Barker, Kenneth and Waylon Bailey, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah. New American Commentary. Nashville: B&H, 1998.

Kenneth Barker’s commentary was the most useful in the recent study I did in the book of Micah. He was concise and thus easy to use, but the material he gave was insightful and genuinely promoted my understanding of the passages.

Waltke, Bruce K. A Commentary on Micah. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

I found Waltke the most helpful in discerning the structure of the book. His exegetical comments are very detailed as is his exposition. This was valuable, but I didn’t find his writing as clear as Barker’s, and thus I didn’t find him as useful given the time constraints of the project for which I was using these resources.

Hoyt, JoAnna M. Amos, Jonah, and Micah. Evangelical Exegetical Commentary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2018.

This is a detailed commentary that did a good job of surveying and evaluating the exegetical options. Even when I didn’t entirely agree with Hoyt, as in the structure of the book, I was sharpened by my interaction with her comments. I always took something helpful away.

Dempster, Stephen G. Micah. Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017.

For this project I read primarily the introduction and the theological sections of the commentary. Dempster provided me with an excellent, insightful orientation to the book.

Timmer, Daniel C. Obadiah, Jonah and Micah. Tyndale Old Testament Commentary. InterVarsity, 2021. For this project, I did not consult Timmer as often as the above commentaries, but when I did so I regularly found help.

I have a review of Craig Bartholomew’s The Old Testament and God in the Fall 2023 issue of the Journal of Biblical Theology and Worldview.

Rose, Matthew. A World after Liberalism: Philosophers of the Radical Right. Yale University Press, 2021.

Rose treats the philosophers of the radical right with seriousness, not dismissing them out of hand or claiming that they are wrong in every respect. He also recognizes that liberalism contains serious flaws. Nonetheless, his account makes abundantly clear that the radical right is hostile to Christianity. Furthermore, he elucidates how much of what the radical right is reacting against in contemporary liberal culture are perversions of Christianity. The radical right seeks not merely to undo these perversions but to attack their Christian roots.

Rose writes:

The alt-right is anti-Christian. Not by implication or insinuation, but by confession. Its leading thinkers flaunt their rejection of Christianity and their desire to convert believers away from it. Greg Johnson, an influential theorist with a doctorate in philosophy from Catholic University of America, argues that “Christianity is one of the main causes of white decline” and a “necessary condition of white racial suicide.” Johnson edits a website that publishes footnoted essays on topics that range from H. P. Lovecraft to Martin Heidegger, where a common feature is its subject’s criticisms of Christian doctrine. “Like acid, Christianity burns through ties of kinship and blood,” writes Gregory Hood, one of the website’s most talented essayists. It is “the essential religious step in paving the way for decadent modernity and its toxic creeds.”

Alt-right thinkers are overwhelmingly atheists, but their worldview is not rooted in the secular Enlightenment, nor is it irreligious. Far from it. Read deeply in their sources—and make no mistake, the alt-right has an intellectual tradition—and you will discover a movement that takes Christian thought and culture seriously. It is a conflicted tribute paid to their chief adversary. Against Christianity it makes two related charges. Beginning with the claim that Europe effectively created Christianity—not the other way around—it argues that Christian teachings have become socially and morally poisonous to the West. A major work of alt-right history opens with a widely echoed claim: “The introduction of Christianity has to count as the single greatest ideological catastrophe to ever strike Europe.”

The Anti-Christian Alt-Right by Matthew Rose | Articles | First Things

Rose’s contribution is vitally important because many Christian ministries are now focused threats to the Christian faith from the left. These are real threats, and Christians must address them. These threats are culturally influential, and Christians unprepared to meet these threats will simply absorb unbiblical ideas from the culture.

On the other hand, many of these ministries seem averse to any criticism of the right. At the least damaging, they critique Democrats while never mentioning the problems of their political allies. For instance, the most recent “Christ Over All” podcast critiqued Bill Clinton and Barack Obama for espousing the sexual revolution. But there was no mention that Donald Trump had done the same—not only in his personal life but also in the policies of his administration (see here and here). More seriously, some critics of the left have embraced some of the ideas from the radical right (e.g., Stephen Wolfe’s The Case for Christian Nationalism; cf. page 7 of Kevin DeYoung’s “The Rise of Right-Wing Wokeism“).

Faithful Christians must be aware of threats to the faith from both the political right and the left. Some will charge this concern as a compromising third wayism. To be sure, when one way is true and the other false, proposing a third way is to compromise. But if there are two false options on the table, the Christian must argue for a third way, a biblical way.

In all this, Scripture must be the standard and guide—not just in rhetoric but in truth. Otherwise, Christians run the risk of fleeing from one error into the arms of another error.

---

Excerpts from Rose’s book are available on the First Things website:

The Anti-Christian Alt-Right

The Outsider (on Samuel Francis)

Aside from books on covenant theology (reviewed on this site throughout the year), and works on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and books on false religions and philosophies (see below), the following are the ten best books I read in 2022.

Top Ten Books

Goodwin, Thomas. The Works of Thomas Goodwin. Volume 3. Edinburgh: Nichol, 1861.

Volume three of Goodwin’s works contains some particularly edifying and valuable works. The Return of Prayers is meditation on the duty of Christians to give attention to the answers to their prayers. A Child of Light Walking in Darkness addresses the Christian who is experiencing the withdrawal of God’s felt presence. In other words, this is a helpful work on Christian assurance of salvation. The Trial of a Christian’s Growth is a treatise on sanctification and mortification of sin drawn from the parable of the vine and the branches. The Vanity of Thoughts Discovered, with Their Danger and Cure encourages Christians to discipline their minds so that they do not think unprofitable and/or defiling thoughts.

The volume opens with An Exposition of Revelation. Goodwin operates in the historicist mode common in his time. His exposition does not have enduring value and is of interest only to those interested in the history of interpretation. For a summary of the Exposition, see this post: Three Post-Reformation Revelation Commentaries.

McKenzie, Robert Tracy. We the Fallen People: The Founders and the Future of American Democracy. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2021.

McKenzie is doing a number of things in this book. He is modeling good historiography from by a Christian historian. He provides a careful discussion of how the American founders viewed original sin. He then traces how an increasingly democratic age and an increasingly positive view of human nature reinforced one another. He provides a helpful history of the main events of the Jacksonian era in light of the these transformations. Finally, he makes wise applications to our own democracy in light of the theology and history discussed.

Crowe, Brandon D. Why Did Jesus Live a Perfect Life? The Necessity of Christ’s Obedience for Our Salvation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2021.

This is an excellent, accessible, exegetical and theological defense of the active obedience of Christ. In this book Crowe deals with the law’s requirement for perfect obedience. His version of covenant theology complicates his exegesis at points, but he is headed in the right direction. I highly commend this book.

Fanning, Buist M. Revelation. Edited by Clinton E. Arnold. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020.

This may be the best recent commentary on Revelation. For a review see here.

Gerhard, Johann. On the Law. Theological Commonplaces. Saint Louis: Concordia, 2015.

A Lutheran scholastic view of the law. I found it helpful, and I am sympathetic to the Lutheran approach to the law, with some modifications brought over from the Reformed view.

Tweeddale, John W. John Owen and Hebrews: The Foundation of Biblical Interpretation. New York: T&T Clark, 2019.

Tweeddale’s published doctoral dissertation includes helpful background about the writing of Owen’s Hebrews commentary. More significant however are the careful treatments of how Owen saw the OT and NT relate and the place of the in relation to the new covenant. This is significant because Owen departed from many of the covenant theologians of his day. In my view Owen’s views were better grounded in sound exegesis. Highly commended as a resource into this part of Owen’s thought.

Wells, David. No Place for Truth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Wells persuasively argues that it is not abstract ideas which shape people’s thinking (ideas have consequences) but the inculturation of ideas that shape people’s thinking. This is a helpful corrective to a pure intellectual history.

Given my work at BJU Press, I found some of the most helpful material to be on the democratization of American culture and how that has fostered both problematic individualism and problematic communities.

Adams, Isaac. Talking about Race: Gospel Hope for Hard Conversations. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2022.

Chapters 7-9 of this book are particularly Bible saturated and provide a great deal of biblical wisdom for this fraught topic. One aspect of this book that I greatly appreciated was its recognition that no technique can solve our racial divisions. Instead, Adams directs readers attention to dependence upon God in prayer and to relating biblical teaching on sanctification to this topic.

Jacobs, Alan. Breaking Bread with the Dead. Penguin, 2020.

Jacobs makes a case for reading past authors with whom we disagree. As typical for Jacobs the argument is supported by well-chosen literary examples and careful reflection.

Whitney, Donald S. Praying the Bible. Wheaton: Crossway, 2015.

The most valuable benefit of this book for me was Whitney’s schedule for praying through the psalms.

Three Notable Articles

Webster, John. “Sins of Speech.” God without Measure: Working Papers in Christian Theology: Virtue and Intellect. Vol. II. New York: T&T Clark, 2016.

This is a careful theological essay on the ethics of speech. Webster begins with the theological foundations in God and creation for virtuous speech, relates human nature to virtuous speech, describes how sin disorders speech, and then looks at how speech can be mortified and vivified for the regenerate person. I found the essay spiritually warm, and it had the effect of arousing desire for more God-honoring speech in my own life.

Jonathan M. Cheek, “Bruising, Crushing, or Striking: The Translation of שׁוף and the Promise of Victory in Genesis 3:15,” Journal of Biblical Theology and Worldview 2, no. 1 (Fall 2021).

This is a helpful investigation of the meaning of שׁוף. Cheek argues that “bruise” is an anachronistic translation that no longer communicates what it died in the seventeenth century. He finds “crush” to be an adequate interpretation of what the seed of the woman does to the serpent’s head (cf. Rom. 16:20), but he prefers “strike” as less interpretive and more fitting to describe both what the serpent does and what happens to the serpent. He finds this sense supported in the other passages where שׁוף is used: Job 9:7 and Psalm 139:11. Cheek acknowledges that the strike of the serpent on a heel can be fatal if the serpent is poisonous, and he grants that the passage could point to the death of the Messiah as a key component of the victory of the Messiah over the serpent. Though this would be cryptic to original readers, the unfolding of Scripture would clarify this. Cheek does maintain that in context Genesis 3:15 does give the reader an expectation of victory over the serpent.

Craig Blaising, “A Critique of Gentry and Wellum’s Kingdom through Covenant: A Hermeneutical-Theological Response,” Master’s Seminary Journal 26.1 (2015): 111-27.

This is an excellent review of Kingdom through Covenant. Blaising praises the attempt at a canonical reading of the covenants and of biblical theology that is not superficial but which captures deep connections. Blaising’s overall critique is that KtC does not pay enough attention to certain “crucial textual details” which, if attended to, would provide for a more holistic biblical theology.

More specifically, Blaising critiques the continuity/discontinuity framing for evaluating biblical theological systems. Blaising suggests, “It would be better to avoid these abstractions and refocus the issue on plot development and resolution.” The better system will account for how the biblical narrative develops “as a coherent narrative” and how it brings all the elements of its plot to a resolution.

Second, Blaising critiques KtC’s understanding of typology. 1. He notes that not all types are directly Christological nor escalatory. 2. He demurs from the claim that types “establish” God’s plan, arguing that the plan is established in the narrative and framed in covenant promises. He is wary of typology when used to “contravene, suppress, or subvert the meaning of explicit covenant promise, and even more so when the NT explicitly repeats and reaffirms the same promise as declared in the covenants of the OT.” 3. He denies that the covenants prior to the new covenant are types of the new covenant, especially when the antitypical nature of the new covenant is appealed to as justifying a reinterpretation of those covenants’ promises.

Blaising instead calls for an understanding of the nature of the speech act of a covenant promise and the commitment God makes when he swears to covenant promises. Blaising also calls for a “holistic anthropology” that recognizes that the scriptural vision for humanity into the eternal state is multinational. Third, Blaising calls for a holistic new creation eschatology that recognizes the particular land promised to Israel is a part of the whole, renovated earth. The whole does not replace the part; the part is necessarily a part of the whole. Fourth, Blaising calls for a Christology that does not reduce all fulfillment to the Person of Christ but which recognizes variegated richness of the realm Christ inherits. Finally, Blaising argues that the ecclesiological payoff that progressive covenantalists are seeking―a regenerate new covenant community―is to be had in progressive dispensationalism without losing the fullness and complexity of the biblical narrative.

Top Ten Books on Philosophy and Religion Finished in 2022

Chirico, Leonardo. Same Words, Different Worlds: Do Roman Catholics and Evangelicals Believe the Same Gospel? London: Inter-Varsity, 2021.

This is a superb work that does an excellent job of describing Roman Catholic beliefs and how they differ from orthodox Protestant theology. Chirico understands that Roman Catholicism is a system and that individual teachings must be understood in light of the system. As a result, apparent agreement between Roman Catholic and Protestant theology is just that—apparent. I also read De Chirico’s A Christian’s Pocket Guide to Papacy (Christian Focus, 2015) and A Christian’s Pocket Guide to Mary (Christian Focus, 2017) and Gregg Allison’s 40 Questions about Roman Catholicism.

Trueman, Carl. The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020.

This book is as good as everybody says it is. Well worth reading.

Snead, O. Carter. What It Means to Be Human: The Case for the Body in Public Bioethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2020.

Carl Trueman put the phrase “expressive individualism” into evangelicals’ lexicon with regards to LGBT issues. Carter Snead shows that expressive individualism also undergirds arguments regarding abortion and other issues of bioethics. 

Cooper, John W. Panentheism—the Other God of the Philosophers: From Plato to the Present. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.

This is a historical and theological survey of the concept of Panentheism. It does an excellent job of describing the variety of views that fall under that label and how the concept developed in history.

Watkin, Christopher. Jacques Derrida. Great Thinkers. P&R, 2017.

Watkin, Christopher. Michel Foucault. Great Thinkers. P&R, 2018.

Watkin, Christopher. Gilles Deleuze. Great Thinkers. P&R, 2020.

I found Watkin’s books on these French postmodern thinkers to be helpful in understanding their thought. He did a good job of accurately describing these difficult thinkers in an accessible but accurate manner.

Stevens, Anthony. Jung: A Very Short Introduction. OUP, 1994.

This book reveals the great influence of Jung on contemporary thinking. Though the author is secular and sympathetic to Jung, it is hard to read without wondering if Jung was engaged in occult practices that put him in touch with the demonic.

Bennett, Matthew Aaron. 40 Questions about Islam. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2020.

This is a helpful introduction to Muslim beliefs and practices.

McGuckin, John Anthony. The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008.

McGuckin is an Orthodox theologian, and this book does a good job of describing its history, doctrine, and practice from an Orthodox perspective.

For 2022 I focused my personal Bible reading on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. I read a shorter commentary on these books, the notes in the NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible, and a few other resources.

Leviticus

Richard Averbeck contributed excellent notes for the NIV BTSB on Leviticus. I also read his articles in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch and in NIDOTTE on the sacrificial system and the key words related to it. I also read his article “Reading the Ritual Law of Leviticus Theologically” in Interpreting the Old Testament Theologically. Averbeck is slated to write the Leviticus volume in the EEC series, and based on these articles, I expect to be especially helpful on the ritual elements of the book.

For the commentary I chose Jay Sklar‘s entry in the Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series and found it to be excellent. He was less helpful than Averbeck on the opening section of the book, which discusses sacrifices, but I found him full of insight in his comments on the laws in the latter part of the book. I found that he anticipated the questions that I had about these laws and answered them with clarity and brevity. He has a fuller commentary on Leviticus coming out this spring in the ZECOT series.

I also read Michael L. Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord: A Biblical Theology of Leviticus. This was one of the best books I read all year, and it is one of the best entries in the New Studies in Biblical Theology series. It is subtitled “A Biblical Theology of Leviticus,” but it is more than that. It locates Leviticus within the structure of the Pentateuch, and thus discusses the structure of the Pentateuch. Morales also traces the theme of God’s presence through Genesis and Exodus. Morales is also full of insight on how this theme and others extend through the rest of the canon. And that is all in addition to his insightful theological comments on the book of Leviticus.

This is a book in which even the places where I think Morales is wrong were helpful in stimulating my thought. For instance, Morales argues for a structure of the creation week account that highlights days four and seven and which minimizes day six. From this structure he emphasizes the theme of God’s presence with his people in festivals and Sabbaths.

Morales is correct to highlight the importance of the seventh day, but I am not convinced of his Days 1, 4, 7 palistrophe, with day 4 setting up the times for cultic festivals. מוֹעֵד can refer to cultic festivals, but it is a much broader word than that. In a creation Psalm (104:19) it is clearly contrasted with the normal order of day and night and the seasons.

I also remain skeptical of readings which read cultic material back into Genesis 1 and 2. It is more plausible that Genesis 1 and 2 are about the normal creation order rather than about the cult of the Mosaic covenant. Connections between creation and cult are due to the cult looking back to what was lost in creation because of the Fall and to it looking forward to the restoration of creation.

I further doubt that the rule of the sun and moon over the day and the night is a rule that is placed over the rule of man. This would place parts of the creation over man, the image bearer of God. Different terminology is used, suggesting that distinct kinds of rule are in view (the terms used of man indicate that he is to continue to shape the world that God has made; they are not static terms).

The argument that “word allotment” is not sufficient to demonstrate the significance of day six is true in the abstract, but in this case the narrative slows down with the creation of man and shifts into poetry at some points. Thus, the argument is not merely that there are more words given to day six. The argument is that the narrative pace shifts to place special emphasis on the creation of man in God’s image and on the dominion blessing.

In addition, the dominion blessing is the fountainhead for the blessing, seed, land themes that are central to Genesis and at the heart of all of the covenants. These verses are also the foundation for the kingdom of God theme, which is central to the Bible’s storyline and to the gospel.

Finally, to say that the primary blessing of the imago dei is to have fellowship with God is, without minimizing the importance of that blessing, not actually what the text says. Grammatically, the blessing of the imago dei is tied to the blessing of dominion over the earth. Further, the idea that the seventh day is about the presence of God and fellowship with God is not actually found in Genesis 2:1-3. Humans are not mentioned in those verses nor is the theme of presence/fellowship.

I agree that the presence of God theme is one of the central themes of Scripture. Exodus 33 makes clear that to receive the seed and land blessings apart from God’s presence is no blessing at all. But the presence of God theme is assumed rather than explicit in Genesis 1 and 2.

A better way forward is to bring together the imago dei/creation blessing with the seventh day. I wonder if a case could be made that God is setting a telos for man in the seventh day. God blessed mankind with rule over the earth, which meant that he was to extend the Garden to cover the world, as it were (along with other cultural developments). But at a certain point man would complete this work and enter into God’s rest.

I further wonder if under the Second Adam this task will be completed in the Millennium. Man can then enter the rest of the new earth. Humans will continue to reign under Christ, but it will not be a reign of subduing and gaining dominion.

Other works on Leviticus: Other works on Leviticus that I’ve found helpful are Wenham (NICOT), Kiuchi (AOTC), Hartley (WBC), Rooker (NAC), Currid (EPSC), Ross, Holiness to the Lord. I almost chose Wenham as my commentary for Leviticus this year, but I opted for something briefer. Wenham, however, is hard to surpass for insight. I’ve also found Kiuchi helpful on numerous occasions. I recall his comments on Leviticus 18:5 being especially helpful. Hartley has the most detailed treatment of the Hebrew (though Kiuchi also deals with Hebrew technicalities), but I too often find him operating with critical assumptions. Rook is good, but thinner than the others. I’ve benefited from Currid’s commentaries on the Pentateuch, especially those on Exodus and Genesis. I’ve only recently acquired his Leviticus volume; I expect it to be good. Ross spans the gap between exegesis and exposition and is regularly helpful.

Numbers

For Numbers I chose Gordon Wenham‘s entry in the Tyndale series. It is an excellent, brief commentary. Though an older entry (1981), I still think it is an excellent entry point into the book.

I didn’t think that Jay Sklar‘s notes on Numbers in the NIV BTSB rose to the level of some of the other contributors. I didn’t feel as though he was orienting me to the structure and flow of the book the way many other contributors did. Instead, too many of the notes seemed to be of the one-off variety common in other study Bibles.

Other works on Numbers: Other works on Numbers that I’ve found helpful are Ashely (NICOT), Allen (EBC), Harrison (WEC), Cole (NAC), and Currid (EPSC). I don’t think that I’ve read anything by Ashley other than this commentary, but I’ve regularly been helped by his comments. Harrison also gives detailed help with the Hebrew. In addition to these, I’ve found Roy Gane (NIVAC) helpful on the numbers in Numbers (though I’ve not read other parts of his commentary) and Stubbs (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible) helpful on the structure of the book.

Deuteronomy

Stephen Dempster contributed helpful notes to the NIV BTSB. I also read J. Gary Millar‘s contribution to the New Studies in Biblical Theology series, Now Choose Life: Theology and Ethics in Deuteronomy. I found this book most helpful in outlining the structure of Deuteronomy. It also provides a helpful, high level commentary on the whole book. This would be a good place to start a study of Deuteronomy. Millar is slated to write the Deuteronomy commentary in the Christian Standard Commentary series.

I chose Daniel Block‘s work in the NIV Application Commentary series as my commentary for Deuteronomy. Based on my experience with Block’s commentaries on Judges, Ruth, and Ezekiel, I expected to be in basic agreement with Block throughout. However, I found myself disagreeing with Block’s exegesis at key points. For instance, Block takes the “fathers” in Dt 4:31 to be the exodus generation and the covenant to be the Sinai covenant rather than taking the “fathers” to be the patriarchs and the covenant to be the Abrahamic. The latter is more likely. In verse 37 the “fathers” are distinct from the “you” that Yhwh brought out of Egypt. Motivating Block’s interpretation, in part, is his belief that the Abrahamic, Israelite, and new covenants are all part of the same covenant. A result of this framework is the blurring of distinctions between the unilateral nature of the Abrahamic and new covenants and the bilateral nature of the Mosaic covenant. Disagreements notwithstanding, the commentary is a helpful contribution.

Block has also compiled three books of essays on Deuteronomy:  How I Love Your Torah, O LORD!: Studies in the Book of Deuteronomy, followed by The Gospel according to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of Deuteronomy, and concluding with The Triumph of Grace: Literary and Theological Studies in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Themes. These studies were always rigorously argued and thought-provoking, even though I didn’t always agree with Block.

In “Reading the Decalogue Right to Left,” among some insightful observations about the Decalogue, Block also seems to relativize its status. In addition, he argues for the numbering the commands according to the Catholic and Lutheran tradition rather than with the Reformed tradition. His arguments are worth reading, though I did not find them persuasive in the end.

In “How Many Is God?” Block argues that the Shema is not “a great monotheistic confession,” noting “Moses had made that point in 4:35, 39. Instead, he argues for the translation, “YHWH our God! YHWH alone!” The point, then, is that Yhwh is Israel’s only God. I have to give more thought to this.

In “A Prophet Like Moses: Another Look at Deuteronomy 18:9-22” Block argues that this passage is not Messianic but that it predicted a series of prophets that followed Moses; indeed, in “Hearing Galatians with Moses: An Examination of Paul as a Second and Seconding Moses,” Block argues that Paul stands in this line of prophets like Moses. Again, I am not entirely convinced, but Block’s arguments are to be reckoned with, and I’ve marked them down for further study.

His essay, “Convenance,” spells out in greater detail his theology of the biblical covenants. Here he argues in greater detail for the linking of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and new covenants. He recognizes that his formulation runs into some difficulties in Hebrews, and he attempts to address those problems in this essay (unsuccessfully, in my estimation).

I found myself in greater agreement with other articles. For instance, “The Fear of YHWH: The Theological Tie that Binds Deuteronomy and Proverbs” contains an excellent study of the semantic range of ירא as well as an insightful linking of Deuteronomy and Proverbs in connection with this theme.

In the essay, “All Israel Will Be Saved: An Examination of Moses’ Eschatological Vision in Deuteronomy, ” Block surveys Deuteronomy’s outline of Israel’s history—both that which precedes Deuteronomy and that which Deuteronomy predicts will follow. Block then turns to examine in detail three key eschatological passages: Deuteronomy 4:29-31; 30:1-10; and chapter 32. He then insightfully links these passages with Romans 9-11, arguing that Paul’s conclusion “all Israel will be saved” has roots in Deuteronomy’s eschatological vision. Block also argues in “Covenance” that although there is some spiritualizing of Israel in the NT (e.g., Paul calling the church “the temple of the living God”),

we should not interpret this spiritualizing and universalizing move to mean that the ethnic/national nature of the covenant was either forgotten or superseded…. On the contrary, in Rom 9-11 Paul emphatically declared that while Gentile believers have been grafted into the covenant community, a future for physical Israel remains.

He concludes,

Indeed, in fulfillment of Deut 30:1-10 and Jer 31:31-37, with great excitement he anticipates the day when the ideals of the original covenant will be finally realized—all Israel will be saved (Rom 11:25-32). I resist speculating under what circumstances this will transpire—whether in a millennial context or in the new heavens and the new earth, but it is difficult to imagine Moses and the prophets who followed in his train (like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel) being happy with contemporary supersessionists, for whom God’s eternal commitments evaporate into irrelevance.

There were also a number of essays that I was not able to read but which look interesting: “Preaching Old Testament Law to New Testament Christians,” “All Creatures Great and Small: Recovering a Deuteronomic Theology of Animals,” “Other Religions in Old Testament Theology,” “‘A Place for My Name’: Horeb and Zion in the Mosaic Vision of Israelite Worship,” “‘O Day of Rest and Gladness’: Rediscovering the Gift of Sabbath,” “The Patricentric Vision of Family Order in Deuteronomy.” I found the essays in Triumph of Grace to be the most interesting and helpful.

Other Resources on Deuteronomy: I’ve yet to find a Deuteronomy commentary that I really love. I’ve found Edward Woods’s entry in the Tyndale series uniformly helpful when I’ve consulted it, and I wondered in the course of this year if I should have chosen it rather than Block for my Deuteronomy commentary this year. I’ve also found Christopher Wright’s contribution in the NIBC series (now Understanding the Bible) to be uniformly insightful. My main complaint with these two commentaries is that they are too brief. Allan Harman’s contribution to the Focus on the Bible series is another brief but insightful entry. For a fuller treatment, including of the Hebrew, I’ve used and benefited from McConville’s entry in the Apollos OT series. Note also his theology Grace in the End. However, I’d like someone a bit more conservative than McConville. Eugene Merrill in the NAC volume on Deuteronomy and Grisanti in the revised EBC fit the bill, and I’ve found help in both. However, I’ve also found them a bit too thin. The same can be said for Cragie in NICOT: good material, but thin for what the series has become. Bill Arnold has just come out with the first of a two-volume commentary on Deuteronomy (to replace Cragie in NICOT). Based on his discussion of authorship, I’m not sure it fits the “conservative” desiderata. Adolph Harstad’s contribution to the Concordia Commentary series may fit the bill: this series has been consistently conservative and at over 1,000 pages that include detailed treatments of the Hebrew text, this commentary is not thin. I also see that Jason DeRouchie is slated to write on Deuteronomy in the forthcoming Pillar Old Testament Commentary series, and I have high hopes for his contribution.