Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Stephen G. Myers, God to Us: Covenant Theology in Scripture—4. The Covenant of Grace

by

In chapter 4 Myers expounds and defends the covenant of grace. In his view the covenant of grace includes the covenant of redemption (and thus God’s eternal plan of redemption) as well as the historical outworking of that plan. Myers identifies the parties of the covenant of grace the Triune God with the elect being included by virtue of being in Christ.

Myers’s version of covenant theology understands the covenant of grace to be a real covenant (and not merely a plan of redemption) with its own parties. The biblical covenants are administrations of this unified covenant of grace. But this formulation creates a significant problem. The covenant of grace is made with Christ (and all the elect in him). The Noahic covenant, on the other hand, was made with all flesh (elect and unelect). The Abrahamic covenant was made with Abraham and his seed (Christ is included because he is the Seed of Abraham). The Mosaic covenant was made with the nation Israel (both elect and unelect). The Davidic covenant was made with David and his seed. (Christ is included because he is the Seed of David). How then, can these various covenants be administrations of a covenant made with Christ (and the elect in him) since the covenant partners in several of these covenants include the non-elect?

I’m sure that this is not a novel objection and that covenant theologians have developed an answer to this conundrum, but Meyer does not consider this particular objection (at least at this point in the book).

Meyer does respond to Gentry and Wellum’s claim that “it is more accurate to think of God’s one plan revealed through a plurality of covenants” (105, citing Kingdom through Covenant, 2nd ed., 655). Meyer appeals to the phrase heqim berith in Genesis 6:18 in support of his position. He holds that this phrase is not used of making a new covenant but is used to refer to “perpetuating a previously existing covenant” (106). Gentry and Wellum agree with this understanding, but they claim that Genesis 6:18 refers to the perpetuation of the creation covenant in the Noahic covenant. Meyers rightly responds that the creation covenant was a covenant of works violated by Adam. The Noahic covenant is “the establishment of an altogether different covenant, on different terms, with different requirements” from the original works covenant.

Meyers argues that the phrase heqim berith in Genesis 6:18 is exegetical evidence for the covenant of grace. “Prior to God’s covenantal interaction with Noah, there was a previously existing covenant that was concerned with the salvation of God’s people and that was of such a character that it could be meaningfully renewed with subsequent generations of human beings. This previously existing, redemptive, transhistoric covenant was the covenant of grace” (107).

This is the best exegetical argument I’ve encountered for a unified covenant of grace. However, it depends on heqim berith never being used with reference to making a covenant. Contrary to Meyer (and Gentry and Wellum), the phrase heqim berith is used of making a covenant in Exodus 6:4; Ezekiel 16:60, 62 and, arguably, in Genesis 6:18; 9:9, 11, 17.

Meyer’s final argument for a unified covenant of grace is that God has a unified goal (dwelling with his people), that this goal is realized for individuals in a unified way (by faith in God’s gospel promises), and that throughout redemptive history there has been one unified people of God. However, progressive covenantalists and progressive dispensationalists both affirm all three of these truths while not holding to a unified covenant of grace. A unified plan of God advanced through distinct covenants is also compatible with these points.

Myers developed the best exegetical case for the covenant of grace that I’ve read, but I remain unconvinced of this aspect of covenant theology.

Books read in January 2022

by

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 the 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.

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.

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.

Amstutz, Mark R. Just Immigration: American Policy in Christian Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017.

This book provides a useful survey of the US immigration system, including analysis of the system’s strengths and weaknesses. Amstutz also surveys various church statements on immigration, and he faults them for making specific policy recommendations that are not tightly tied to biblical or theological principles. In general he finds these statements too favorable to illegal immigration. Amstutz praises a 2012 statement from the Lutheran Church: Missouri Synod for it statement “Immigrants Among Us: A Lutheran Framework for Addressing Immigration Issues” because it guides church members about their interactions with immigrants in their various vocations rather than making public policy pronouncements. While I agree with Amstutz that churches should not make public policy pronouncements, since that lies beyond the church’s competency and mission, I expected Amstutz as a Christian ethicist in this field to provide some public policy options supporting by argumentation. The fact that the churches should not bind Christian consciences to specific public policies doesn’t meant that Christians shouldn’t be thinking about the public policy. The lack of possible ways forward is a significant weakness of this book.

Porter, Stanley E. and Andrew W. Pitts. Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.

This is a good introduction to the basics of textual criticism.

Augustine of Hippo. The City of God, Books I–VII. Edited by Hermigild Dressler. Translated by Demetrius B. Zema and Gerald G. Walsh. Vol. 8. The Fathers of the Church. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1950.

In these books Augustine refutes those who claim that Rome suffered calamities because she turned from the traditional gods to Christianity by recounting disasters that befell Rome prior to Christianity and by pointing out the benefits that Christianity had brought even in the present trials. He also shows the absurdities and vices of the Roman gods.

Best Books Read in 2021

by

Not counting books on ethics and commentaries on Galatians, these are the ten best books I read in 2021. Were I to count the books in the other categories Magnuson’s text on ethics, Udemans’s The Practice of Faith, Hope, and Love, and Moo’s commentary on Galatians would displace Pennington and Bartholomew.

Ussher, James. “Immanuel, Or The Mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God.” In The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher. Vol. 4. Dublin: Hodges, Smith, and Co., 1631.

This work is Scripture-saturated, devotional in tone, and theologically deep. A rare work that combines all three elements. It makes me want to read more Ussher.

Leeman, Jonathan. One Assembly: Rethinking the Multisite and Multiservice Church Models. Crossway, 2020.

I think Leeman achieves his goal of establishing that multiservice and multisite models are at variance from the ecclesiology of the New Testament. I think he effectively makes his case that ekklēsia refers to the assembly of God’s people. I’ve been reading the biography of William Tyndale concurrently with this book, and Tyndale translated ekklēsia as congregation. I think English Bible translations would benefit from reverting to Tyndale on this point. I’m not sure that the references to the universal church refer to the eschatological assembly of all God’s people, but I don’t think that claim is integral to the argument.

If I were teaching ecclesiology, I would use Greg Allison’s Sojourners and Strangers as my text with this book by Leeman as required reading.

Troxel, A. Craig. With All Your Heart: Orienting Your Mind, Desires, and Will Toward Christ. Wheaton: Crossway, 2020.

This is an excellent, devotionally rich book that examines what it means to grow in sanctification with regards to knowing, loving, and choosing, all aspects of what is collectively understood in Scripture as the heart.

Daniell, David. William Tyndale: A Biography. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.

Taylor, Mrs. Howard. Borden of Yale. Bethany House, 1988.

Our son William Russell Collins, born this year, was named after both William Tyndale and William Borden of Yale, and I read these biographies as we awaited William’s birth. For a Yale University Press volume, David Daniell’s biography is not merely a detached, scholarly study of Tyndale but a stout defense of the Reformation that Tyndale promoted through his Bible translation and writings. Borden of Yale is a devotional biography that stirs the heart to be entirely devoted to Christ.

Gribben, Crawford. An Introduction to John Owen. Crossway, 2020.

This brief book combines a survey of Owen’s life with a survey of his theology. For instance, it begins with Owen’s birth and a consideration of his views of baptism and concludes with his death and a consideration of his views of eschatology. I understood Owen to be a preterist based on the sermons in volume 9 of his work, but Gribben indicates that Owen’s eschatology shifted to premillennialism at the end of his life. His discussion of this shift if fascinating.

Bartholomew, Craig G. The God Who Acts in History: The Significance of Sinai. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020.

Bartholomew uses the Sinai event to examine how various philosophers and theologians have viewed God’s action in history. Bartholomew surveys and critiques Maimonides perfect-being theology, which posited that God cannot speak. I think that Bartholomew rightly picks up on some of the recent formulations of immutability and simplicity, which would seem to preclude any interaction between God and his world. In contrast to this perfect-being theology, which Bartholomew also links with Aquinas and classical theism generally, he prefers the work of Colin Gunton. But as Gunton was a Barthian and a social trinitarian, and I’m not sure that is not best way forward.

Pennington, Jonathan T. Jesus the Great Philosopher: Rediscovering the Wisdom Needed for the Good Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2020.

Pennington’s basic thesis is that the Bible is raising and answering the same questions raised by ancient philosophy. The opening chapters did a good job of sketching the concerns of ancient philosophy and demonstrating that the Old and New Testaments address these concerns. The next chapter, on emotions, had a helpful survey of Greco-Roman and biblical teaching about emotion. I found the next two chapters, on relationships and happiness, to be less satisfying. The chapter on happiness covered some of the same ground that Pennington has covered elsewhere in more detail. The chapter on relationships dealt with political philosophy/theology, and I thought the treatment fairly superficial.

Jesus the Great philosopher is pitched at the educated layman, with an easy-to-read style and pop culture references. The pop culture references often distracted from the message of the book; I doubt Jesus the Great Philosopher would approve recommending R-rated movies that feature nudity. In the chapter on emotions, Pennington spoke of God’s emotions without even nodding to the debates about impassibility. In a book that seeks to show the connections between ancient Greek philosophy and the Bible, the absence of discussion about Greek metaphysics and their relation to Christian theology was striking. Systematic theology in general does not make much of an appearance in this volume. Pennington seems most at home in the worlds of biblical studies, surveys of ancient philosophy, modern psychology, and middle-brow best sellers. A final weakness is a lack of attention to the antithesis. Pennington has such a positive view of Stoicism and positive psychology that he sometimes reads as though Christianity completes ancient philosophical systems that were basically headed in the right direction. Attention to Kavin Rowe’s work on Stoicism would have led to a greater appreciation of Christianity’s distinctiveness.

Eliot, George. Middlemarch.

Two major themes of this book are marriage and financial troubles.

The marriage of Dorothea to Mr. Casaubon exemplifies an idealistic wife, who desires to learn and aid her husband in his great work, and a husband who prioritizes a futile project over his wife. His jealousy and distrust of her leads to her misery, and even in death his jealousy causes him to dishonor her. 

The marriage of Dr. Lydgate to Rosamond exemplifies a man who marries a beautiful wife whom he thinks adores him only to find that her inflexible self-centered pursuit of status, which led her to marry him, will be their ruin. It will bring them into financial straits that will cause him to violate his principles and in the end bring dishonor upon them both.

Fred Vincy and Mary Garth’s trajectory is the reverse of Lydgate and Rosamond’s. Fred starts off financially reckless, and his recklessness brings difficulty to Mary’s family because her father unwisely agreed to back Fred’s debts. Mary will not have Fred until he reforms his ways, which he happily does.

Religion also plays a significant role in the book. Dorothea is religiously zealous, and this seems to play a role in her unwise choice in marrying Mr. Casaubon. The less orthodox Mr. Fairbrother is presented in more favorable terms that the orthodox Mr. Tyke. And the seemingly pious Mr. Bulstrode is shown to be a hypocrite. This all matches Eliot’s own unbelief. However, it must be said that Eliot avoids making Bulstrode a caricature of a hypocrite. She presents him as a man who truly desires to be pious but who also desires to be wealthy and respected. When these desires clash, the rationalizations by which he seeks to continue to view himself as being the former while pursuing the latter are the kind of rationalizations that every Christian should beware of.

The one marriage that did not come off persuasively was Dorothea’s second marriage to Will Ladislaw. There are enough significant character flaws in Ladislaw that the happy marriage that is said to follow does not seem as convincing as the happy marriage of Fred and Mary. 

Graff, Garrett M. The Only Plane in the Sky: An Oral History of 9/11. Simon & Schuster, 2019.

This is an excellently composed oral history of September 11th, which weaves together, with minimal connective notes, the actual words of those who experienced September 11th in New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, aboard Air Force One, and in other parts of the country.

Galatians Commentaries Read in 2021

by

In 2021 I devoted time to the study of Galatians. I tried to read several historical commentaries on Galatians along with what I think are the best recent commentaries.

Eric Plumer, Augustine’s Commentary on Galatians: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Notes. Oxford University Press, 2003.

The introduction to this commentary is very informative. The commentary itself was written early in Augustine’s career, and it is fairly unremarkable. If I were to choose again, I would have chosen to Jerome as a representative patristic commentary. I dipped into Jerome’s commentary and it seems to be a more significant treatment of the book. However in the debate over whether Paul truly rebuked Peter (Augustine) or whether Paul and Peter were playacting (Jerome), Augustine is correct.

Thomas Aquinas. Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Translated by F. R. Larcher. Albany, NY: Magi, 1966.

The recent appreciation of Thomas among the Reformed has included among its arguments the claim that Aquinas was not simply a philosophical theologian but a biblical exegete as well. However, this commentary shows that Thomas really did not grasp the book of Galatians. For instance, in summarizing Paul’s argument, Aquinas contrasts the rituals of the Old Testament with the grace conveyed by the New Testament sacraments: ” if grace is conferred in the sacraments of the New Testament, which have their efficacy from the passion of Christ, then it is superfluous to observe, along with the New Testament, the ritual of the Old Law in which grace is not conferred nor salvation acquired, because the Law has led no one to perfection” (8). Thomas excludes the moral law from Paul’s works of the Law, and he draws the contrast not as Paul does between the Mosaic Law as a whole and the new covenant entered into by faith alone but between the sacraments of the Old Law which cannot confer grace and the sacraments of the New Law, which can justify (54-55).

Aquinas does have to reckon with the language of Paul in Galatians, which is forceful in its assertion that no one can be justified by works. Here is an example of one of Aquinas’s comments on this matter: “For the works are not the cause making one to be just before God; rather they are the carrying out and manifestation of justice. For no one is made just before God by works but by the habit of faith, not acquired but infused. And therefore, as many as seek to be justified by works are under a curse, because sin is not removed nor anyone justified in the sight of God by them, but by the habit of faith vivified by charity” (80). Aquinas is correct in the first sentence: works are the manifestation, not the cause of justification. But Aquinas then goes on to speak of justification through and infused habit of faith vivified by charity. This is not faith as the Reformers conceived it, a hand receiving the free gift of justification, but is a conception of faith that involves divinely empowered works. Aquinas is reading Galatians through the lens of the medieval sacramental system for salvation rather than allowing Galatians to correct that system.

Also worth noting is Aquinas’s commentary is more oriented toward systematic theology than redemptive history. For instance, Aquinas spends most of his space on 4:4 verse refuting Christological heresies. He has no ear for redemptive-historical matters. The phrase “made under the law” is a conundrum for him because 5:18 says that “if you are led by the Spirit, you agree not under the law.” Instead of observing that 5:18 is a redemptive-historical assertion of the dawning of the new covenant made possible by Christ being under the law and fulfilling our, Aquinas opts to solve the discrepancy by making a scholastic distinction: “under the law” can mean “observance of the law” or it can mean “oppressed by fear of the law.” The former is the meaning in 4:4 and the latter in 5:18, according to Thomas.

Luther, Martin. Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4.  Luther’s Works. Vol. 26. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann. Saint Louis: Concordia, 1999.

Luther, Martin. Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 5-6; 1519, Chapters 1-6. Luther’s Works, Vol. 27. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann. Saint Louis: Concordia, 1999.

Luther is often criticized for reading his sixteenth century context into Galatians rather than reading Galatians in its first century context. It is true that Luther moves quickly to applying the book to his own context, and there may be points here or there where this critique is justified. In general, however, Luther seems to be making valid application of the book to his own time. Coming to Luther’s commentary after reading Augustine’s and Aquinas’s commentaries, it is notable how much better a grasp Luther has of Paul’s argument and of redemptive history Luther has in comparison.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians. Translated by William Pringle. 1854; reprinted, Bellingham, WA: Logos, 2010.

Calvin’s lucid brevity is most welcome after reading Luther’s verbose exposition of Galatians. Calvin is a master commentator who gets to the nub of the exegetical or theological issue in a passage and renders a sensible conclusion. Calvin is essential reading on Galatians.

Machen, J. Gresham. Notes on Galatians. 1972; repr., Solid Ground Christian Books, 2006.

This work reprints articles on Galatians 1-3 that Machen wrote in the 1930s for the periodical Christianity Today (a different magazine from the current Christianity Today). It also includes various class resources, articles, and reviews by Machen. The most valuable of these is his review of E. D. Burton’s Commentary on Galatians. Machen expresses appreciation for Burton’s linguistic studies, but he argues that Burton reads Paul as a modern liberal rather than within his historical context. For instance, Burton reads Paul as critiquing aspects of Old Testament religion rather than adopting Paul’s view that a redemptive-historical shift has taken place. Burton claims that Paul was defending his right to proclaim the gospel of the uncircumcision but that he was tolerant of the other apostles preaching a different gospel of the circumcision. Furthermore, he understands Galatians to be primarily an argument for “Christian liberty and spiritual religion” (Burton’s words) in contrast to “ceremonialism and externality” (Machen’s words). These misunderstandings lead Burton, Machen says, to adopt errors equivalent to those held by the Judaizers Paul was opposing. 

Ridderbos, Herman. The Epistle to the Galatians. New London Commentaries. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1961.

Ridderbos’s commentary on Galatians was the first commentary on Galatians in the New International Commentary on the New Testament Series (my copy was printed in London under the New London Commentaries label, but the content is the same). Though Fung and DeSilva have subsequently replaced Ridderbos in the NICNT set and though Ridderbos’s contribution is much briefer than modern commentaries, Ridderbos is still worth getting and reading. I always find Ridderbos theologically insightful, and this remains true here. 

Schreiner, Thomas R. Galatians. ZECNT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.

Schreiner’s commentary on Galatians is one of the best recent commentaries on the book. I think that overall his understanding of the book is correct. Schreiner has a good understanding of biblical, Pauline, and systematic theology. He also writes with pastoral concern.

Moo, Douglas J. Galatians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013.

If I were to have only one commentary on Galatians, it would be Moo’s. Moo and Schreiner are similar in their theological viewpoints and in their understanding of the book, though they diverge on various exegetical decisions. I didn’t always prefer Moo’s conclusions, but I often did. Moo was clearer about the role of the Law in biblical and Pauline theology.

Gordon, T David. Promise, Law, Faith: Covenant-Historical Reasoning in Galatians. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2019.

Gordon gets a lot right in this book, which is note quite a commentary on Galatians, even though it works sequentially through the book. Gordon’s purpose is to argue for a third way between what he calls “the dominant Protestant approach” and the New Perspective(s) on Paul. On some points Gordon is, in my view, correct. I agree that νόμος in Galatians typically refers to the Sinai covenant. I agree that Paul’s reasoning in Galatians is covenant-historical; that is, it recongizes that different covenants are in force in different historical periods. I further agree that Promise, Law, and Faith in Galatians track with the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and new covenants, respectively. I agree that certain forms of covenant theology and the New Perspective both go wrong by teaching a mono-covenantalism. Gordon also has a helpful, lengthy excursus on δικαιοσύνη. On the other hand, I think Gordon leans too far in the direction of the New Perspective in prioritizing ethnic considerations of soteric. Gordon says that Paul is arguing from justification, not for it. On this score I think Moo is are surer guide. Gordon also writes with a wit that is sometimes acid and, in my opinion, less than edifying. I gained much from this volume, but I cannot recommend it wholeheartedly.

NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible

I continue to be impressed with the notes in the NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible. I’ve tended to stay away from study Bible’s because I’ve found that they rarely provide the kind of information I’m looking for. I’ve tended to think that I’m better off with a brief commentary, such as a Tyndale Commentary or a Bible Speaks Today volume. But Simon Gathercole’s note on Galatians helpfully orients the reader and provides a helpful summary of Paul’s train of thought through the letter.

In general the NIV 2011 translation is a good translation. The major problem with the translation is its attempt to be gender neutral. Galatians 4:5-7 is a case in point. The NIV 2011 translation, “that we might receive adoption to sonship” (4:5), is better than the NRSV, and NASB 2020 which translate, respectively, “that we might receive adoption as children” and “that we might receive the adoption as sons and daughters.” However, in verse 7 the NIV 2011 switches from “sons” (4:6) to “child”—even though the same Greek word is used and the same context of sonship and inheritance is in place.

It is no more appropriate to change the male imagery of sons and sonship in Galatians 4 than it would be to change the female imagery of bride in Ephesians 5 to the neutral image of a spouse.

“As I explained in the introduction, the gender-specific ‘sons/sonship’ is used here and elsewhere in the commentary in order to preserve the first-century concept of inheritance (almost always involving male  offspring) and the relationship between the ‘sons’ and the ‘Son’ (4:5-6). The term refers, of course, to male and female believers equally.”

Moo, Galatians, BECNT, 196, n. 1.

Other Notable Galatians Commentaries:

Here are some other Galatians commentaries that I did not have a chance to read through in 2021.

Perkins, William. The Works of William Perkins. Volume 2. Edited by Paul Smalley. Reformation Heritage, 2015.

I began reading this commentary this year and I hope to complete it. I’ve not yet read far enough to render a verdict.

Lightfoot, J. B. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. 1865; reprinted, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999.

This is an older commentary that several of the new commentators mentioned as worth reading. I wish I had had time to read it this year.

F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

I’ve not read this commentary through in its entirety, but I’ve regularly found it helpful when I’ve consulted it.

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. WBC. Nashville: Nelson, 1990.

This is another commentary that I’ve not read entirely through but which I’ve found help in consulting. I don’t find it as reliable as Moo, Schreiner, or Bruce, but I still find it helpful.

Das, A. Andrew. Galatians. CC. Saint Louis: Concordia, 2014.

I’ve only read the front matter, but this looks to be an excellent recent Lutheran commentary on Galatians.

Keener, Craig S. Galatians: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2019.

As a Methodist Keener represents a different viewpoint on Galatians from the above commentators. He is also a master of extra-biblical background material. I find Keener to be a skilled commentator, though I read him with an alertness to theological differences.

Ethics Books Read in 2021

by

Magnuson, Ken. Invitation to Christian Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues. Invitation to Theological Studies Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2020.

This is an excellent introduction to Christian ethics. Parts 1 and 2, which deal with the philosophical and biblical foundations for ethics, are excellent. Magnuson does a good job of surveying and critiquing major approaches to ethics. He also lays out a Christian approach to ethics that accounts for the major aspects of ethics: commands, virtues, and goals. Magnuson upholds he authority of Scripture, and his chapters on the role of the Bible in Christian ethics (including his discussion of the Christian and the Mosaic law) are excellent. Parts 3, 4, and 5 deal with specific areas of ethical concern: “Marriage and Human Sexuality,” “The Sanctity of Human Life,” and “Social Order and the Environment,” respectively. The chapters in parts 3 and 5 were stronger than the chapters in part 5. In the chapter on homosexuality, I thought Magnuson was overly dependent on Preston Sprinkle, though he dissented from him at all the right places.

Grudem, Wayne. Christian Ethics: An Introduction to Biblical Moral Reasoning. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018.

Grudem’s Christian Ethics has the same strengths and weaknesses as his Systematic Theology and his Politics. Positively, Grudem is a devout man who has ransacked the Scriptures to see what they say about a host of ethical topics. As a concordance to ethics, this book excels. Grudem also writes with a high view of Scripture’s inspiration, inerrancy, and authority. He rightly understands how the Christian relates to the Mosaic law, an important issue in a biblically-oriented ethic book. Grudem also writes accessibly. This is a book that people without formal theological training can read and benefit from.

Nonetheless, Grudem’s work contains some significant weaknesses. The subtitle is An Introduction to Biblical Moral Reasoning. However, Grudem is skeptical of theological moral reasoning. He is afraid that reasoning from broad theological principles to ethical conclusions introduces too much subjectivity into ethics. There is some truth to this concern, but instead of rejecting theological moral reasoning, it is better to pair it with reliance on specific biblical texts. Both approaches are mutually reinforcing. In fact, the subjectivity that Grudem decries is not entirely absent from his book. For instance, in the chapter on self-defense Grudem relies heavily on Proverbs 25:26, “Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.”  Grudem argues that a Christian who does not exercise self-defense (later in the chapter he argues for using guns in self-defense) is a “polluted fountain” whose “testimony of the Christian’s life would be tarnished and diminished by acting in a cowardly way” (555).Grudem assumes  that “giving way before the wicked” is giving way before “a violent attack.” But this is not necessarily the best interpretation of the proverb. Some think that the proverb refers to a righteous man who gives way to pressure or temptation from the wicked and compromises his integrity (Lange, Keil and Delitzsch, Bridges, Garrett, Steveson, Waltke, Steinmann) while others think it refers to a situation in which the wicked have gained supremacy over the righteous (Toy, Van Leeuwen, Ross). (Kitchen accepts both interpretations and Fox is ambiguous.) Grudem’s use of this verse is not compatible with the former interpretation. But even if the latter interpretation is adopted, it is not clear that it applies to the kind of situation Grudem envisages. It is one thing to say that it is a tragedy for righteous people in public life to be overcome by wicked people. It is another to say that if a righteous man doesn’t shoot the wicked person who is about to rob him by gun point, he is “a polluted fountain.” Reasoning theologically from Genesis 9’s teaching that all human life bears the image of God and Exodus 22:2-3’s teaching that a thief may only be killed at night (when one may suspect he is after someone’s life rather than merely their positions), it is reasonable to conclude that if giving way before a violent man can spare one’s own life and result in not taking another’s life, that would be the preferred option.

Grudem’s methodology of collecting Scripture passages about given topics does not explicitly have a place for assessing the situation to which those passages must be applied. However, that is an aspect of ethics that Grudem cannot avoid. Possibly because it is not a stated part of his methodology, Grudem handles secondary sources poorly. Often he’ll interreact with only a few newspaper level sources that already share his perspective on the situation.

These are significant weaknesses that hinder the profitability of this text. However, it remains useful as a concordance of Scripture passages relevant to major ethical topics. 

Frame, John M. Doctrine of the Christian Life. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008.

I re-read portions of this book again this year. In particular, I was looking at how Frame’s normative, situational, and existential perspectives align with triads I was finding in other writers. This is how I thought this issues through:

Frame raises a number of triads in Part 1 of DCL. C. S. Lewis and Ken Magnuson also have triads and Oliver O’Donovan has two approaches to ethics.

Elements in ethical judgmentsNormSituationPerson
Frame’s perspectivesNormativeSituationalExistential
Ethical approachesDeontologicalTeleological[none listed]
Three ingredients to good worksRight standardRight goalRight motive
Types of ethicsCommand ethicsNarrative ethicsVirtue Ethics
Three subjects of ethical predicationPersonsActsAttitudes
Lordship attributeAuthorityControlPresence
MagnusonActsEndsAgents
 DeontologicalTeleologicalVirtue
C. S. LewisFair PlayPurpose of human lifeInternal Rectitude
Wayne GrudemActual behaviorResultsPersonal Character
Oliver O’DonovanOrdered moral field Ordered moral subject
  • It’s apparent to me that there are a variety of legitimate triads in ethics, though a triadic division is not always necessary. Oliver O’Donovan’s Ordered moral field would contain both norms and situations.
  • How these triads relate to each other is not always clear.
  • Frame’s Persons, Acts, and Attitudes is similar to Magnuson’s Agents, Acts, and Ends (Lewis seems to exactly align with Magnuson.) But
    • Frame aligns Persons with the normative perspective / deontological ethics while Magnuson (rightly, I think) links Agents with virtue ethics.
    • Frame aligns Acts with the situational perspective / teological ethics, while Magnuson (again, rightly) links Acts with deontological ethics.
    • Frame and Magnuson’s triad diverges in that where Frame has Attitudes, Magnuson has Ends. Here I think Magnuson’s triad is superior to Frame’s.
      • I’m not sure, in Frame’s triad, what Persons stands for in distinction from Acts and Attitudes since persons act and they have attitudes. Nor am I certain why Frame aligns Persons with the normative perspective.
      • For Magnuson Agents clearly refers to the inner man, virtues, character etc. in distinction from what the person does and what his goals are. Interestingly, Frame notes, “Both ‘persons’ and ‘attitudes’ are good candidates for the existential perspective” (DCL, 11, n. 8). Note also that in another of Frame’s triads (“elements in ethical judgments”) person is aligned to the existential perspective and virtue ethics. I think that indicates that Frame’s three subjects of ethical predication triad isn’t well-formed.
  • If we follow Magnuson’s Agents, Acts, and Ends formulation, I think we do get a correlation with virtue ethics, deontological ethics, and teleological ethics. Frame correlates these ethical approaches to the person and the existential perspective, the norm and the normative perspective, and the situation and the situational perspective.
    • Agents, virtue ethics, existential perspective, and the person do all seem to align.
    • Acts, deontological ethics, the normative perspective, and norms also seem to align.
    • Ends and teleological ethics align with each other but seem distinct from the situational perspective and the situation. I think Frame could fit the situational perspective with ends and teleological ethics by saying that our ultimate situation is eschatological, but that is not what is going on when persons are applying norms to a situation. In this case I think persons (with the right virtues and right ends) are applying norms to a situation.
  • Frame’s triads also align deontological ethics with command ethics (in that he algins both with the normative perspective) and teleological ethics with narrative ethics (in that he aligns both with the situational perspective). I think the first alignment works, but I think the second alignment is apples and oranges. This is probably due to the fact that there are more than three types of ethics or ethical approaches. And while some will algin more with one of the perspectives, some will align with multiple perspectives.
  • It is helpful to say that in making ethical choices Persons apply Norms to Situations. I also find it helpful to say that in evaluating ethical choices we need to look at Agents, Acts and Ends.

But these two triads are not different ways of saying the same thing. Persons in the first triad includes Agents and Ends in the Second, and Situations in the first triad is absent from the second.

Thus a more accurate chart would look like:

NormSituationPerson
NormativeSituationalExistential
   
Right standardRight goalRight motive
ActsEndsAgents
Deontological ethicsTeleological ethicsVirtue ethics
Fair PlayPurpose of human lifeInternal Rectitude
Actual behaviorResultsPersonal character
   
Ordered moral field Ordered moral subject

Mitchell, C. Ben. Ethics and Moral Reasoning: A Student’s Guide. Edited by David S. Dockery. Reclaiming the Christian Intellectual Tradition. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013.

A brief (under 100 pages) introduction to ethics. Surveys key ethical portions of the Bible: the Decalogue and Sermon on the Mount, ethical issues that arise in the Bible, ethical theories and the present challenge of ethical relativism, key evangelical thinkers (John Murray, Carl Henry, Arthur Holmes, Stanley Hauerwas, Oliver O’Donovan, Gilbert Meilaender), and approaches to the use of the Bible in ethics. Its brevity requires it to be very introductory.

Tinpe, Kevin and Craig A. Boyd, eds. Virtues and Their Vices. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.

This book provides a helpful introduction to virtue ethics and to several virtues and vices. The essay quality is good but varies by writer. Note also that several contributors are Roman Catholic and that Catholic theology informs their discussion.

Udemans, Godefridus. The Practice of Faith, Hope, and Love. Translated by Annemie Godbehere. Edited by  Joel Beeke. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2012.

The title demarcates the three main foci of this book. Under the heading of Faith Udemans exposits the Apostles’ Creed, under the heading of Hope he exposits the Lord’s Prayer, and under the heading of Love he exposits the Decalogue. I’ve read this book slowly over a number of years, and this year I read his exposition and application of commandments 5-10 in the Decalogue. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

Miller, Patrick D. The Ten Commandments. Interpretation. Louisville: WJK, 2009.

The real value of this book is the way Miller traces each commandment through the entirety of Scripture. Miller is not a conservative interpreter, so his exegesis and application must be read with great discernment.

Meilaender, Gilbert. Bioethics: A Primer for Christians. 4th ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020.

In this brief volume Meilaender orients Christians to think carefully about bioethics in general and covers procreation (especially artificial reproduction), abortion, genetic therapy, prenatal screening, suicide and euthanasia, organ donation, human experimentation, embryonic research, refusing treatment.

Tollefsen, Christopher O. Lying and Christian Ethics. New Studies in Christian Ethics. Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Tollefsen makes a philosophical case for the position that lying is never acceptable (though some non-verbal deception may be). Aside from some reasoning tied particularly to Catholic tradition, this book makes a persuasive case. It also helpfully surveys the views of Augustine and Aquinas, whose view Tollefsen shares, and those of Cassian, Bonhoeffer, and Richard Niebuhr, who argue for opposing views.

Grudem’s treatment of this topic in the Piper festschrift and in his ethics book is also good. John Murray’s chapter on this topic in Principles of Conduct is also very good.

Newkirk, Matthew. Just Deceivers: An Exploration of the Motif of Deception in the Books of Samuel. Pickwick, 2015.

Newkirk seeks to make an exegetical case, primarily but not exclusively from the Books of Samuel, that deception, including lies, which do not cause “unjust harm or disadvantage to another person” are permitted by Scripture.

Those who take the position that lying is never permissible will distinguishing lying from withholding some of the truth from those who ought not know it, from ambiguous language, or from ambiguous actions. Newkirk treats all of these flatly under the category of deception. This is an important factor in evaluating Newkirk’s work because it narrows the examples which serve as defeaters to the lying-is-never-acceptable position.

The narratives relevant to Newkirk’s challenge to the thesis that lying is always wrong (but that ambiguous speech or actions are not necessarily always wrong) are (using Newkirk’s labels and evaluation):

B: Samuel’s lie to the Bethlehemites (1 Samuel 16:1-5)

C & D: Michal’s lie to deceive the messengers of Saul and, subsequently Saul (1 Samuel 19:12-17)

E: Jonathan’s lie to Saul about David’s absence from the feast (1 Samuel 20:6, 28-29)

G: David’s lie to Achish regarding his raiding activity (1 Samuel 27:10)

R: Joab and the Tekoite wise woman’s lie to David (2 Samuel 14:1-21)

T: Hushai’s lie to Absalom when he gave him poor military counsel (2 Samuel 17:5-14)

H: The woman’s lie to Absalom’s servants about the location of the messengers from Hushai to Abimelech (2 Samule 17:19-20)

These are all narratives that include lies which Newkirk argues receive positive evaluation/characterization. However, I do not think that the narrator’s evaluation of C, D, G, or R is positive.

C& D: Newkirk neglects the negative element of Michal having and using an idol in the deception and the ambivalent characterization of her in general. He relies too much on the success of her deception and the fact that her lie gets the last word in the account to conclude that the narrator’s characterization of the episode is positive.

G: Newkirk argues that the characterization of this lie is positive because it shows that David is characterized as a royal figure bringing territory under Israelite control. However, in the broader context, David finds himself conscripted to fight against Israel and Ziklag is sacked with the women and children captured. Thus it seems that the narrative presents negative consequences for his lies. While positive consequences do not justify lies, negative consequences can signal that lies are at best problematic at worst sins that bring punishment.

R: Newkirk weighs this passage positively because he sees parallels between the Tekoite and Abigail, David’s wife. The more pertinent information seems to be that Joab is behind the deception, and Newkirk has identified Joab’s other deceptions as unjustified. Further, the result of this deception is that Absalom is brought back and into a position where he can undertake a coup against David.

In two of these episodes (B, T), I doubt that a lie takes place:

B: Newkirk claims that Samuel lied when he said he has come to sacrifice to Yhwh when he really came to anoint David king. However, telling only part of the truth to people who ought not have the full truth is not a lie.

T: Newkirk says that Hushai lied when he said that Ahithophel’s counsel was not good. Likewise, he said Hushai lied when he said that David would not stay with the people (since he did 17:21) and when he said that David would hide himself in a pit since Hushai last saw David on the Mount of Olives (a mount being the opposite of a pit). However, given then Hushai, even on Newkirk’s own account, scrupulous to speak ambiguously rather than lie outright when presenting himself to Absalom as an advisor, given that David was certainly not going to remain on the top of the Mount of Olives, and given that he did not know that David stayed with the people, it seems strange to call these lies. Hushai is a counselor providing hypotheticals, not a reporter of David’s actual movements. With regard to the statement that Ahithophel’s counsel is not good, Newkirk grants that this too could be ambiguous language (good for whom?).

Episodes E and H are the most challenging for a lying-is-always-wrong thesis.

E: Since David and Jonathan are characterized positively, Newkirk wants to characterize Jonathan’s lie to Saul at David’s behest positively, though he grants (“the author does not provide specific data to assess confidently.” Against this positive evaluation is the fact that David’s next lie is to the priest Ahimelech at Nob, a lie which ends up with the priests being killed, and David recognizing his culpability.

H: The woman who hid the messengers to David lied by telling Absalom’s servants that the messengers had already crossed the river when they were actually hiding under a well she had covered. Newkirk draws a parallel to Rahab, and since he thinks the Bible characterizes Rahab’s lie positively, he concludes this lie should be characterized positively as well.

However, it is difficult to reason from a single narrative example (or a handful of narrative examples if one broadens out beyond the books of Samuel) to the conclusion that the Bible condones some lying given blanket statements in Scripture condemning lying or relating God’s character to truth in distinction from lying. Newkirk attempted to contextualize these passages to narrow the scope of their blanket statements. These efforts were not convincing.

Newkirk’s book provides a valuable service in identifying key narratives in which lying seems to be approved in Scripture. However, I thought Newkirk failed to convincingly demonstrate his thesis.

Yancey, George. Beyond Racial Gridlock: Embracing Mutual Responsibility. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006.

Part 1 of this book outlines four secular models for thinking about racism, two from the political left and two from the right. At present many conservative Christians are rightly concerned that left-wing approaches to addressing racism are shaping Christian thought, but too often they simply adopt secular viewpoints from the right as if they were biblical. Yancey’s book helpfully critiques secular approaches from all sides as sub-biblical. In part 2 of this book Yancey seeks to formulate a biblically-based approach to racism that takes into account the sin natures of both majority and minority groups. This is an insightful book that deserves wide readership

Best Resources on the Book of Job

by

Earlier this year I worked on a project for Lexham Press that involved the book of Job. Since I had a deadline, there was a limit to the number of resources I could consult. These are the resources I utilized.

Talbert, Layton. Beyond Suffering: Discovering the Message of Job. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 2007.

This is the first book that I would recommend to anyone beginning a study in Job. It’s not a commentary per se, and it doesn’t comment on detail on every verse (though see the endnotes for detailed interaction with the commentaries on key disputed points). Talbert’s book is a detailed, sequential guide to the book’s message and theology. It is the kind of book which the Puritans would have called experimental, meaning that Talbert desires for your study of Job to be transformative. Throughout he shows interpretative good sense—better interpretative sense than many of the commentators who wrote more detailed commentaries.

Ash, Christopher. Job: The Wisdom of the Cross. Edited by R. Kent Hughes. Preaching the Word. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014.

This is an excellent, accessible commentary on Job, full of good interpretive sense and gospel warmth. I found myself in agreement with Ash’s interpretations more often than with any other commentator except Talbert. I recommend anyone wanting to study Job to start with Talbert and Ash.

Andersen, Francis I. Job: An Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 14. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1976.

This is a helpful evangelical study of Job by a scholar skilled in Hebrew. He is honest enough to note when the Hebrew text is currently beyond our understanding. In general, his judgments are good, though I hold to a more positive view of Elihu. The condensed nature of the writing makes this commentary difficult at times.

Belcher, Richard P., Jr. Job: The Mystery of Suffering and God’s Sovereignty. Christian Focus, 2017.

I read this commentary along with the Job chapters in Finding Favour in the Sight of God: A Theology of Wisdom Literature, in New Studies in Biblical Theology. I found both the Job chapters in the NSBT volume and the commentary itself, which is very accessible, to be helpful guides to Job. I tended to agree Talbert and Ash over Belcher when they disagreed, but I still commend Belcher’s work.

Seow, C. L. Job 1–21: Interpretation and Commentary. Edited by C. L. Seow. Illuminations. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2013.

This is a critical commentary, and the author is too willing to see Job’s theology as being at odds with orthodoxy. Nevertheless, it is a helpful commentary for the following reasons: Seow is attentive to cross references within Job and with other parts of the Bible, he documents the history of interpretation of book of Job as a whole as well as the history of interpretation of each individual passage, and he comments on the Hebrew text. This commentary is worth consulting with discernment for these three reasons.

Fyall, Robert S. Now My Eyes Have Seen You: Images of Creation and Evil in the Book of Job. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Edited by D. A. Carson. InterVarsity, 2002.

One common error in using ancient Near Eastern background materials as a tool for understanding the Old Testament is the insistence that the pagan worldviews of the cultures surrounding Israel are the hermeneutical key for rightly understanding the Old Testament. Fyall explicitly rejects this approach, even as he argued for the appropriation of elements of Ugaritic mythology for rhetorical purposes in the book. I still think that Fyall needed to do more to demonstrate that the author and characters of Job would have been aware of Ugaritic myths. Such an argument, while necessary to Fyall’s thesis, is difficult to make given the difficulty of dating the book of Job. However, Fyall’s argumentation was not limited to ANE background. He also did a fair bit of convincing intertextual work. In the end he shifted my thinking on Behemoth and Leviathan from being descriptions of natural animals (perhaps a dinosaur and a crocodile) to seeing something supernatural as being in view. Fyall links Behemoth with Mot, the god of death and Leviathan with the god Yam, which he links with Satan. For the reasons noted above, I think the links with Mot and Yam are dubious. I wonder if it is best to see Behemoth and Leviathan as two names for one beast, a dragon representing Satan. God’s speeches to Job thus conclude with a warning that Job is not capable of defeating Satan on his own. Only God can do that for him.

Lo, Alison. Job 28 as Rhetoric: An Analysis of Job 28 in the Context of Job 22–31. VTSup 97. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.

Job 28 and the surrounding chapters have become a playground for critical scholars. For instance, Clines proposes moving Job 28 to the end of Elihu’s speeches (and ascribing it to Elihu). He, and other scholars, think that if the speech is Job’s, the book comes to too early of a resolution. Many critical scholars also think that parts of Job 26 and 27 are more consistent with the speeches of the friends than with Job’s speeches up to that point. They propose rearranging the text to extend Bildad’s brief speech or to create a third speech for Zophar. Lo defends the integrity of the text as it stands. For instance, regarding chapter 26, Lo acknowledges that Job’s praise of God’s greatness echoes Bildad’s similar statement in chapter 25–right after Job has forcefully rejected Bildad’s position in the early part of the chapter. Lo argues that Job uses similar wording to make a different point, namely, that God’s greatness means that the friends are speaking beyond their understanding. Lo argues that chapter 28 is a speech of Job’s in which he reaffirms his fear of the Lord and of that as the path to wisdom. However, this does not resolve the problem for him since fearing the Lord and doing right did not prevent his suffering. Job 28 is thus an important transitional chapter in the book, but the resolution to Job’s struggle still lies ahead. All in all, this is a very insightful treatment of a key section of the book.

Robert V. McCabe, “Elihu’s Contribution to the Thought of the Book of Job,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Volume 2 2 (1997): 47–80.

McCabe’s article is an insightful study of the importance that the Elihu discourses have in the book of Job. The Elihu speeches do several things. They delay the speeches of God, but in such a way as to prepare for them. McCabe thinks that Elihu has the same basic perspective as the friends. Thus his speeches summarize the friends’ position. Elihu also interacts with Job’s speeches directly, thus resurfacing his basic claims. Finally, Elihu anticipates elements of God’s speeches. In this way Elihu serves as an effective transition from the earlier speech cycles to God’s speeches.

Dunham, Kyle C. The Pious Sage in Job: Eliphaz in the Context of Wisdom Theodicy. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016.

This book, a revision of Dunham’s ThD dissertation, surveys the history of interpretation related to Eliphaz, discusses him in relation to the Edomite wisdom tradition, and exegetes Eliphaz’s speeches. 

Thomas, Derek. Proclaiming the Incomprehensible God: Calvin’s Teaching on Job. Mentor, 2004.

This book is a dissertation, and it reads like one. But it is a helpful study of Calvin’s treatment of Job.

Clines, David J. A. Job 1–20. Vol. 17. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1989. / Clines, David J. A. Job 21–37. Vol. 18a. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2006. / Clines, David J. A. Job 38–42. Vol. 18B. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2011.

Clines’s massive three volume commentary on Job is considered a critical standard. He has detailed comments on the Hebrew text, and when key places or things occur in the text, the commentary becomes like a little Bible dictionary article. However, as I read the comments on the opening chapters I could tell that he was approaching the book from an Arminian theological viewpoint. As I read, I saw evidence of postmodern interpretive approaches at work. For instance, he interprets Job’s defense of his righteousness with a hostile, post-colonial hermeneutic of suspicion. Clines’s interpretation of the final chapters of the book hold that Job remained defiant to the end. My own sense was that Clines himself was angry with God. I can’t recommend this commentary and probably won’t use it again myself except to look at his grammatical notes on the Hebrew.

Dell, Katharine, and Will Kynes, eds. Reading Job Intertextually. New York; London; New Delhi; Sydney: Bloomsbury, 2013.

Given that the introduction to the book and the introduction to most essays give a state of the play in intertextuality discussions, this is a good introduction to that topic. Notably, there is an emphasis on reader-oriented intertextuality. However, when dealing with canonical intertextuality, these authors neglect that there is a single Author of Scripture. Thus, some of what they identify as reader-oriented or synchronic intertextuality is in reality Author-oriented intertextuality. Non-canonical reader-oriented textuality often seems as mundane as the recognition that we read texts with other things that we have read in mind and that such previous reading can spark insights into the text that we are currently reading that we may not have otherwise had. I don’t think that reality need be spun up into a theory about reader-created meaning.

Since many of the authors in this collection do not function with a theologically conservative understanding of Scripture, the value of the essays varies considerably. However, I was able to glean from them quite a number of cross-references between Job and the rest of Scripture which will be useful for future study.

Walton, John and Tremper Longman III, How to Read Job. InterVarsity, 2015.

This book was already in my Logos library, and I read it to evaluate whether it would be worth buying Walton’s or Longman’s commentaries on Job. I decided not to purchase them. This may be a bit unfair to Longman as I found his Job chapters in The Fear of the Lord is Wisdom to be helpful and, interestingly, sometimes at odds with this book. In general, I find that of there is a wrong interpretive position to take, Walton takes it—and often with an air of condescension toward conservatives who hold to traditional interpretations. Traditional interpretations are not right because they are traditional, but oftentimes they are traditional because of their exegetical and theological soundness.

“Dialogue between a Man and his God,” “A Sufferer’s Salvation,” “The Poem of the Righteous Sufferer,” “The Babylonian Theodicy,” “Man and his God,” The Context of Scripture, 1:485-95, 573-74.

These are Akkadian and a Sumerian text about Pious sufferers. They are like Job only on the broadest strokes. Several have a pious sufferer who is restored to prosperity. One has a dialogue between a sufferer and a friend (which seems generally friendly), and several describe suffering in which there is some overlap with Job. However, none of these are of the length or the literary and theological sophistication of Job.

Parr, Thomas. Healing Contentious Relationships. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2021.

by

Parr, Thomas. Healing Contentious Relationships. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2021.

This book is a brief, probing, practical (the Puritans would have said “experimental”) exposition of James 4. I read it slowly over the course of several months as a part of my devotional reading, and I found the book to be both convicting and encouraging. It’s not the kind of book to read quickly in order to get information. It is a book to read slowly and to meditate upon. Parr is not sparing in diagnosing our sin problems:

Do you have contention and strife in your friendships, family life, or church life? Are you willing to accept that it is because of ungodly pride? You might think it is acceptable to have contention due to differences over doctrine and practice, but this is not so. It is godly to affirm doctrinal positions and to seek to live godly lives, but it is not godly to be contentious over these things-“a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all” (2 Tim. 2:24). Contention refers to strife, quarrels, and arguments. To love it is to love sin (Prov. 17:19). There is never an excuse to be harsh or cruel with one’s attitudes, words, and actions, and people who claim the right to do so are arguing for sin. (p. vii)

But he also consistently directs the reader to God’s grace as the solution to our sin problem:

This truth of God’s giving more grace meets a need in our lives we may not be aware we have. God gives continual supplies of grace and isn’t insensitive to the fact that His children have continuing struggles. He never says, “I’ve helped you enough” or “Haven’t you worn out your welcome coming to Me?” The apostle John tells us that all believers have received of Christ’s fullness and “grace for grace,” or grace on top of grace (John 1:16). That means there is a never-ending supply of mercy and help in Christ. He is an ever-flowing fountain of life. Blessing just keeps welling up out of Christ’s generous heart. James promises that God gives more grace; we can come to God for help and never feel rebuffed by Him or that the throne of is empty or that the fountain of life has dried up. (p. 47)

I highly recommend this book.

Best Books Read in 2020

by

Chemnitz, Martin. Examination of the Council of Trent. Volume 1. Translated by Fred Kramer. Saint Louis: Concordia, 1971.

I first discovered Chemitz in a class on Reformation era literature in which we were required to read primary sources from several different streams of the Reformation. Since Luther was taken by another student, I chose Martin Chemnitz as my Lutheran representative and have enjoyed reading him ever since. His section on tradition is one of the best in print. This volume also contains sections on original sin, justification, and good works (with regard to both the regenerate and unregenerate). I highly recommend this work.

Bavinck, Herman, John Bolt, and John Vriend. Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.

Bavinck, Herman, John Bolt, and John Vriend. Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation. Vol. 4. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008.

I value Bavinck’s dogmatics because (1) he gathers a comprehensive list of Scripture passages pertaining to each doctrine, (2) he surveys that doctrine’s place in the history of theology and philosophy, and (3) he synthesizes the whole into an orthodox doctrinal statement. His historical surveys are valuable because Bavinck is recent enough that they reach into the twentieth century. His gathering of the relevant Scriptures are not bare lists; he weaves these passages into paragraphs that delineate the Scripture’s teaching on the doctrine.

O’Donovan, Oliver. Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

O’Donovan provides a solid theological foundation for ethics. Though he says a great deal in his own careful but dense way, his basic thesis is found in the title. Ethics must be rooted in the moral order which is part of God’s good creation. However, in a fallen world, an evangelical ethic (or an ethic that arises from the gospel) must be oriented by the resurrection of Christ which is the first fruits of our resurrection (which entails the restoration of creation). O’Donovan skillfully explains how this relates to the gospel, the kingdom, history, Christ’s authority, the Christian’s freedom and more.

Leeman, Jonathan. Political Church: The Local Assembly as Embassy of Christ’s Rule. Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2016.

Leeman’s own summary of the book:

This book set out to establish that Jesus grants Christians the authority to establish local churches as visible embassies of his end-time rule through the “keys of the kingdom” described in the Gospel of Matthew. By virtue of the keys, the local church exists as a political assembly that publicly represents King Jesus, displays the justice and righteousness of the triune God, and pronounces Jesus’ claim upon the nations and their governments.

To that end, we considered the reigning liberal paradigm and how it is reinforced in Christian circles by a concept of the church’s spirituality. The problem with both perspectives is that they treat the human being as divisible between a political part and a religious part, which humans are not. There is no such thing as spiritual neutrality in the public square and no such thing as political neutrality among the saints. In the biblical (and Augustinian) perspective, people either worship God or worship idols—on Sunday and every day.

Yet the fact that all of life can be viewed through both a religious lens and a political lens does not mean that God has not established different institutions for different purposes. Therefore, we began the project of building a broader political conceptuality that included God within its horizons by seeking a more precise understanding of political institutions. A political community, we saw, is a community of people united by a common governing authority possessing the power of life and death according to some conception of justice. And political membership, by extension, is a relationship in which an individual is subject to a governing authority and in which the authority affirms the individual. This institutional hermeneutic was then applied to the Bible’s covenantal storyline, which showed us that politics is nothing more or less than the mediating of God’s covenantal rule.

Life is broadly political in that it should be lived in accordance with the mandates of the Adamic and Noahic covenants to represent or image God in all the activities of human dominion. Yet life is narrowly political (politics as people typically conceive of it) through the Noahic covenant’s provisions for a justice mechanism and the various institutions established by the line of special covenants.

We also saw that God intended to use a special people to model for the nations what a true politics looks like. When Israel failed at this task, it was handed to the divine Son, who came to do what Adam and Israel could not do. This second Adam, new Israel and Davidic son came to rule obediently by laying down his life for the sins of the nations and rising from the grave. In so doing, he offered a new covenant in his blood, so that all who would repent and believe might receive a pardon from sin and a share in his kingly authority. To that end, he granted them the keys of the kingdom, enabling them to fulfill their covenantal responsibilities to identify themselves with God and one another, distinguish themselves from the world, fend off any serpentine intruders and pursue together the life of righteousness and justice that rightly represent the Son, the Father and the Spirit.

As such, a local church publicly administers the office responsibilities of the new covenant. And a local church exists wherever a group of saints regularly gather to preach the gospel and exercise the keys by publicly affirming and submitting to one another through baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The life of the church, among other things, is a citizen’s life, whereby the saints share in kingdom rule together, jointly exercising the keys of the kingdom in one another’s lives. By this token, a church’s faith and order are linked through the gospel word and the power of the Spirit. The gospel word not only gives life to a people, it restores them to their covenantal job responsibilities, the ones that humanity possessed at creation but had forsaken. keys of the kingdom authorize them to fulfill these job responsibilities individually and corporately.

In all this, the local church exists to display the righteousness, justice and love of the triune God. It is to exemplify for the nations what a true politics looks like. And in so doing it represents the King who possesses all authority on heaven and earth, and who therefore lays claim upon the nations. All humanity is called to repentance and faith, fealty and honor” (389-90).

Horton, Michael S. Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ. Louisville: WJK, 2007.

In part 1 of this book Horton provides the best theological critique of the New Perspective on Paul that I’ve read. In sum, he grants E. P. Sanders’s characterization if covenantal nomism as being active in Second Temple Judaism. But then he argues that such a view is precisely what Paul was opposing (and was also akin to what the Reformers were opposing in Roman Catholicism). As part of this argument, Horton makes the case for distinguishing between the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant. I think his case is exegetically compelling, though he does seem to have trouble integrating his exegetical insights into traditional Covenant Theology (sometimes he seems to indicate that the Sinai Covenant is a covenant of works and at other times he seems to include it as part of the covenant of grace).

The second part of the book, while containing an excellent critique of Radical Orthodoxy and the Finnish interpretation of Luther, seemed a bit muddled in its discussions of union with Christ. On the one hand, Horton wanted to see justification as the forensic basis for every other aspect of the ordo. In this way he sought to hold together the forensic and transformative elements of soteriology. The latter are grounded in the former. Thus union with Christ is founded on justification. On the other hand, he seemed to also acknowledge that union precedes justification. In one paragraph he identified both justification and Christ as the engine that pulls the train cars that make up the ordo.

I understand why Horton wants to keep the forensic and transformative elements of salvation united, but I’m not convinced that he has the right formulation.

[I am about to finish People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology, the final volume in this series. While it contains some helpful insights about the impact the doctrine of the ascension should have on Roman Catholic and incarnational ecclesiology, I’ve not found this book to rise to the same high standard of the previous volumes. Horton is going after some of the same targets as in his popular level writings: pietism and revivalism. But in doing so he writes off the entire free church tradition. While his targets are appropriate for his popular-level critiques of evangelicalism, Horton needed to interact more with the best of free church arguments in this book. (It was also interesting how many of his foils are already irrelevant, just a decade after the book was written.) In the end, his Reformed ecclesiology is so narrow that it excludes Reformed Baptists and even Presbyterians of a Banner of Truth bent.]

Horton, Michael. Justification. Two Volumes. New Studies in Dogmatics. Edited by Michael Allen and Scott R.  Swain. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018.

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

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

Too often exegesis, church history, and theology are held apart, with different writers emphasizing one of these three disciplines (sometimes almost in opposition to the others). Horton helpfully models theological writing that brings all three together.

I also found Ryan McGraw’s review of Horton’s two volumes insightful (WTJ 81, pp. 321-32). McGraw’s overall assessment of Horton’s work is positive. He notes that speech-act theory, theosis/deification/ and Barth are either “absent” or “subdued” in this work. I agree with McGraw that this makes these volumes stronger than some of the Horton’s other writings.

Critiques:

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

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

Wellum, Stephen J. God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ. Foundations of Evangelical Theology. Wheaton: Crossway, 2016.

Wellum structures his Christology in four parts. In the first part he deals with epistemology and philosophy. The first chapter of part two deals with the storyline of Scripture and the biblical covenants. This introductory material means that the reader doesn’t get to strictly Christological material until 150 pages into the book. While that felt like too long, Wellum does make important points in these opening chapters, and he rightly justifies his approach to doctrinal formulation in them. Part 2 is focused on the biblical data that testifies to the deity and humanity of Christ. It also addresses issues such as the virgin conception, sinlessness, and the purpose of the incarnation. Part 3 traces the doctrinal development of Christology throughout church history. Part 4 opens with a summary of modernist and evangelical kenotic Christologies. Following this comes a critique, a positive summary of historic, orthodox Christology, and a defense of orthodox Christology against criticisms.

Harmless, William. Augustine in His Own Words. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2010.

Augustine wrote so much that it is helpful to have an entry point into his work. This volume provides the reader with selections of Augustine’s writings in ten chapters: 1. Confessions, 2. Augustine the Philosopher, 3. Augustine the Bishop, 4. Augustine the Preacher, 5. Augustine the Exegete, 6. Against the Manichees, 7. Against the Donatists, 8. On the Trinity, 9. On the City of God, Against the Pagans, 10. Against the Pelagians. The excerpts are of sufficient length to be valuable, and the effect is to gain a taste of the full range of Augustine’s writing.

Abernethy, Andrew T. The Book of Isaiah and God’s Kingdom: A Thematic—Theological Approach. Edited by D. A. Carson. Vol. 40. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove, IL; London: Apollos; InterVarsity Press, 2016.

This book helpfully surveys the kingdom there in Isaiah, and it makes the case that this theme is central to the book. Given the importance of the kingdom theme in Scripture, and given the importance of Isaiah, this is a significant book. I found the structural and thematic arguments compelling. I’m not convinced that Isaiah himself failed to identify the Davidic Messiah, the Suffering Servant, and God’s Messenger as the same person. I was also disappointed to find a NSBT volume fuzzy on authorship and composition.

Kennedy, Rick. The First American Evangelical: A Short Life of Cotton Mather. Library of Religious Biography. Edited by Mark A. Noll. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.

This brief biography of Cotton Mather effectively raised my interest in Cotton Mather and his extensive writing. He had a mind to capture and catalog all that he could learn. But all this learning was in service of a warm evangelical piety.

Kennedy also makes the case that Cotton Mather was situated at a historical hinge between Puritanism and the evangelical movement that would follow.

This biography also provides an effective window into Boston at the beginning of the 18th century.

Sheldon, Garrett Ward. The Political Philosophy of James Madison. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.

This is a brief (~150 page) study of Madison’s political philosophy. He makes a good case for coherence within Madison’s thought while also allowing for change on some issues. He also pays attention to the way Madison’s schooling among theologically conservative Presbyterians affected his political philosophy. Sheldon holds that Madison’s political philosophy emerged from the combination of three influences: “Calvinist Christianity, classical republicanism, and Lockean liberalism” (15). The first of these influences meant that Madison had a lively awareness of human sinfulness and the need to take it into account in political matters. Sheldon also covers Madison’s concern for religious liberty, which was rooted both in has familiarity with the persecution of ministers in dissenting denominations (Anglicanism was the established church in Virginia), his belief that established churches become corrupt, and his belief in freedom of conscience (here, reflecting more the Lockean than the dissenting Christian tradition, the latter of which would have argued against established churches on the grounds that they involved divinely unauthorized government intrusion into the church). On the debated issue of federalism, Sheldon maintains that in general Madison held that the national government should deal with international affairs (war, trade, tariffs, etc.) while the state governments dealt with internal matters. However, Madison was not as ideological as Jefferson and he operated with a good understanding of the conservative virtue of prudence.

Tom Parr’s Backdrop for a Glorious Gospel

by

Tom Parr’s Backdrop for a Glorious Gospel: The Covenant of Works According to William Strong marries in its title two things that God has joined together that man should never rend asunder: deep theology and doxalogical application. Backdrop for a Glorious Gospel summarizes and explains a section of Puritan William Strong’s A Discourse of the Two Covenants.

Though I had not heard of Strong until Parr introduced him to me, his work of recovery is valuable. Strong’s covenant theology is exegetically deeper than any recent writing on the covenant of works that I’ve read. In addition to exegetical depth, Parr also brings out the rich applicational and devotional aspects of Strong’s work.

The extensive footnotes are a bonus feature. They compare and contrast Strong’s teaching with that of other Puritans. Thus, the reader is educated on the continuities and discontinuities of Puritan thought on the various topics under discussion. In this way the book is a broader entry into Puritan thought on the covenant of works.

Those holding dispensational or progressive covenantal positions may wonder if it is worth their while to read this treatise on the covenant of works. The answer is a clear, “yes.” First, though some dispensationalists reject the idea of a covenant of works, not all do. There is no systemic need for them to do so, and there are important theological reasons for them to affirm a covenant of works. Progressive covenantalists already hold to a creation covenant, and there are good theological reasons for them to view the creation covenant as a covenant of works. People from both systems will benefit from reading Strong’s case that the covenant of works is truly a necessary backdrop for the glorious gospel.

This is not to say that dispensationalists, progressive covenantalists, and even certain Baptist covenant theologians won’t find areas of disagreement, especially in the discussion of how the Mosaic law relates to the covenants of works and grace. However, Strong, as summarized by Parr, gives the best and most nuanced argument for the view that the Mosaic law is an administration of the covenant of grace that I’ve read. Though this is not my position, I think Strong’s argument is one that readers of every persuasion ought to reckon with.