Bookman’s concerns are entirely valid. But in making his case, Bookman seems overly reliant on arguing the definition of terms (while granting what many would identify as general revelation and its application in four affirmations), and even these definitions receive only the most cursory support from Scripture. Bookman’s discussion of general revelation would have been stronger if it had focused on the key general revelation texts, and his case against integrationist counseling would have been stronger if it focused on the substantive issue of psychological theories being equivalent to a theology rather than being revelation itself.
Mayhue, Richard L. “Is Nature the 67th Book of the Bible.” In Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth. Master Books, 2008.
Mayhue provides an able refutation of Hugh Ross’s claim that nature is the 67th book of the Bible. But he seems to overly limit general revelation in a few places. First, when he says that the breadth of content for general revelation is limited to knowledge of God alone, this seems to rule out natural law (though he grants Romans 2 deals with both general revelation and moral standards). When he says that the corpus of general revelation does not grow over time, Mayhue excludes history from general revelation. He says he does so on the basis that history does not show up in Ps. 19:1-6; Acts 14:17; 17:23-31; Rom. 1:18-25; 10:18, but I would have benefited from some further discussion on why many theologians include history. Does Mayhue think they wrongly see it in the texts he examines; does he think they wrongly see it in other texts that do not teach general revelation? Mayhue then says to expand general revelation beyond special revelation adds to Scripture. But this is not clear. Scripture is special revelation and general revelation is not. These reservations and questions do not affect Mayhue’s case against Ross; Mayhue successfully refutes Ross’s claims.
Calvin on Christian Liberty and the Law
Christian liberty seems to me to consist of three parts. First, the consciences of believers, while seeking the assurance of their justification before God, must rise above the law, and think no more of obtaining justification by it. For while the law, as has already been demonstrated (supra, chap. 17, sec. 1), leaves not one man righteous, we are either excluded from all hope of justification, or we must be loosed from the law, and so loosed as that no account at all shall be taken of works. For he who imagines that in order to obtain justification he must bring any degree of works whatever, cannot fix any mode or limit, but makes himself debtor to the whole law. Therefore, laying aside all mention of the law, and all idea of works, we must in the matter of justification have recourse to the mercy of God only; turning away our regard from ourselves, we must look only to Christ. For the question is, not how we may be righteous, but how, though unworthy and unrighteous, we may be regarded as righteous. If consciences would obtain any assurance of this, they must give no place to the law. Still it cannot be rightly inferred from this that believers have no need of the law. It ceases not to teach, exhort, and urge them to good, although it is not recognized by their consciences before the judgment-seat of God. The two things are very different, and should be well and carefully distinguished. The whole lives of Christians ought to be a kind of aspiration after piety, seeing they are called unto holiness (Eph. 1:4; 1 Thess. 4:5). The office of the law is to excite them to the study of purity and holiness, by reminding them of their duty. For when the conscience feels anxious as to how it may have the favor of God, as to the answer it could give, and the confidence it would feel, if brought to his judgment-seat, in such a case the requirements of the law are not to be brought forward, but Christ, who surpasses all the perfection of the law, is alone to be held forth for righteousness.
Calvin, Institutes (trans. Beveridge), 3.19.2.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- …
- 81
- Next Page »