Check out this poem, which in my judgment is David Hamilton’s best effort to date: The Joys of Motherhood.
Revelation 3:1-6, Wake Up!
Thanks to Ross Shannon for recording and Josh Philpot for posting,
Sermon audio from this morning here: Revelation 3:1–6, Wake Up!
Dale Allison on Jesus as the Embodiment of God’s Will
This is just a plug for anyone interested in typology to go read Dale C. Allison Jr.’s fascinating essay, “The Embodiment of God’s Will: Jesus in Matthew,” in the volume Seeking the Identity of Jesus.
This is an essay that will repay careful study, and I expect to cite it a number of times.
Nursery Rhymes and the History of New Testament Scholarship
The evangelicals of the generation came to conservative conclusions, but they basically analyzed the texts the same way Bultmann does in that parody.
And something similar can be said today about this:
Review of John Nolland’s Commentary on Matthew
The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text by John Nolland. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Xcviii + 1481 pp. $80.00.
It is always interesting to read an editor’s preface to a commentary series. In editorial hands the series becomes unlike anything else—or almost anything else—and at the same time the volumes become everything and nothing! So while it may seem to most of us that of the making of many commentaries there is no end, these editors tell us that “very few attempts have been made to cater particularly to the needs of students of the Greek text.” Very few except for the AB, BECNT, Hermeneia, ICC, WBC, ZECNT, etc. Nolland’s volume on Matthew, like others in the NIGTC series, is over 1,500 pages long, well over 200 of which are bibliography, yet the NIGTC editors tell us that “The volumes of the NIGTC are for students who want something less technical than a full-scale critical commentary.” These volumes are to “make their own scholarly contribution” but “the supreme aim of this series is to serve those who are engaged in the ministry of the Word of God”—two goals not easily squared. They “attempt to treat all important problems of history, exegesis, and interpretation,” but they also “attempt to provide a theological understanding of the text, based on historical-critical-linguistic exegesis” (all quotes from xvi). So everything is promised—history, exegesis, theology, linguistics—but anyone who would wish for something more is warned that this is not “full-scale.” The editorial remarks may give us wry smiles, but there is no doubt that these NIGTC volumes will continue to be studied long after their authors have gone to their rewards.
John Nolland has now written major commentaries on Luke (WBC) and Matthew (NIGTC). He states that his work is redaction critical and gender inclusive, with a labored explanation of the latter (xviii–xix). He thinks Mark wrote first, that Matthew used Mark but not Luke, and that John did not have access to the Synoptics. Against the evidence of the heading, all Hengel’s argumentation, and all early tradition, indeed, in the face of all the evidence we have, Nolland thinks it “most unlikely” that the apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel (4). He thinks Matthew was written before the destruction of the temple in AD 70, even “before the beginnings of the buildup to the Jewish war” (17). The likeness between the Gospels and ancient biographies “is only slight” (19). Matthew presents his story of Jesus as the continuation and culmination of the story of God’s dealings with Israel. The Gospel cannot be usefully compared with Jewish midrash (21). The subtle allusions and complex cross references indicate that Matthew thought his Gospel would be repeatedly and carefully studied (22).
There is much to be learned from this commentary, and I especially appreciate Nolland’s comments on Matthew’s use of repetition, framing statements, and chiastic structures. The discussion of Matthew’s interpretation of the Old Testament is one of the best summaries of that topic to be found. Jesus was called out of Egypt (Matt 2:15) as the typological fulfillment of Israel, God’s “Son” (123).
Matthew 5:33–37 calls the disciples of Jesus to avoid oaths, but not to defy legal requirements (247–52). As for “the rock” on which Jesus builds the church, Nolland sees the apostles playing an “unrepeatable role” with Peter having “some kind of primacy among them.” This, however, does not exclude the possibility of “a Peter figure from generation to generation” (670). The gates of hell will not stand against the church in the sense that “through the outreach of the church Hades will be forced to give up its claim on such people” (676).
The statement about the angels in Matthew 18:10 does not mean that only little ones have angels but that they do not lack representation (741). Nolland interprets the singular “let him be to you [sg.] as a Gentile or tax collector” in Matthew 18:17 not as a reference to the united congregation but rather as “a stance . . . actually prescribed only for the one who had the initial awareness of the problem” (747). On the statement in Matthew 24:34 about “this generation” not passing away, Nolland asserts that the term “consistently refers to (the time span of) a single human generation. All the alternative senses proposed here (the Jewish people; humanity; the generation of the end-time signs; wicked people) are artificial and based on the need to protect Jesus from error” (988–89). I am not sure he has adequately accounted for the term’s range of meaning, but I am sure that here, and in the comments on 24:36 where Jesus asserts that only the Father knows the day and hour, I found myself wishing for more of that theological interpretation, or at least discussion, promised by the editors of the series in their preface.
I am also sure that John Nolland is to be congratulated for the careful reading of Matthew that he has given us in this commentary. This volume is no small accomplishment, and it will take its place alongside the standard commentaries on Matthew, next to France, Hagner, and Davies and Allision. There will be more evangelical options, such as David Turner’s volume in the BECNT and D. A. Carson’s in the revised EBC. Students and scholars will find much to provoke their thinking in Nolland’s work. It is unfortunate that the price is as thick as the Index of Subjects and Modern Authors are thin. Those who engage “in the ministry of the Word of God and thus to glorify God’s name” (xvi) will be grateful for this volume, which provides a wealth of help, fulfilling the supreme aim of the NIGTC series.
Revelation 2:18-29, King Jesus Versus Jezebel
This morning’s sermon audio is up here: Revelation 2:18–29, King Jesus Versus Jezebel
The first few words didn’t make it onto the recording, and what was missed was my introducing the quotation that opens the sermon as coming from Joseph J. Ellis’s book, Founding Brothers.
May the Lord bless his word.
Review of Encounters with Biblical Theology by John J. Collins
Encounters with Biblical Theology. By John J. Collins. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005, 243 pp., $22.00.
John J. Collins of Yale (not to be confused with C. John Collins of Covenant Seminary) is a believer. He believes in historical criticism (22). He believes in Troeltsch (12). He believes in archeology (5). He believes that the Israelite conquest of Canaan was immoral genocide (5). He believes that the Bible’s historical claims have been shown to be erroneous (4). He believes that the Bible testifies that God can be known “apart from the distinctive testimony of Israel” (6). He believes his moral code is superior to one in which Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac is “depicted as a heroic act of faith” (7, cf. 57–58), and one that leads “to the subordination of women” (21). He believes that the Bible remains significant for modern culture, but that it “must be approached with caution.” The Bible cannot be ignored, but “It is also too dangerous to be removed from public discussion and relegated to the realm of unquestioned belief and acceptance” (7).
Collins knows that he has presuppositions (22), but he has not sufficiently sifted that knowledge. What I mean is that the above paragraph demonstrates that Collins has what amounts to a confession of faith. He has embraced what he considers to be an orthodox position. He does not believe in historic Christianity, and his orthodoxy is not Christian orthodoxy. But in Encounters with Biblical Theology he clearly states what he believes in and what he considers to be orthodox. Apparently he does not realize that his own affirmations and denials constitute a confession of faith. So he affirms everything in the paragraph above, all of which fits the Orthodoxy of Modern Protestant Liberalism, but he does not realize the way this makes him contradict himself.
For instance, Collins asserts that he rejects “a view of biblical theology as a confessional enterprise” (2). What he seems to mean is that he rejects a view of biblical theology that fits with positions embraced by historic Christian orthodoxy. But Christianity is not the only confessional position in existence. Collins believes in historical criticism, Troeltsch, and archeology, and he pursues what he calls biblical theology from that confessional position. So he claims to reject the very enterprise he pursues. In reality, though, he has made himself an exception. It is as though he is saying: all confessional approaches to biblical theology except mine are rejected. Collins unconsciously privileges his own religion, then asserts that no one else is allowed to do biblical theology from their religious perspective. Is this critical? Is this open-minded?
Collins writes, “Whether or not one can conceive of a biblical theology grounded in historical criticism obviously depends on whether one insists on a faith commitment that exempts some positions from criticism” (3). But Collins himself has exempted historical criticism, Troeltsch, and archeology from criticism. Or perhaps more accurately, Collins believes so firmly in historical criticism, Troeltsch, and archeology that however they might be criticized, what he believes in overcomes all opposition and defeats all challenges. I wonder whether he has considered the possibility that those who embrace historic Christian orthodoxy might be convinced that however their positions may be criticized, what they believe in defeats all challenges and overcomes all opposition? I wonder if he thinks it possible that our demurrals from his confessionalism, his orthodoxy, result not from closed-mindedness but from different appraisals of the available evidence?
This issue of closed-mindedness is another area where it seems that Collins has contradicted himself. He states, “One of the great strengths of historical criticism has been that it has created an arena where people with different faith commitments can work together” (4). But this is simply not the case, as shown by the next sentence: “The bracketing of religious identities and faith commitments has allowed dispassionate assessment of historical and literary questions, even when this might seem subversive to the religious identities in question” (4). So historical criticism is only open to those who bracket out their faith commitments when they assess historical questions. Collins lauds this conversation where the results subvert religious identities, but what if the dialogue were to support religious identities? That is not a conversation Collins will have. He wants faith commitments bracketed out. But Collins does not bracket out his faith in Troeltsch. He would probably reply that Troeltsch’s methodology is so clearly superior to other approaches that rejecting it will lead to false conclusions. It seems to me, however, that Collins’s own presentation of Troeltsch’s methodology asserts a faulty premise, assumes its conclusions, and contradicts itself. I highlight the first two of Troeltsch’s principles as summarized by Collins:
“(1) The principle of criticism or methodological doubt: since any conclusion is subject to revision, historical inquiry can never attain absolute certainty but only relative degrees of probability. (2) The principle of analogy: historical knowledge is possible because all events are similar in principle. We must assume that the laws of nature in biblical times were the same as now. Troeltsch referred to this as ‘the almighty power of analogy’” (12).
Principles one and two here are in contradiction to one another because principle one advocates “methodological doubt” while principle two asserts the certainty of “the almighty power of analogy.” We must doubt everything except the fact that “the laws of nature in biblical times were the same as now.” These principles present that classic sophomoric assertion that there are no absolutes, except, of course, for the absolute that there are no absolutes. Collins has presented a methodology that assumes its conclusion. By these rules the possibility that the supernatural accounts in the Bible are true is excluded a priori. In other words, Collins does not engage in study that is open to all exegetical possibilities. Rather, he engages in study that is constrained by his confessional commitments such that it will always produce results in keeping with the orthodoxy he has embraced.
Collins does not seem to recognize the power his own confessional position holds over him. He actually writes, “One criterion for the adequacy of presuppositions is the degree to which they allow dialogue between differing viewpoints and accommodate new insights. . . . All conclusions are subject to revision in the light of new evidence and arguments. This openness to revision is the trademark that distinguishes critical method from dogmatism of any sort” (16). Any sort of dogmatism, that is, except the dogmatism that everything is to be doubted except “the almighty power of analogy.” And this “principle of analogy” is the faulty premise I mentioned above. Is there an analogy for Shakespeare or Dante? Is there an analogy for Waterloo or September 11? Then does there need to be analogy for Jesus walking on the water or Moses parting the Red Sea? Who would believe that Beethoven could compose his Ninth Symphony while totally deaf? Where is the analogy for Milton writing Paradise Lost without the ability to read his own lines? I am not suggesting that all these instances are equal, but in a world where these kinds of things happen, is it so hard to believe that Jesus could be raised from the dead? And if he could be raised from the dead, could he not have fed the five thousand? Reality is stranger than fiction, and the world is bigger than the explanatory power of this “principle of analogy.” To assert that it is “almighty” is to take a leap of faith that requires more credulity than that paid by those who embrace historic Christian orthodoxy.
Collins thinks that the dogmatism he has embraced allows dialogue and accommodates new insights, and it does, as long as that dialogue does not include possibilities that would support historic Christian orthodoxy, and as long as the insights do not come from any who embrace that confession rather than the one Collins finds compelling. But is that open dialogue? One searches the index of this volume in vain for evangelical biblical theologians such as Block or Bock, Carson or Dempster, Hafemann or House, Schlatter or Schreiner, Scobie or Seifrid, Thielman or Thistleton, Vanhoozer or Yarbrough. Nor is N. T. Wright privileged to participate in this “open” conversation Collins conducts with himself and the other members of the Church of Historical Criticism.
Nor does Collins contribute to biblical theology, since his faith commitments have apparently kept him from understanding this world where Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac is heroic, where the conquest of Canaan visits God’s righteous judgment against those who have committed the most heinous crime in the universe—that of refusing to honor God as God or give thanks to him. Collins does not understand the world-view that sees hierarchical relations between men and women as beautiful expressions of God’s own glory. And in spite of his insinuations that he is objective and dispassionate, he is not. Is it dispassionate to assert that the Bible is dangerous if it is believed?
What Collins calls biblical theology is more accurately termed “reception history.” He writes, “What does lie within the competence of biblical theologians, and what should engage us much more than it has traditionally, is the pragmatic study of the effects of biblical texts, and the metaphysical affirmations contained in them, on human behavior and society” (6, cf. 22). That is a valid form of study, but it is not biblical theology.
Collins is, of course, a learned scholar, and I have learned much from his writings. I think of his Hermeneia commentary on Daniel, in particular. It is sad that Collins thinks he is rejecting confessionalism while embracing a confession. Even more sad is the pitiful, contradictory, hopeless nature of the confession embraced by such a fine scholar. This is the essence of tragedy. When greatness defiles and ruins itself with what is unworthy. Collins is living out the role of the tragic hero. I am truly sad to say it, but it seems to me that John Collins does not understand the implications of his own positions, does not understand the world in which he lives, does not understand the world-view advocated by the texts he has spent his life studying, and does not understand the difference between biblical theology and the history of religions. His only hope is to apply the hermeneutic of suspicion to his own positions and demonstrate a genuine openness to all interpretive possibilities, including those that fit with the idea that Jesus was God incarnate who died on the cross to pay the penalty for sin and was raised from the dead to accomplish salvation for all who would trust in him.
Revelation 2:12-17, Repent of Nicolaitan Teaching
Sermon audio from yesterday morning (link fixed) here: Revelation 2:12–17, Repent of Nicolaitan Teaching
My Tweet Was Too Long, So
Gospel Haiku
Pure God, sinful man.
Jesus took the penalty.
Trust him or face wrath.
Twittering the Gospel
Greg Gilbert has started a contest to see who twitters the best gospel. Since there is no better gospel, maybe I should say “to see who twitters the gospel best”!
I don’t tweet, so I don’t know how it works. If they count the spaces, I’m over the limit. If the spaces aren’t counted, I come in at 139 characters. Here’s my attempt:
God is holy Sin is ugly
Jesus did everything right
God sent Jesus Jesus loves me
Tho’ I was vile in his sight
He bore the cross he paid the price
You must trust him to be right
I bet someone could do a Haiku that’s even shorter. Maybe I’ll give that a try. . .
Revelation 2:8-11, Faithful unto Death
Only Jesus has the necessary authority to call people to be faithful unto death. Commanding people to be faithful unto death announces that it is better to be faithful to Jesus than it is to go on living. Only Jesus can make that announcement. Only Jesus can adequately reward that kind of sacrifice.
The death that results from faithfulness to Christ points to the only life worth living: the life of faithfulness to Jesus.
Audio from this morning here: Revelation 2:8–11, Faithful unto Death
Towers Article on David Hamilton’s Gospel Dunk
My brother is the Assistant Coach of the Boyce Bulldogs basketball team, and he played with the team when they recently visited a prison to play an exhibition game and share the gospel.
This story in the Towers relates how a nasty dunk opened the door for him to proclaim the gospel.
In Siloam Springs, AR on Wednesday, April 29
Tomorrow night I’ll be speaking at the Activate Conference at Harvard Avenue Baptist Church on “Missional Living in the Home and Beyond.”
If you’re in the northwest part of the natural state, it would be great to see you there!
Seven Reasons You Should Read Tom Schreiner’s New Testament Theology
1) More than any other reason, you should read this book because it will help you understand the Bible, which will help you know God as he is revealed in Jesus by the power of the Spirit.
2) Schreiner’s massive knowledge of texts in context will inspire you to know your Bible better.
3) The way that Schreiner situates texts in both near and broad context will help you understand both the New and Old Testaments as you continually study your Bible.
4) Schreiner’s impressive command of scholarly literature will spur you to pay better and closer attention to the things that other scholars say about the Bible.
5) Schreiner’s incisive comments on a myriad of scholarly debates, places where he describes some scholarly dispute then carefully navigates what can be known and/or takes a decisive stand will inspire you to pursue the balance of recognizing the limits of knowledge while having the backbone to take a position.
6) Schreiner’s willingness to criticize arguments that would support conservative positions will encourage you to evaluate arguments on the basis of their strength and merit rather than on the basis of whether or not you prefer the conclusion the argument supports.
7) This may sound like #2, but it is actually slightly different: reading this book will make you want to go back to your Bible to read and re-read it with more care and attention.
Was Joseph a Type of Christ?
I think so, and I try to prove it in this essay: “Was Joseph a Type of the Messiah? Tracing the Typological Identification between Joseph, David, and Jesus,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 12.4 (2008), 52-77.
The gist of my article is this: From the reuse of key words and phrases (linguistic connections) and from parallels in significant event sequences (historical correspondence) we can see that the author(s) of the narratives concerning David in Samuel deliberately sought to point their readers to the narratives concerning Joseph in Genesis. Thus, the author(s) of Samuel saw Joseph as a type of David, and the two play similar roles in the outworking of salvation history. We find the same kinds of linguistic connections and parallels in event sequences between the narratives about Joseph and the narratives about Jesus, and Jesus fulfilled everything to which both David and Joseph pointed (escalation). Thus, Joseph was first a type of David, and then both Joseph and David were types of Jesus. In my judgment, this provides the necessary textual warrant to demonstrate both historical correspondence and escalation from Joseph through David to Jesus.
For the details, check out the essay: “Was Joseph a Type of the Messiah? Tracing the Typological Identification between Joseph, David, and Jesus.”
Here are my other attempts to exposit the typological interpretation practiced by the biblical authors in the Old and New Testaments:
“The Typology of David’s Rise to Power: Messianic Patterns in the Book of Samuel,” a Julius Brown Gay Lecture presented at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,” March 13, 2008.
“The Virgin Will Conceive: Typological Fulfillment in Matthew 1:18-23,” in Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, ed. John Nolland and Dan Gurtner, 228-47. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Toward a Great Commission Resurgence
Good New Stuff on the Bible
I’m glad to see the appearance of Ancient Word, Changing Worlds: The Doctrine of Scripture in a Modern Age by Stephen Nichols and Eric Brandt. Anyone who wants to understand the disputes in North America over Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Interpretation in the last 125 years should praise God for this handy book!
The latest issue of Themelios came out today. I’ve been waiting for it to appear because I had the opportunity to read a pre-publication draft of Robert Yarbrough’s courageous and hard hitting essay, The Embattled Bible: Four More Books. Highly recommended.
There are several other articles I’m eager to get to in this issue. Check it out.
Revelation 2:1-7, First Love
Sermon audio from this morning here: Revelation 2:1–7, First Love
And if you go to this page or this page you can RSS the sermon audio updates.
May the Lord add his blessing to the preaching of his word.
SBC Messianic Fellowship
For those coming in early for the SBC this summer, it would be great to have you join me on Saturday, June 20 from 1:25pm to 4:30 for two sessions at the SBC Messianic Fellowship Meeting. Come ready to study the Twelve Prophets! (some of them, anyway).
Samson Crushed the Philistines, and They Wanted Entertainment
My colleague, Charles Halton, has a fascinating study of a pun in Judges 16:25-27 in the most recent issue of the Journal of Biblical Literature.
The play on words involves two verbs that sound virtually the same except that one begins with “s” (sin) and the other begins with “sh” (shin). The verb in the text is related to Isaac’s name, which has to do with laughter, so the translations relate how Samson was summoned to “entertain” the Philistines. The related verb, the one that starts with the “sh” sound, means “crush,” which is exactly what Samson did to the Philistines when he brought down the house.
You can get the teaser video here, and his post has the link to his article in JBL.
I think this fits with the wider theme of the Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman.