Theology

Stephen Evans on Myth: An Impartial Arbitrator

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

Reading through C. Stephen Evans  The Historical Christ & The Jesus of Faith, I came across a well-detailed chapter on myth and historicity.  While Evan is addressing New Testament scholarship and the incarnation of Jesus Christ, not the Old Testament narratives, his principles of interpretation are universally applicable and serve as an third party to moderate the polemics of Peter Enns and G.K. Beale.  (Note: I am not endorsing Evans carte blanche, especially his abberant inclusivism; I am merely using his discussion about myth and history as a heuristic device to help mediate the Beale-Enns debate).

In his third chapter, Evans highlights dangers about seeing myth(s) in the Bible, but he also provides legitimate grounds for using the term.  He does not categorically deny their use.  Instead, this philosopher from Baylor University discusses the opposing positions of  Soren Kierkegaard (anti myth) and C.S. Lewis (pro myth) to present a modest caution if and when the term is used.  Here is Evans conclusion:

There are good reasons, as I have noted, for avoiding the designation of the incarnational narrative as myth.  Too many people will understand myth as ruling out history, and even those who do not  think history is ruled out may see the historicity of the events as inessential and unimportant in relation to the mythical significance.  In most contexts it would be better to stress the fact that God’s saving acts constitute a narrative which possesses universal power and significance [CS Lewis’ approximate definition], without actually designating the story a myth [cf. Hans Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative].

However, if one is speaking in a context where the terminology will not be misunderstood, it is legitimate to speak of the incarnational narrative [i.e. the virgin birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus] as a myth, following the example of CS Lewis, with the following proviso: the uniqueness of the narrative, its divine origin, and the essential significance of its historicity must be maintained (78). 

With that proviso in mind, consider Enns definition of myth, “an ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and meaning in the form of stories: Who are we? Where do we come from?” (Inspiration & Incarnation, 50)  Sadly, even against Evans’ more receptive rubric, Enns definition contains none Evan’s qualifications.  Furthermore, as he lays out his case in I & I, Enns undermines each of these– he diminishes the uniquenesss of the biblical stories, he questions divine modes of revelation in exchange for more ‘evolutionary’ models, and he is critical of the ‘essential historicity” of the biblical accounts (see Beale for a full-fledged critique).  In short, his use of the term ‘myth’ lacks any necessary caveat that would distinguish his proposal from that of higher-critical and modernistic scholars.

In fairness to Peter Enns, I think he is trying to use myth with qualifications.  As the quote above indicates, he is seeking to define with specificity what myth is and is not; but clearly, his qualifications do not go far enough.  His mythological reading of Scripture  fails to assert historicity, uniqueness, and divine origin, which leaves the reader with a careless proposal and a faith-eroding hermeneutic.  

Sadly, it seems that for the sake of critical scholarship, or perhaps just for academic curiousity, he has willing to questioned essential truths about the Bible that will lead many souls to doubt God’s word, just as they have  in the past.  As Ecclesiastes refrains, “There is nothing new under the sun,” and Enns proposal reinforces that truth.  For in terms of Old Testament criticism, his proposals sound very similar to eighteenth century Enlightened scholars, who sound similar to second-century Gnostics, who sound like another pre-modern voice with a serpentine lisp… “Did God really say?”    The problem is not new, and neither is the answer: Contend for the Faith!  Renounce false teaching!

May we continue, with boldness and perseverance, to assert that the faith once for all delivered to the saints is True, Historical, Unique, and Divinely Inspired.  This is not a trifling thing, it is a matter of life and death (Deut. 32:47).

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Book Review: The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism

/ davidsschrock / 4 Comments

The more I read of G.K. Beale, the more I appreciate his work.  Beale is a NT professor at Wheaton College, an excellent biblical theologian, a well-established author, and an aspiring gardener (according to Doug Moo)–if you have read his The Temple and the Church’s Mission you will understand why

In his most recent book, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism, professor Beale unleashes a sustained critique against Peter Enns and those who are questioning the doctrine of inerrancy.  Particularly, as the title addresses, Beale makes a case for the necessity and biblical warrant of inerrancy.

The first two chapters present responses to Peter Enns and his evaluation of the Old Testament.  Chapters three and four address Enns’ intertextual assessment of how the New Testament authors interpret the Old Testament.  Chapter five addresses the specific problem of Isaianic authorship, asserting that the NT authors were right in ascribing singular authorship to Isaiah 1-66.  Beale wraps up his case for inerrancy by looking at the cosmology of the OT and the ANE.

Chapter 1: Beale quotes Enns book at length.   He shows the weaknesses of his proposals, and concludes with eight summary points.  I have abbreviated them here (53-54; for the list en toto see Beale’s article “Myth, History, and Inspiration”):

(1) Enns affirms that the Creation and the Flood accounts are “shot through with myth.”

(2) Enns questions the accuracy of the biblical witness because the testimony is not objective history.  

(3) Enns fails to define how exactly Christ’s incarnation is like the Bible.  This analogy sounds good, but is ambiguous.

(4) Enns digs a ditch between the OT world and modern society, where present definitions of truth and error cannot be judged in a pre-scietific world.  

(5)  Enns does not follow his own evaluative proposal of humility, honsty, and charity.

(6) “Enns’s book is marked by ambiguities at important junctures of his discussion.”

(7) “Enns does not attempt to present and discuss for the reader significant alternative viewpoints other than his own…”

(8) “Enns appears to caricature the views of past evangelical scholarship by not distinguishing the views of so-called fundamentalists from that of good conservative scholarly work.”

Chapter 2: Beale replies to Enns open response (JETS 49 [2006]: 313-26), which seems to reassert points made in the first chapter.  Only in the surrejoinder, Beale is able  to defend the historicity of the Bible in more detail, expose the weaknesses of the incarnational analogy. Then going on the offensive, he challenges Enns with his own criticism, namely that Enns reads Scripture using extrabiblical standards (i.e. the surrounding cultures of the biblical authors).

Chapters 3-4: Beale begins by recognizing the merit of Enns “christotelic” hermeneutic.  This approach affirms the OT’s eschatological trajectory, aiming the whole of the OT towards Christ without forcing Jesus of Nazareth  into every verse.  However, Beale quickly delineates his concerns with Enns’ intertextual approach.  He lists five concerns (86-101):

(1) Enns determination that NT authors quote the OT in odd ways is insufficient in scope and not compelling in content.  Just because we have questions about how ancient authors are interpreting one another, does not give us freedom to discount their method as non-contextual. 

(2) Similarly, Enns denies reading of the OT in context.  The NT writers did not do this, and following their lead, we should have the freedom to interpret the passage in light of Christ’s coming and without grammatical-historical boundaries.  

(3) The pervasive and controlling influence of Second Temple Judaism predominates Enns theology.  Beale shows that Second Temple Judaism is not monolithic, yet Enns, while conceding the point, treats it as a singular interpretive method that the NT writers absorbed.

(4) While rejecting the “historical-grammatical” approach to Scripture, Enns employs his own hermeneutical grid and “imposes” theological constructs on his interpretations as much any other evangelical or fundamentalist.

(5) Enns posits that Paul adopted legendary material in his writings (i.e. Enns on 1 Cor. 10:4).  Yet, for Paul to incorporate this legendary material is to contradict his warning to Timothy and Titus about foolish legends and wives tales.

Chapter 5: Beale addresses the question of who wrote Isaiah.  He submits that many current evangelicals have adopted formerly liberal positions on this matter, and he goes on to argue for the importance of holding to a single author–the historically evangelical position.  He gives copious quotations from the NT and later Jewish writers to support this view.

Chapters 6-7: Finally, Beale examines cosmology in the Ancient Near East.  Where some scholars lump OT Israel in with their pagan neighbors, a worldview that disagrees with modern science, Beale contends that Moses and the other OT writers use phenomenological language to describe occurences as they appear.  In other places though, they use theologically-informed language to describe the universe as YHWH’s giant temple.  Beale concludes in chapter 6, “Many of the purported socially constructed, mythological expressions of the cosmos reflected in the Old Testament are better understood as descriptions of the way things appeared to the unaided eye or are related to to theological understanding of the cosmos (including the unseen heavenly dimension) as a temple” (213-14).  

This conclusion finds support from Beale’s extensive work on the temple (cf. The Temple and the Church’s Mission), which he draws on heavily here.  Speaking of the similarities and differences between OT and ANE temples, he writes, “These ancient pagan commonalities with Israel’s temple reflected partial yet true revelation, though insufficent revelation for a personal knowledge of God.  Yet Israel’s temples are not like her neighbors, merely because they reflect some degree of perception about the true reality of God’s dwelling; rather, Israel’s temple was intended to be viewed as the true temple to which all other imperfect temples aspired” (182-83).  In this regard, Israel’s temple served as a “polemical statement” against her polytheistic rivals. 

In short, OT language is not scientific with modern exhibitions of precision, but neither is it a mythical accomodation filled with modern errors.  Beale shows convincingly the makeup of the Old Testament is polemical, theological, and phenomenological.  And thus, he concludes his book with a constructive argument for understanding the Old Testament worldview.  Against Enns and those like him who flatten Israelite distinctives, Beale shows how the temple serves as a point of reference for how God’s covenant people and His revelation to them are similar yet altogether different than the religious documents and pagan worldviews from which Abraham and Israel were rescued.

Overall, Beale’s book is not an easy one to read.  While he is trying to help a lay audience better understand the problems of Enns argument and its impact for divine inerrancy, he does recruit some very technical arguments.  Moreover, the polemical nature of the book ensures that students first coming to the discussion have some background with the doctrine of Scripture and issues of Old Testament studies.  Nevertheless, Beale’s work is important because of the way it exposes a trend in current evangelicalism away from the firm foundations of biblical inerrancy, and the willingness to test historic doctrines with  novel conceptions that appeal to biblical critics.   Moreover, Beale’s work is helpful because it sets out better arguments for understanding the Bible that coheres with the Truth and encourages Christians to trust God’s inspired Word.  For that, I say thanks.

May we learn from Beale’s scholarship and fidelity to the Scriptures, and press on to know the Lord.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Book Review: Inspiration and Incarnation

/ davidsschrock / 3 Comments

Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005).

Peter Enns, Old Testament scholar, author, and blogger, has stirred up the evangelical community with his book, Inspiration and Incarnation (Baker, 2005).  Challenging evangelicals with a bevy of interpretive problems that he finds in the Bible, Enns proffers a new approach to reading the Bible that attempts to move past the fundamentalist-modernist impasse (14-15).  He suggests an incarnational analogy for understanding the Bible (17-18), and he explains how this model, which mirrors Christ’s humanity and divinity, better articulates Scripture’s concurrent inscripturation. 

I am not so convinced.  Let me summarize and analyze:

In chapter 1, Enns attempts to move past the “Bible Wars” and to provide a better way of reading the Bible.  The model he proposes is one that aims to avoid the strictures of dogma; one that instead reads the Bible in its own culture and presentation.  That sounds great, but just doesn’t work.  By ignoring the lessons learned from the modernist controversy, Enns heads in the same perilous direction–diminishing, if not denying, the uniqueness, unity, and inerrancy of God’s inspired Word. 

In chapter 2, Enns discusses Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) similarities to the OT documents and the impact that recent archaeological discoveries have had on Old Testament research.  While his survey of the extant material is itself helpful, his conclusions blur the uniqueness of God’s Word.  Enns compares Genesis 1-11 to the pagan myths of Israel’s neighbors, without advancing positions that retain God’s unique and direct inspiration of the biblical authors; he equates the OT law with the common laws of the ANE world, discounting their divine authority; and he shows how Israel’s Monarchic history may not contain the full accounting of historical events, which cast a shadow of doubt on the text. 

Taken together and without any opposing voice, Enns chapter leaves the reader with gaping holes in his ability to trust the veracity of Scripture.  Methodologically, he fails to present other evangelical and scholarly explanations for these matters, that have given more faithful, and in my opinion better explanations for the issues at hand.  G.K. Beale exposes this shortfall in his JETS article “Myth, History, and Inspiration” (2006), pointing to  D.J. Wiseman, Alan Millard, Meredith Kline, Daniel Block, and Richard Hess as better Old Testament interpreters.

In chapter 3, Enns highlights many source of diversity in the OT (i.e. Wisdom literature, Chronicles, and the Law).  To Enns diversity is not a commendable expression of God’s complexity in divine revelation, but a human problem that arises from competing truth claims–though “truth claims” may be too dogmatic and propositional for Enns.  These ostensible contradictions are better seen as divinely inspired tensions in Scripture that thicken the unity of Scripture than multi-authored inconsistencies. 

The intentional complexity and tension of the Bible can be seen in passages like Proverbs 26:4-5, which on the surface seems to present two antithetical statements side-by-side.  On further consideration, however, these opposing proverbs are better understood to give a balanced and situational word of counsel for thos handling a fool–sometimes you respond, sometimes you don’t (cf. Ecc. 3:1-8).  So then, Scripture is filled with tensive verses that add texture, clarity, and nuance the metanarrative, but it is an unnecessary conclusion to reject unity at the expense of perceived diversity.

Then in chapter 4, Enns addresses the issues of the New Testament interpretation of the Old.  He argues that NT authors employed the same interpretive methods as their Jewish counterparts in Second Temple Judaism without qualification. “What is true of the Wisdom of Solomon is true of the New Testament” (128).  So it seems that Enns is forcing on the NT writers the precise hermeneutic of their day, leaving no place for any kind of Spiritual leading (cf. 2 Peter 1:19-21) or revelation (cf. John’s apocalypse and Paul’s heavenly vision).  Now, his approximation of Second Temple Judaism with the New Testament does not require denial of the Holy Spirit’s involvment, but Enns fails to articulate any kind of divine revelation.  Rather, the New Testament authors, steeped in the culture of their day, are manipulaters of OT texts to speak a fresh word from God.

Consequently for Enns, the method of interpretation used by the apostles entails allegorizing and reinterpreting the OT text without respect to the OT context.  This creative hermeneutic is then endorsed by Enns as the way we ought to read and apply Scripture.  However, Enn’s “apostolic hermeneutic” looks like a train without any brakes.  What of authorial intent?  apostolic authority? and divine inspiration?  The result is more than just a hermeneutical spiral that correlates the biblical text with the reader, it fringes on a postmodern, reader-response method of interpretation that allows contemporary settings and local identity to redefine the passage of Scripture.

In the end, Enns book while attempting to read the Bible “honestly and seriously” (107) results in focusing on incarnation to the exclusion of inspiration–ironically,”inspiration” which is a part of the title, doesn’t even get a reference in the subject index. 

Whereas previous evangelicals have emphasized God’s sovereign inspiration of the Bible, and perhaps at times they have done this too mechanically (i.e. dictation theory of the inspiration), Enns goes too far the other way and ‘humanifies’ the Bible so much that Scripture’s uniqueness, unity, and inerrancy are left undefined and compromised.  Any biblical theology built on this foundation will have insufficient support to build straight;  inevitably the doctrines erected on this foundation will lean, totter, and fall. 

And I am not the only one to see this.  Most notably, G.K. Beale’s evaluation produced a 300-page rejoinder, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism.  Trevin Wax  also evaluates Enns doctrine of Scripture while providing a host of links that extend the conversation.

Sadly, Enns books stands in a long line of texts that seek to find a middle road between historically orthodox, protestant, and evangelical interpretations and all those competing models that “erode” the Biblical witness (cf. Gnostic, Catholic, Modernist, Postmodernist).  History teaches us that a middle road is not possible.  Only those systems of theology which begin and end with a full-orbed doctrine of Scripture–inspired, infallible, inerrant, authoritative, necessary, and sufficient–can ever produce and sustain over time doctrines that cohere with the content of Scripture.  All other attempts build with wood, hay, and stubble, and the results are disasterous.

May we not grow weary in contending for the faith once for all given to the saints.  The integrity of the Bible deserves our life and our sacrifice.  And as we labor,  may we continue to pray for those who teach us the Word of God and for ourselves that we would not be deceived into following the temptations to minimize God’s inerrant Word.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Can God Suffer?

/ davidsschrock / 4 Comments

Dietrich Bonhoeffer once said that only a suffering God can help.  But is that true?  Is that biblical?  Can God suffer, and if so, how does that help?

The classical position in church history has been that God does not suffer.  This view is the doctrine of divine impassibility.  Yet, in the last century, this doctrine has been upended by the likes of Bonhoeffer and by the works of theologians like Jurgen Moltmann, whose book, The Crucified God, argued for God’s divine passiblity.  In other words, for God to love he must be able to suffer.  As the German theologian put it, “a God who cannot suffer cannot love either.  A God who cannot love is a dead God” (The Trinity and the Kingdom, 38).  On the surface, this argument seems compelling; and certainly, in our man-centered, therapy-crazed culture it stands tall.  The problem is that it does not measure up to biblical evidence.

Consider two lines of argument proffered by Robert Letham (The Holy Trinity, 303).  First, if God suffers and is held captive or overcome by hostile forces–people or spirits whom he created–how is he Lord overall, and how will he actually guarantee victory later, and not more suffering?  The truth is, only a God who cannot suffer is able to help us.  As John Piper argues in the beginning of his book Desiring God, God is an infinitely happy God (cf. Psalm 115:3; 135:6).  No matter what goes on in creation, God is delights in being God, and is not held hostage by the forces of the world.

Second, if God suffers in his deity, how does he know what human suffering is like?  As Robert Letham writes, “For it is through the Incarnation, in which the Son lives as man , that he experiences human suffering as man and deals with the root cause–sin–by his death and resurrection.  It would be of no help to us if God suffered divinely as God” (Letham, The Holy Trinity, 303).  As Hebrews 2:14 says, “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself [the Son of God, cf. 2:9] likewise partook of the same things, that through death [i.e. human suffering] he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil.”

The Good News is not that the Triune God is just like us, who suffers in his Deity; rather, the Good News is that the Son became man, and suffered in the flesh.  Jesus, the Son of God, suffered not as God, but as a man, and in so doing, defeated death, purchased forgiveness, rose from the grave to initiate a new race of humanity, and now sits at the right hand of God mercifully interceding for all those who suffer (cf. Heb. 4:14-16).

So as we suffer, now or in the days to come, let us not find solace in a distorted view of God, one that repeals God’s sovereignty and strength; but instead, let us take heart in the biblical truth that God reigns in heaven, unscathed by the wars and rumors of war on earth, and at the same time that his own Son, Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, came to earth as a man and suffered hell in our place and has wounds to show for it.  May we look to him as our sympathetic high priest who intercedes for us. 

Perhaps, this doctrinal distinction seems like an insignificant qualification, but in fact, it is the difference between a God who we make after our own image, and one who glorious presides over all creation.  It is the difference between the omnipotent God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus who deserves all reverence and adoration, and all other pretend gods who have no power to save or to comfort. 

Can God suffer?  In his divinity, no; but in his humanity, in the incarnation of the Son, yes.  Hebrews 2:10 says of Jesus, God’s Son, “It was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the dounder of their salvation perfect through suffering.”

May this two-fold truth, of God’s Divine Impassibility and Jesus’ Human Vulnerability, set us to worship the Triune God in Spirit and Truth.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

The Gospel of Genesis (Review)

/ davidsschrock / 8 Comments

Warren Austin Gage, The Gospel of Genesis: Studies in Protology and Eschatology (Winona Lake, IN: Carpenter Books, 1984). 

If you like Gregory Beale, Meredith Kline, and William Dumbrell, then you will like Warren Austin Gage.  Advocating typology, predictive prophecy, and God’s sovereign designs over history, Dr. Gage, Old Testament professor at Knox Theological Seminary, constructs a compelling case for biblical protology in his illuminating little book, The Gospel of Genesis.

Packed with biblical allusions and intertextual connections, Gage demonstrates how the first seven chapters of Genesis set a pattern that is picked up throughout the rest of the Bible.  The pattern is five-fold and corresponds with five major doctrinal loci: God, Man, Sin, Redemption (individual and corporate), and Judgment (5).  Speaking of these protological structures, he writes:

The thesis of this chapter [which goes on to outline the rest of the book] is that the chronicle of prediluvian history (Genesis 1-7) is composed of five theologically fundamental narratives, each of which finds consecutive, synthetic parallel in the history (and prophecy) of the postdiluvian world.  Consequently, by understanding the historical movement initiated in early Genesis, we may discern the relationship between the beginning and the ending of biblical history (9).

Fleshing out his thesis, Gage shows in chapters 3-7 how Moses lays out the archtypal storyline in Genesis 1-7: 

  1. YHWH’s speaks the cosmos into existence, the six days of work followed by the Sabbath rest stamps on creation a divine pattern for life on the earth (1:1-2:3);
  2. The triune God creates Adam and Eve in his image and commissions them as vice-regents over the earth (1:26-31; 2:4ff); this is followed by the their covenant-breaking, disobedient fall (3:1-14);
  3. The sovereign judge of the universe pronounces a curse on all creation, but with the redemptive promise that a serpent-crushing seed would come to save his people (3:15-19)
  4. Community and ecclesiology (i.e. the gathering of men) begins with the establishment of two lines of men–the sons of Cain and the sons of Seth– which parallel the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman (3:15; 4:1ff); and
  5. God’s retributive justice is manifested in the watery judgment of the earth and all its evil inhabitants.  Here, God’s wrath destroys all those living in flagrant unrighteousness, yet this ‘day of the Lord’ YHWH saves a remnant of people (Moses et al) from whom he will establish a new humanity (6:1ff). 

This pattern, Gage argues, sets the pattern for biblical history, and where space permits, he shows how Abraham, David, and Jesus fulfill these patterns in later history.  But making his case even stronger, Gage also shows how in the days of Noah, this five-fold cycle is reduplicated (Gen. 8-11).  Much like Irenaeus’ vision of Christ’s work of recapitulation, Gage shows how these patterns in history are not accidental, but rather intentional.  As Isaiah 46:9-10 says of YHWH, “For I am God, and there is no other’ I am God, and there is not one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying ‘My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure.”  This is what he calls “protology”–the study of first things. 

Now, if you accept this reading of Genesis 1-7, it admittedly impacts the entire way that you read Scripture.  Over against theological systems like Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, which derive their interpretive methods from dogmatic considerations derived from later revelation (and church history), a protological/eschatological reading of the Biblical narrative is much more inductive.  It argues for a cyclical reading of God’s redemption and revelation that finds its key within the Scriptures itself.  Accordingly, this approach is helpful for ‘getting a feel’ for the big picture in redemptive history; however, like any system of interpretation, it might force the reader using this schema to misinterpret or bend biblical data for the sake of the pattern. 

Certainly, responses to Gage may very.  There will be “literalists” who would charge Gage with allegory, speculative typology, and spurious biblical connections.  For instance, his acceptance of a chiastic pattern in biblical theology makes his presentation of history very orderly and economic, perhaps too unified.  But to those who make such a case, it may be asked, “What kind of history should we expect from the maker of heaven and earth, the sovereign over history, the author of our salvation?”  Everything about God commends order, structure, symmetry, and divine intentionality.  So it would make sense that God would structure all of history according to his eternal plans of glorifying Himself by saving sinnners. 

With that said, it could be conceded that some of his interpretive moves and interconnections may not warranted, but that does not make illegitimate his overarching thesis.  These criticisms are more a matter of isolated passages, and not interpretive method.  On the whole, I think Gage’s argument stands up.  It provides a helpful rubric for reading the Bible, starting with Genesis and moving towards the climax of history in the two advents of Jesus Christ.   It commends a high view of inspiration and scriptural authority.  It moves all things to find their end in Christ, and it compels the biblical reader to see what God has been and is now doing.  In my estimation, it is a very helpful approach to understanding and applying biblical theology on a macro-scale.

For more on the subject of protology see J.V. Fesko, Last Things First; on recapitulation: Irenaeus, Against Heresies; on reading the Bible as it presents itself: Richard Lints, The Fabric of Theology; and on the connection between Genesis and Revelation: G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Israel On Your Mind?

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

Sitting in Dr. Russell Moore’s Systematic III class and then again in his Eschatology class, I became convinced from the Scriptures that Israel is not just a what, but a who.  And that who is Jesus Christ. 

Today, with Israel in the headlines and  just returning from the “Promised Land” himself, Dr. Moore summarizes his thoughts on the future of Israel.  It is a snapshot of the biblical theology that was presented in those classroom lectures–a biblical theology of God and his people that unifies all things in Christ (Eph. 1:10), the True Israel of God.   Whether you are Dispensational, Covenantal, or agnostic in terms of all things eschatological, it is worth a look.

Anyone thinking through these matters–eschatology, the nature of the church, the future of Israel, and how evangelicals have debated these things over since Scofield–should consider Moore’s arguments.  Reading his book on the subject would be a great place to begin, The Kingdom of Christ.   Similarly, another great chapter on this subject of the identity of Israel is Stephen Wellum’s chapter on the covenants in Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ.  Both are excellent.

Thankful to be a co-heir with Christ, the True Israel, and I hope that he too is on your mind!

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Father, Son, & Holy Spirit by Bruce Ware

/ davidsschrock

trinity_wareIn six biblically-saturated, clearly-articulated chapters, Southern Seminary professor Bruce Ware develops an historical, biblical, and practical look at one of the church’ most mystifying doctrines–the doctrine of the Trinity.  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is densely packed with biblical data, but clearly outlined to help provided an accessible grip on the uniqueness of each member of the Godhead.

Written at a popular level, Ware argues for unity and diversity, harmony and distinction, authority and submission between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  He follows the Western understanding of the relationship; God is one substance, in three persons; the Father sends the Son, and the Father and the Son (i.e. filioque) send the Spirit.  Ware uncovers the biblical data for these doctrines, but the strength of the book is its attention to application and the direct relationship that the Trinity must have in the church, the home, and in gender relations–hence, the subtitle, Relationships, Roles, & Relevance.

Consider the applications of each chapter:

On the Father: Marvel at the wisdom, goodness, care, and thoroughness of God’s authority; marvel at the perfection of his fatherhood; marvel at the wisdom of his divine delegation; marvel at his unsurpassing supremacy and glory; and look for ways to emulate and incorporate these fatherly traits.  In a world that despises and undermines authority, show gracious servant leadership that sacrifices yourself for those you are responsible to lead or oversee.

On the Son: Marvel at the submission of the Son to the Father for all eternity; marvel at the submission to the Spirit while on the earth; marvel at the relational love between Father and Son.  Personally, I sense this last application whenever I watch, hold, and care for my son.  What a gift that God would let us know the kind of Father-Son intimacy in our own families.

On the Holy Spirit: Be instructed by the Spirit’s humble willingness to participate in the Trinity virtually unnoticed without recognition or overt honor; ponder the willingness of the Spirit to assume authority over the son for a season and then to gladly relinquish that authority when Christ ascended to the right hand of the Father.  Most Christians will never be known, their names never documented by a biography or publicized for their great achievements.  They will be simple people who live lives depending on Jesus life, death, and resurrection.  In this, they are leading exemplary Spirit-filled lives.  I look forward to meeting those men and women. I want to be one of them.

On the Trinitarian Community:  Human relationships model the Triune relationship; the relationality of the Trinity calls for the creation of genuine Spirit-wrought community; the Trinity demonstrate equality in essence and eternal authority-submission that neither demeans nor devalues.  In this, America’s egalitarian church needs to be corrected.  It is wrong thinking to assert leadership and authority equals value.  Children are under their parents authority, but they have the same worth before God.  The authority-submission structure of the Trinity must overrule our culturally-determined proclivities.  Resultantly, husbands and wives must learn from the Trinity how to lead with love and submit with gladhearted respect, and churches must take God at his Word that men are to lead in the church and women are not to teach or have authority over men (cf. 1 Cor 11:4-6; 2 Tim. 2:12-15).  This is not a social construct.  This is a Trinitarian directive. 

In short, Bruce Ware’s book is a great introduction to the Trinity, especially for those who want to see how “Theology Proper” and “speculative” theology impacts our daily lives.  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit shows how the doctrine of the Trinity has everyday relevance and import. 

May we marvel at God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, and may our minds and lives be transformed accordingly.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

How do you order the books of the Old Testament?

/ davidsschrock

Last week, on Moore to the Point, Jim Hamilton presented a compact and compelling case for reading the Old Testament according to the earliest Hebrew organization: Torah, Prophets (Naviim), Writings (Ketuvim).  Citing Roger Beckwith and David Noel Freedman, Hamilton argued that we should consider the interpretive ramifications canonical arrangement has on our biblical theology, and make adjustments according to the oldest arrangements.  He makes three arguments for such a change, which he summarizes here:

We should accept the tripartite division of the OT into Law, Prophets, and Writings, and we should order English translations of the books of the OT accordingly because (1) the order in use by English translations now does not match the orders of the books in lists drawn up by early church fathers; (2) Protestants have agreed with Hebrew tradition rather than Septuagint tradition on which books should be included between the covers of the Bible, so Protestants should also agree with Hebrew tradition on how those books should be arranged; and (3) this is the order that Jesus endorsed and that Matthew and Luke apparently expected their audiences to recognize.

The most compelling reason for considering this original, Hebrew reading is that it may help us read the Bible as Jesus did and in turn, it may help us see the Hebrew Bible as unified redemptive story that founds its fulfillment in our Messiah.  Both of those seem like very strong reasons to read the Scriptures this way.

Stephen Dempster, in his outstanding work on the Hebrew Bible, Dominion and Dynasty, appeals to this arrangement and constructs his OT theology accordingly.  His excellent book supports Hamilton’s case, and would be a good read for anyone who wants to think about this issue more.  It also shows how this re-arrangement could (and should) impact theology and biblical understanding.  Read Hamilton’s blog, “Stirring the Pot: How Should the Books of the Old Testamen Be Ordered?” and decide for yourself.

One final thought, how would you teach this in the local church? 

Dr. Hamilton answered that question in his class, “Messiah in the Old Testament,” and said he would do so humbly, patiently, over time, advocating the veracity of God’s Word and teaching his congregation about the history of its reception and transmission.  Maybe he will offer a follow up post that gives practical steps to introducing this sort of thing in the local assembly. 

If you accept this older reading, how would you teach it to your English Bible congregation?

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Top Ten Books of 2009 (D.V.) :: A Call for Prayer

/ davidsschrock / 6 Comments

Lord willing (Deo volente), the next year or two will have a host of books that will benefit and uplift Christ’s church.  Many of these books are from SBTS professors, others from some of the choicest biblical theologians today.  Below is a list of ten books that, Lord willing, will be appearing soon:

1. The Cradle, The Cross, and The Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas Kostenberger.

2. Adopted for Life by Russell Moore.

3. The Center of Biblical Theology by Jim Hamilton. 

4. History of Southern Seminary by Southern Professor Greg Wills.

5. Doctrine of the Church book in the Crossway series by Gregg Allison.

6. Doctrine of Christ book in the Crossway series by Stephen Wellum.

7. Commentary on 2 Corinthians in the Pillar series by Mark Seifrid.

8. Hebrews commentary in the Pillar series by P.T. O’Brien. 

9. Colossians commentary in the BECNT series by G.K. Beale. 

10. Commentary on Galatians by Tom Schreiner.

As we look forward to these resources, may we be faithful to pray for the men who writes these labor-intensive tomes.  Studying under, working with, learning from, and worshiping alongside the professors at Southern, I have grown in my thankfulness for their ministries and more aware of the need to pray for them.  (See Pray for a Professor).  They sacrifice much and labor strenuously to provide us with such excellent scholarship. 

May we thank the Lord for the gifts he gives to his church in these men (cf. Eph. 4:11ff; Gal. 6:6:6ff), and let us pray for them.  May the Lord support his servants of the Word and give them wisdom, biblical clarity, and Christ-honoring fidelity as they write the books we will read.  May Christ receive all the glory as these books edify the church.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Doctoral Reading List: The Mountain and the Molehill

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

The Mountain: A Systematic Reading List

Standing in his study, talking about doctoral studies, Southern Seminary professor Dr. Mark Seifrid commented that the doctoral degree is much like climbing a mountain.  In every discipline, there is a mountain of scholarly literature that must be traversed.  It is the academic responsibility of every student to summit that mountain.  Standing at the base of that mountain with sparse climbing gear in hand, I am daunted by the task. 

So walking by faith, and not by sight, I have uploaded a new page on Via Emmaus that lists the systematic reading list at Southern.  I include this page in order to record comments about these resources as I study and to share with others who are interested in theological studies.  Its intent is to help me catalog thoughts about the material as I go through, and I hope it may help others who love God and enjoy theology.

A little explanation of the list:  First of all, I cannot take credit for its compilation, that goes to the systematic professors at Southern Seminary.  It is the comprehensive examination list of books for which every doctoral student is responsible.  It is sub-divided according to theological loci, and it contains some of the best reading material in each area of systematic theology.  It is not a beginners list, but if you are looking for detailed works in an area of theology, this is a good starting place.   I hope to update these lists over time and to include more basic works.  Stay tuned.

The Molehill: A Selection of Evaluative Comments and Summaries on Selected Resources

The Molehill is simply my attempt at climbing the mountain.  In the months to come, I hope to add notes and comments evaluating these various resources and others.  More extended interaction will take place in blog posts; while links to the books will be found on the doctoral reading page, as well as, links to reviews of the materials.  But, I hope that, this is not a individual endeavor…

I would love to hear your comments about any of these works (and/or others) and their benefits or dangers to the church and the study of the Bible.  Maybe you are thinking about doctoral studies.  If so, I would encourage you to read John Stackhouse’s blog, “Thinking about a PhD?”  which has some great evaluative questions and to pray.  Even as I begin, I am reminded that knowledge puffs up, but love builds up (1 Cor. 8:1).  I pray that your theology and mine will fuel our love for Jesus, for the church, for one another, and for the lost.

To see the reading list check out “The Mountain and the Molehill.”

Sola Deo Gloria, dss