Your Old Testament Sermon Needs to Get Saved - By David King

 

I've known something about the "Christocentric" hermeneutic for many years now.  I need to admit up front that I've always disagreed with it in theory, but have never really fully formulated why I disagree with it.  I saw 'Your Old Testament Sermon Needs to Get Saved' by David King and figured that it would be good chance to read the whole argument for Christocentrism in preaching and think it through more thoroughly.  

One of the main arguments that King makes for a Christocentric interpretation of everything is the Lordship of Jesus.  "We start with the simple but sweeping confession: Jesus is Lord. Take a second to ponder the weight of that three word sentence.  Could there be a more persuasive argument for preaching Christ from the Old Testament? If Jesus is Lord, then He is Lord over the Old Testament - and Lord over our Old Testament sermons, too." At first, it was hard to figure out how to reply to such an argument. A lot of the arguments in the book are similar to the one above in that they seem to be made up of 'gotcha' questions and statements, such that you feel wrong disagreeing with them.  Here are some other snippets:  

"do you believe that there are portions of the Old Testament that have nothing to do with Jesus?" 

"If Christ is the final word from God, then all previous words lead to Him"

"Everything about the Old Testament flows to and through Jesus."

 These arguments are too vague. Take for instance the first one, that Jesus is Lord.  Of course Jesus is Lord! But what does that entail? One could use a similar argument to say that since He is Lord over everything then He is Lord of any secular book too, such as Moby Dick. Should we preach Christ from Moby Dick?  Should we preach him from Star Wars?

And then of course you have the "Emmaus road" argument, "And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."(Luk 24:27 ASV) I've always read that to mean that Jesus pointed out that the Scriptures had clearly prophesied about Him, and that He went through the Scriptures and showed them the particular places that prophesied of Himself, not that He showed them that He was in (or the point of) EVERY SINGLE THING written in them. King also uses what Christ said later that night to try to further his point: "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."(24:44-47). I have always read "everything written about me" as a clarification, that all of the prophecies of Christ in those books must be fulfilled, not that those books were prophesying about Him in everything they said. I've never read those passages as if they said, "Everything in the Law of Moses, the prophets and Psalms was speaking of Me." Or "He showed them that everything that the prophets wrote, and everything written in the Scriptures concerned Himself."  I see "the things concerning Himself" and "everything written about me" as narrowing the focus to particular passages, not encompassing everything in the law, prophets and Psalms. 

Next, the author says that "the apostles adopted a broad prophetic understanding of the Old Testament". The illustrative verse used for this section is Matthew's pointing out the fulfillment of a prophecy in Hosea, "Out of Egypt have I called my Son", in Mary and Joseph taking Jesus and coming back to Israel after having gone to Egypt in obedience to God's command to Joseph to flee there. Many commentators have thought that Matthew was viewing "Israel" as a type of Christ because the statement before "out of Egypt I called My Son" says,"When Israel was a child, then I loved him" (Hosea 11:1).  I don't see that Matthew absolutely has to be viewed as interpreting a passage about Israel by applying it to Christ - one could make the case that the juvenile Israel who was loved is not the same as the Son who was called from out of Egypt.  Especially since Matthew only specifically states that the return of Mary, Joseph and Jesus from Egypt was fulfilled by the particular statement "out of Egypt I called My Son" and he doesn't mention that it fulfills the statement about God loving Israel when Israel was a child. 

King states that,"Christ can be proclaimed from old Testament texts in a manner that pushes the boundaries of our own prophetic understanding. Matthew wasn't mistaken." I agree, Matthew wasn't mistaken but I don't see that he was necessarily pushing the boundaries, and I would probably argue the same about any other prophecy. I think that more, perhaps all, of the "Messianic prophecies" are more explicitly speaking of Christ than many people assume. Many seem to think that some of the Old Testament texts quoted in the New are not explicitly speaking of Christ but had a 'secondary fulfillment' in Christ, that they had 'double' fulfillments. I think that a case can be made for assuming that any Old Testament texts that are said, in the New Testament, to be speaking of Christ are direct prophecies of Christ and  that we need to align our understanding and study of those texts around that assumption. Even Christ called his Jewish disciples fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets had spoken(Luke 24:25), I rather think that heavily implies that the prophecies that spoke of Him were very plain, very obvious. 

King thinks that if Christ is not preached in every sermon, then you are preaching a "synagogue sermon", not a Christian sermon.  "…. you must consider whether the Father means for His Son to be preached as an appendix to the sermon rather than as the heart. Until the conclusion, such sermons are suitable for the synagogue." He seems to think that 2 Timothy 3:15-17 (Are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathe out by God and is profitable for teaching…") supports his point.  "To be just a tad provocative, Paul isn't saying that all Scripture is profitable for making us competent Jews. He's saying that all Scripture is profitable for making us competent Christians. And we don't have to infer that this is what Paul means - he states it plainly. The sacred writings, he says, are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."  Why would we assume that the Scriptures are only profitable (and wise for salvation) for Christians if you preach Christ from every text, rather than preach what the text says?

 What if a pastor is preaching through the book of Ezra, and on this particular Sunday he is in Ezra chapter one and he doesn't preach Christ as THE POINT of these texts. Rather, after exegeting the text, he applies it by talking about how God's promises and prophecies always come to pass, and he goes on to emphasize the greatness of God, and how every single detail of His prophecies come to pass; he reminds the people that later down the line every detail about the Messiah and His salvation would happen exactly as foretold but he doesn't focus on this, he just mentions it, and moves back to talking about how God does exactly what He says, how God is sovereign even over our salvation, reminding this Christian congregation that they ought never to doubt God, they should always trust Him.  Was that not training in righteousness? Or was it not because the pastor applied the text by focusing upon God's sovereignty rather than on Jesus Christ and His redemptive work? 

 Even if one does believe that one should preach Christ from every text, King warns that one can preach too much of Christ or too little of Him, you can also do it in a "kooky" way (finding Christ in the wood of Noah's ark, that the wood symbolizes the cross).   "The path between the text and Christ is not found in a twister hermeneutic. Our goal instead is to understand how the text is fulfilled in Jesus." I don't understand. Why would finding Christ in the wood of Noah's ark be wrong? The more you see of Christ the better, right? Here's another excerpt from the book which might help you understand my confusion: "Jesus drives an interpretive stake in the ground by in asserting that all the Old testament is fulfilled in Him. In other words, Jesus changes how we read the Old Testament. Not just parts of the Old Testament, but all of it is fulfilled in Him! Every dot and iota of every passage - every jot and tittle…..Jesus' fulfillment language here clearly goes beyond obvious messianic promises and prophecies and patterns. It includes everything!……Jesus is the goal of every detail in the Bible."  I don't understand, based on arguments like this, how you could go wrong with connecting Christ to every single thing in the Old Testament. 

King says that, "Failing to preach Christ from the Old Testament is a serious problem. It's exegetically and theologically wrong. It dishonors Jesus as the fulfillment of Scripture and the centerpiece of salvation history.  It leads people astray by perpetuating a Christless notion of Old Testament and, worse, by inadvertently directing them to rely on God, or even themselves apart from Christ."  I don't understand these statements. I don't think I know of any pastor  who promotes the idea that Christ was never spoken of or referred to in the Old Testament. Nor do I understand how they would rely on God or themselves apart from Christ. I have actually noticed that "seeing Christ" and focusing on Him has become THE MOST important thing in some Christians' goals over and above God's plain revelation in any given text (even over and above revelation coming directly from Christ Himself). What a text truly says becomes irrelevant as long as someone's view of Christ is built up, as long as Christ is magnified, it doesn't really seem to matter what the any given text actually says. 

Let me critique one more thing in particular. The author uses Jeremiah 29:11 as an example of how to preach Christ from any given text. "…God's plans for the welfare of exiled Israel is a prophetic promise. Since all the promises of God find their Yes in Christ (2 Cor 1:20), you must locate the fulfillment of this verse not in modern-day Israel, or America, or in any other nation-state but in Jesus and, by extension, those who are united to Jesus through faith. Whether Israeli, or Palestinian, American…..a person receives the benefits of Jeremiah 29:11 only in Christ."  I agree that one mustn't locate the fulfillment in modern day Israel (as if it were already fulfilled) or America, or any other nation-state. But I do believe that the fulfillment, whether past or future, will have happened to Jews, the ethnic descendants of Jacob, and not to Gentiles.  A few verses later on seem to explain what the fulfillment of this verse would look like (after Israel has called upon the Lord with all their heart): "And I will be found of you, saith Jehovah, and I will turn again your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith Jehovah; and I will bring you again unto the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive."(Jer 29:14 ASV)     

The people of Israel were promised that they would be gathered from all the lands and brought back to Israel when they seek the Lord wholeheartedly.  The promise to return them to the land is repeated many times in the Old Testament (Deut. 30,Ezek 37,36,39, 39,  Jeremiah 23: 1-8, Amos 9…etc.).  But of course, the Israelites cannot seek God with their whole heart on their own, apart from His grace. Because of their innate inability to make themselves seek Him, will what God repeatedly told Israel through the prophets about their being brought back to the land permanently never come true? That's absurd! The days are coming when those prophecies will be fulfilled. Though many individual people of all ethnicities are the beneficiaries of the New Covenant at present, one day God is going to establish the New Covenant with Israel as a nation (Jeremiah32:36-44, 31:31-37)). God clarifies in His prophecies through the prophet Ezekiel that He is not going to act favorably toward them because they have all of a sudden changed and are now seeking Him, Oh no! there is no indication that they have changed themselves for the better. Rather, God says that He will act Himself, not doing it for their sake but for His holy name, He will create in them the required conditions of the fulfillment of the promise to bring them back to the land of Israel: "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep mine ordinances, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God."(Eze 36:26-28 ASV)  He also said this through the prophet Jeremiah: "Behold, I will gather them from all the countries to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation. I will bring them back to this place, and I will make them dwell in safety. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul. 'For thus says the LORD: Just as I have brought all this great disaster upon this people, so I will bring upon them all the good that I promise them.'"(Jer 32:37-42 ESV) Even in the more famous New Covenant prophecy in Jeremiah 31, after having promised to make a New Covenant with Israel, God emphasizes that ethnic Israel will always be a nation before Him, that He will not fully cast them off despite all that they had done.

And thus Paul(Romans 9-12) explains to the Roman Christians that God is still going to do what He promised to the Jews as a people, and that Christian Gentiles shouldn't become arrogant toward the Jews, emphasizing that God will one day save the whole nation of Israel, through Christ's salvatory work just as He saves us individually through that work (11:26-27): "And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, 'The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob'; 'and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.'" (Rom 11:26-27 ESV) And I say all of that to make the point that I don't believe that one can make a true biblical case that Christian Gentiles are ultimately the ones addressed in that particular promise in Jeremiah 29, and also to note that many Christians seem to have already arrived at what Paul warned against: them becoming arrogant toward the Jews (Rom 11:25-36), as though God is fully done with the ethnic descendants of Jacob as a people and that He has replaced them with the 'true Israel': the church.  

This is quite long so I had better wrap up.  My last argument against a christocentric hermeneutic is that Jesus Himself didn't preach Himself from every Old Testament text. For instance, in Matthew 24:15, Jesus spoke of Daniel's prophecy of the Abomination of Desolation, He didn't preach Himself from that text, He told the people what to do when it came to pass. When you see the abomination, run! He demonstrated that He didn't read it as a symbol of something spiritual, or of Himself in some way, but rather as a particular thing that would happen in the future that they were supposed to be watching out for.  I don't see how anyone is dishonoring God and not respecting Christ's Lordship by preaching what the text says, obeying God's will, submitting to His sovereignty, obeying Jesus' commands, mimicking good examples of faith, believing all of the prophecies (including Christ's Revelation to the churches about things to come) and even just by reading the historical accounts and 'seeing' what God ordained to happen in the past.  What does Jesus command? Do it. Where did Jesus look and point to? The Father. So should we. Jesus honored the Scriptures, preaching them as though they meant what they said, pointing out that people were not understanding their plain meaning, not their hidden meaning. We don't want to be guilty of the same.

Many thanks to the folks at Moody Publishers for sending me a free review copy of this book! (My review did not have to be favorable)

This book may be purchased at Amazon.com

Quote of the Day

"A fellow lecturer told his Bible class that it did not matter whether the biblical character Job was real or fictional.  For him, the point off Job's book is to teach us about suffering, and the historicity of Job is immaterial to that lesson.  I cannot disagree more strongly, and hopefully this illustration will help clarify why. 

Suppose you are going through a difficult time in your life.  Perhaps it is from the death of a close relative or you struggle with debilitating illness. Just like the psalmist who felt abandoned by God in his deepest time of need, you feel lost and adrift in your suffering, with no sense of God's care.  In this state, you ask me to bring you wise counsel and comfort.

I tell you a story about a man who built a spaceship to travel to Venus.  Due to a technological breakthrough, he was able to equip his vessel with heat-resistant panels, making it safe to venture close to the sun.  Unfortunately, along the way the panels failed and his eyes were burned out of their sockets.  With all hope seemingly lost, in his despair he called out for help and God rescued him.

What would your reaction be to my story?  Would you thank me for the incredible comfort I gave you?  Or would you look at me with a glare, wondering how I expect this silly story to assist you?....Fiction can provide little comfort for the realities of life.  It is akin to telling someone struggling through financial difficulty, "Don't worry, you'll win the lottery."  Or to a man who lost his legs in a car accident, "Let me read you a story about a man who drank some sugar water and his legs grew back overnight."

The real God of creation acts in the real events of human history.  Our Christian faith is not rooted in esoteric platitudes or ethereal propositional truths to which we grant our mental assent.  Our faith is rooted in concrete experiences, with God breaking into history in amazing ways…"

- Victor Kuligin - From his book: Snubbing God: The High Cost of Rejecting God's Created Order

See more quotes on my quote collection blog: https://snickerdoodlesquotes.blogspot.com/

Promises of God Storybook Bible by Jennifer Lyell

The Promises of God Storybook Bible is a high level overview of many of the accounts in the Bible aimed at children. I liked several aspects of it, for one, it doesn't shy away from teaching what many would consider 'deep' truths, that even adults struggle with.  It seems to go by the premise that kids will take God's word in faith (as we all must do). Here are some excerpts to illustrate this, "…He is only one God, but He has three persons that are all completely that one God" and, "He has always known every single thing that was going to happen, and nothing ever happens without His permission.  That means when we hear about something that happened in the Bible, where someone disobeyed God or it seems like God's plans were messed up, God's plans were never messed up. "  It doesn't shy away from concepts of God's sovereignty, for instance in dealing with Rahab the harlot it says, "God had made it so that Rahab would hear all these things, and then He changed her heart to want to follow Him."

At first I was afraid that this book would promote, or at least leave room for, Creation taking place for millions of years.  At first it seemed that it was at least leaving room for that concept as it didn't initially describe six "days", but then it actually did seem to get more specific: "God filled the water with fish and animals that swim!  Big fish and little fish.  They were all created in one second because He said they should exist." Okay, the term "One second" certainly doesn't leave room for evolution! I do wish that it would have clarified creation as taking place in six days though.

This book needs some clarification/corrective commentary if read to/by kids.  I'll give a few examples:  For one thing, the book seems to assume that there were sacrifices for sin before the Mosaic law.  It teaches that God told Abraham to kill Isaac as a sacrifice for sin. I don't remember God specifying that it would be a sacrifice for sin, just that he was to offer Isaac up as a burnt offering (were all 'burnt offerings' sacrifices for sin?).  Also, later on, in dealing with Moses, after he flees Egypt, "The Bible doesn't tell us for sure, but it seems that during this time Moses asked God's forgiveness for killing the Egyptian and made the sacrifice he had to make for that sin."  Again, perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought that sin sacrifices, in particular, were not instituted by God until the Mosaic law.   

It also reads things into some of the accounts.  For instance, it talks about Abraham being worried that God really as going to make him kill his own son.  "His heart must have been beating so hard, and he was probably had tears in his eyes as he worried that maybe God really was going to make him kill his own son." The Bible doesn't say that Abraham was worried that he MIGHT have to actually kill his son, he actually didn't seem to have any question as to whether or not he would have to kill his son, rather he seemed to have instantly made up his mind that he would kill his son because God had told him to do it.  He was all in, also evidenced by his contemplating that God can even bring people back from the dead. 

In the illustrations, Aaron looks significantly younger than Moses - that seems weird as Aaron was older than Moses.  Also, and I expected this, but there are illustrations of Christ.  I always feel a bit uncomfortable with depictions of Christ, and still do - especially with cartoon illustrations.  These aren't as strange and irreverent seeming as some (Beginner's Bible), but still make me uneasy. 

Anyway, this book is sort of an overview/ paraphrase with some interpretative commentary thrown in.

Many thanks to the folks at B&H publishers for sending me a free review copy of this book. My review did not have to be favorable.

My Rating: Three Stars ***

This book may be purchased at Christianbook.com and Amazon.com

Trinity Without Hierarchy edited by Michael F. Bird and Scott Harrower

I have noticed, recently, that there is some sort of proposition going around (particularly in relation to man/woman husband/wife relationships) that the Trinity does not have any authoritative order, especially, that there is no subordination among the Persons of the Trinity.   When I received a notice that I could get a review copy of this book of collected essays by many people: Trinity Without Hierarchy: Reclaiming Nicene Orthodoxy in Evangelical Theology edited by Michael F. Bird and Scott Harrower , my dad wanted me to get it and look into the topic.

I did not know that there was controversy over this particular topic, and I don't believe I've ever really considered it before.  I unconsciously have always assumed that God the Son does the will of God the Father, and that that is something that has always been the case, as that is what a basic reading of the Scriptures teaching on the Godhead seems to indicate.    After going through this book, I don't see any Scripturally compelling reason to change that viewpoint.  If you do not understand exactly what this viewpoint entails, you'll get the gist in my critique.

It seems that the main reason all this argument has come on the scene is because some evangelicals have been using the relationship of the Trinity to argue for complementarianism among the sexes. I agree, for the most part, with the authors of these articles that that is not a hermeneutically valid argument. The Trinity's relationship to each other does not necessitate human beings relating to each other in the same way.  

TRINITY NOT EQUAL IF THERE IS AUTHORITY AND SUBMISSION

I think the most compelling argument  they offer is that the Trinity is One and therefore there can be no significant differences among the Persons of the Godhead.  But, when looking at their arguments, I see some of the logic of it but I don't see it as overwhelmingly compelling biblically. 

Let me give you some quotations from the book to demonstrate some of their arguments and I'll comment on them:

"…To assert relations of authority and submission within a single divine will is similarly impossible:  authority and submission require a diversity of volitional faculties.  Where there is one single will, there can necessarily be no authority or submission."

 In other Words, we know that God the Father and the Son are one, have the exact same will and therefore there cannot be said to be authority or submission in that divine relationship. Now for my commentary:  I'm not sure that that is actually the case. Let me give you an illustration to demonstrate how that type of argument sounds to me: If a wife always agrees with every decision her husband makes, because he is her husband, and wants to do whatever his will is in everything, it isn't actually submission because she never disagrees with him? If she agrees with him in what he wants to do and submits to it, her husband doesn't actually have authority and she isn't actually submitting? I don't think that one can say that the husband has no authority and the wife is not submissive simply because the wife always obeys the husband and wants to do the same thing He does. 

I don't see how it is bionically inaccurate to say that God the Son willingly submits to God the Father because He is God the Father.  I don't see that Christ's complete willingness to do the Father's will indicates that Christ is not obeying the Father and that the Father is not authoritative. 

And my second quotation from the book, which is actually a quotation of a quotation that the author of this particular chapter makes about the Trinity, "neither with regard to nature nor activity is any distinction beheld".

Let me list some questions I have in regard to this statement which really make me reluctant to agree with it:

When the Son said, "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken Me?" (Matt 27:46), Did God the Father say the same thing to the Son? Say the Same thing to the Holy Spirit?  Did Christ and the Holy Spirit also separate from the Father? Forsake Him? Did the Father and Christ forsake the Holy Spirit?

When the Son says, "Not My will but Thine, be done"(Luke 22:42), does the Father at any point also say, "Not My Will but the Son's be done?"

At the end of time, God the Father puts everything under God the Son's feet (1 Cor 15:27). Does God the Father ever put everything under the Holy Spirit?  We also find that the Son Himself is then subjected to God the Father and the Bible makes it very clear that it is not a vice-versa thing. God the Father is NOT subjected to God the Son:  "Then  comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when he has brought to an end all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be eliminated is death. For he has put everything in subjection under his feet.  But when it says 'everything' has been put in subjection, it is clear that this does not include the one who put everything in subjection to him. And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all."(1 Corinthians 15:27-28 NET)

Some of the writers, to varying degrees, seem to concede some sort of submission but only as a part of the Trinity's plan to save people did Christ submit to the Father. But they seem to think that it wasn't quite God the Son who submitted.  At least that's what they seem to be saying.   It is posited that Jesus had a human will and a divine will and that "the human will of the Son is subordinate to the divine will." But can we actually separate His human will from His divine will? Where are we ever told that there was a discrepancy between Christ's human will and His divine one? Where are we ever given an indication that Christ ever had a Romans 7-like scenario? I know, I know, people will say, "in the Garden of Gethsemane!" (Luke 22:42).  But I see no Biblical reason to believe that that was actually God the Son in His humanity speaking separately from His Divinity.  Why would we assume that Jesus' flesh EVER 'took over' or 'manifested itself' over against His Divinity? Don't we believe that Christ's humanity was completely untainted by sin? That even His human nature, his flesh, did not include a tendency to sin?

To show how the book carries the thought further let me give you another quote: "It is Christ's humanity that will submit to the Father, not Christ's divinity." Jesus submitted His human will to the Father but not His divine will?  I am very, very nervous about that statement.  I see what they are trying to do, but I don't know that they have a biblical right to say that.  Why would we assume that when God the Son, embodied in flesh, ever speaks of Himself He isn't necessarily speaking of His WHOLE self, His 'real' Self, but merely of His physicality? It seems almost a direct contradiction to the texts about the Son talking about His submission to the Father to assert or think that He Himself wasn't actually submissive, that it was just His flesh that was subordinate.  Besides, wouldn't that make God the Son not 'wholly man', so His divinity is not actually joined with flesh? Couldn't it be used to say also that, when people are worshiping Christ, they are worshiping His humanity, not His divinity? That only God the Son, DISEMBODIED, is truly God?

"Eternal submission is to misunderstand the Son, and therefore diminish his glory, power and will…"  Who says? Where does the Bible say this? How does submitting to the Father diminish Christ's glory? It was veiled during the incarnation, but He always had it, right?  How does it diminish His power? His power over God the Father? Does it diminish the Son's will because the Father's will is done and not His in particular(even though the Scripture indicates that He wants the Father's will done)?

ETERNAL BEGOTTENESS OF THE SON BY THE FATHER

Another concept that is propounded throughout the book is the eternal 'generating' of the Son by the Father. It's a proposition of what we are actually supposed to be deducing from the terms "Father" and "Son" in the Godhead. The writers of this book seem to think that, though God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have always been God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, those terms specifically have reference to origin, not hierarchy.  That the Father eternally generates, or begets, the Son. "For the pro-Nicenes, the Father was 'first' among the three persons of the Trinity.  He is the one who generates the Son and who spirates 'the Spirit'."The Son was always eternally generated, eternally begotten by the Father before He was physically begotten in the flesh.  This is pretty much, solely, according to this book, the only thing we are to glean from the terms "Father" and "Son" in the Trinity.  As one of the essay writers puts it:  ""…there is nothing other than eternal generation that we can say of the Father-Son relation."

I don't understand how that is so definitive. Why is it that they can dogmatically say that the terms "Father" and "Son" only have reference to 'generation' and that they absolutely, positively, CANNOT possibly have reference to a hierarchy?  What if they actually do? What if that's EXACTLY what we are to understand about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? What if they really do mean that, though the Son is of the same essence as the Father, He is subordinate to the Father? And that both can be true at the same time? The New Testament presents that viewpoint, it indicates that God the Son submits to God the Father.

IS SUBMISSION GLORIOUS?

That leads me to another question, several questions, actually:  Is submission glorious? Can we say that it is not? Seeing that the Son humbled Himself and yet did not need to 'grasp' glory, as it were, because it was already His?   Is submission to the Father not a natural part of the divine Son's character? Why do we assume the Son is lesser if He eternally obeys the will of the Father? Isn't the Son doing a glorious thing in submitting to the Father? The Bible seems to plainly indicate that the Son's submission to the Father is a glorious, not a demeaning, thing.

Do we actually believe that there should be NO paradoxes in our understanding of God? That we should be able to completely understand everything about Him? That nothing about Him will go beyond our comprehension? The Bible seems to indicate that all the Persons of the Trinity are One and yet that having authority and submission among the Godhead does not negate that equality. 

Can we take everything the Bible says about God in simple faith, not having to understand everything about Him but simply believing that what God says about Himself is true?  And that everything God the Son, even in His incarnate state, says about Himself, is also true, and true about His whole Self, not merely about His physical self, even if it boggles our minds? Shouldn't we take Him at His Word?

When Christ says, "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30) and, "The Father is Greater than I" (John 14:28), Shouldn't our first response be to assume that both statements are wholly true of Him and not merely of His physical body but of His Divine nature as well?  And shouldn't we assume that, without our having to fully understand it, the Father being greater than the Son does not diminish the Son's glory or take away from His Oneness with the Father? 

CREEDS: THE AUTHORITY FOR OUR FAITH?

The book seems to make the case that Ancient 'Christian' Creeds and traditions are a part of forming our faith. That we ought not to depart from the writings and traditions of the early Christians who lived after the time of the Apostles.  I'll give you an example of what I am talking about by quoting the book again:

 "I am aware that some involved in defending EFS have also denied eternal generation; I do not have much to say about that except that to deny eternal generation is certainly to deny the doctrine of the Trinity, and, given that 'eternally begotten of the Father' is a confession of the Nicene Creed, is in grave danger of departing from what can meaningfully be called Christianity - it is, once again, to side with Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses in claiming that the Christian doctrine of God is unbiblical."

So if we depart from the conclusions and interpretations of ancient professing Christian writers we are departing from Christianity?  We can't just use the Bible, we have to agree with the interpretations of the Bible written by ancient professing Christians? This might sound horrible to say, but the Nicene Creed is not something that I hold to.  I don't think I even knew what it said before I read this book, and even then I don't remember a lot of it (don't think I could quote any of what I read verbatim), and I don't know what the whole thing says, but I don't feel guilty about that. The Nicene Creed, the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession…etc. are not, and never have been the Biblical measurement of faith.  And I think that's rather obvious as they do not form a part of the canon of Scripture. 

The writers of this compilation of essays seem dangerously close to canonizing the Nicene Creed.  I know that they would deny it, but, as saw from the above quotation,  they really seem to exalt it's authority.   I think that L. S. Chafer warned us well when he said: "It is a bad indication when, in any period, men will so exalt their confessions that they force the Scriptures to a secondary importance, illustrated in one era, when as Tulloch remarks: 'Scripture as a witness, disappeared behind the Augsburg Confession' ...No decrees of councils; no ordinances of synods; no 'standard' of doctrines; no creed or confession, is to be urged as authority in forming the opinions of men. They may be valuable for some purposes, but not for this; they may be referred to as interesting parts of history, but not to form the faith of Christians; they may be used in the church to express its belief, not to form it."

I must admit, this argument about the Trinity is a topic I'm nervous about as it seems too easy to come to a wrong conclusion about God, to be dogmatic where the Scripture is silent, going beyond the bounds of revelation. But I’m really scared of where these people are going with their argument as their foundation seems to be the Nicene Creed.  In the book, one of the writers states:  "It may be that EFS/ERAS is biblical and correct, but if it is, the classical Christian tradition of orthodox Trinitarians must inevitably be unbiblical and wrong."  But that shouldn't drastically shake us up because our faith shouldn't be based in the "classical Christian tradition" anyway, but in God's written Word.

Many thanks to the folks at Kregel Academic for providing me with a free review copy of this book (My review did not have to be favorable) 

My Rating: 1 out of 5 Stars

*

This book may be purchased at Christianbook.com and Amazon.com

Rediscovering Scripture's Vision for Women - by Lucy Peppiatt

Rediscovering Scripture's Vision For Women: Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts by Lucy Peppiatt is a book that, as the title indicates, attempts to look at Scriptures teachings of God's plan for women. 

As you may have guessed, these "fresh" perspectives ultimately attempt to lead the reader to think that Christian women do not need to keep silent in the church, can pastor churches, don't need to submit to their husbands…etc.  I have read some of it outloud to many of my sisters (I have seven sisters) and they were all joining me in criticizing the claims of this book.

Let me deal with some of her claims.  First, her view of 1 Corinthians 11.  I find part of her introduction to her interpretation ironic:  "My own research has led me to study these verses in detail and to discover that the more obvious meaning of the text causes consternation and embarrassment among many, and even causes others to question Paul's understanding here."  So, of course the obvious reading can't be right if people are dismayed and embarrassed about it?  Anyway, she says that some believe these verses tell us that males are in the image and glory of God more than women, which she says cannot be true since Genesis tells us that both are said to be in the image of God.  This can be answered very simply:  One of my sisters pointed out that it only says that woman is the "glory of man" it doesn't say that she is his image and thus does not discount her still being the image of God.

 Anyway, After dealing with the problems she has with the "heirchialist view" the author asks, "Is it possible to salvage a better meaning out of these verses?"  Her "better meaning" is quite shocking to me.  She thinks that chunks of verses are just Paul repeating erroneous beliefs that the Corinthians held about man/woman relationships and that he's correcting those.  She doesn't give an exegetical reason, just gives you an edited (with italics and other punctuation) quotation of this section of Paul's letter to demonstrate how, in her view, it should be read.  And then she goes on to just assume you accepted that explanation.  No exegetical basis other than she thinks that Paul couldn't be saying what these texts, obviously, say.  She has a book written on 1 Corinthians 11, so perhaps she gets more detailed in that, but it certainly warrants a fuller explanation in this book.

Another one of her arguments is (as I understood her to be saying) that there is no subordination among the Persons of the Trinity.  Since the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all of the same 'substance', all one God, then there can't be such a thing as 'authority' or subordination in the Trinity and therefore one shouldn't think that Christ set an example of submission that could be followed by wives.   I'll give one example: "It is true that Paul claims in 1 Corinthians 15 that at the end of time, God will be 'all in all,' and speaks of Christ being made subject to God (1 Corinthians 15: 28.  However, this is also in the context of the idea that all authority in Heaven and earth has been handed over to the son…Christ emerges triumphant at the end of time, having put everything under his feet.  This powerful picture of Jesus Christ is not quite the loving, courageous submission that is referred to in a few verses of Philippians 2 in relation to the incarnation….."   She seems to think that this means that God the Father is also put under Christ's feet! Excuse me?  This does not mean that the Father then submits to the Son. 

Texts like 1 Peter 3:1-7, are negated because, though Peter does tell wives to submit to their husbands, all Christians are supposed to submit to each other.  So that, of course, cancels out any command to wives to submit to their husbands.  Her reasoning is absurd!  Read just a few verses here:

"For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord…"(1Pe 3:5-6 ESV)

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord…."(Eph 5:22ESV)

Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

(Eph 5:24 ESV)

These texts are very clear, very specific commands to wives that they are specifically to submit to, not their fathers or mothers, not their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, but they are to submit to their husbands in particular and look on him as their authority:

Peppiatt makes the claim that if men and women don't have the same earthly roles then there is "literally nothing to show for the claim that she has been saved into coequality with a man." This is might sound strange, but, there being no males or females in Christ does not mean that there are no male or female Christians.

The Bible does not indicate that salvation erases lineage or ethnicity (Paul emphasized in Romans 9-12 that God has a special plan to save Israel, an ethnic people, sometime in the future),and it does not indicate that our sex is erased at salvation. There being no male, female, Jew, Gentile, etc… in Christ simply means that we are all saved the same way: by the grace of God through the faith that He gives us.  We are not saved because of our works,  because of our sex, nor are we saved because of our societal position or ethnicity.  If you take it the way Peppiatt reads it, then we'd also have to assume that there are no children, parents, bosses, no political governors or any leaders in Christ.  "Children obey your parents" would be crazy because parents and children don't exist in Christ and children should not be required to submit to their brothers and sisters in Christ.  I’m talking absurdly here, I know, but this is how I see her reasoning playing out if brought to its logical conclusion.

The Bible NEVER indicates that everything physical about us is erased at our salvation, rather it seems to do just the opposite and shows us how we can utilize our God-ordained physical position for the Lord.  Remember, we are told by the Apostle Paul in Ephesians that " we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."(Eph 2:10).  Why do we seem to think that these "good works" are all going to be exactly the same for everyone? Why do we think that it wouldn't be "fair" if God gives particular groups of people particular works? Actually, wouldn't that be rather special? To think that God put me in a specific physical circumstance and has given me particular good works to do in that circumstance!

God HAS given particular people groups special works to do.  There are particular good works for Men, Women, Husbands, Wives, Fathers, Children, Slaves, Masters, Older Women, Pastors, elders, citizens…etc. and good works for everyone in general.  Our particular roles/good works may be hard, and our general good works are hard too, but that's where faith comes in, where dying to self comes in, where we take up our particular cross and follow our Lord.   

Remember what the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12? I'll quote some of it:  "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, 'Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,' that would not make it any less a part of the body…."(1Co 12:12-15)  As a woman I might say, "Because I am not a man, I do not belong to the body" Or, "Because I must keep quiet and not pastor a congregation I am not a part of the body".  Nope, I am still a part of the body even though I have a different role.  Paul goes on: "If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose."(1Co 12:17-18)  We all are still unique in the body of Christ, with God ordained unique roles and positions. 

Peppiatt's 'exegesis' seems to consist in implanting doubt in people's minds as to how understandable Scripture actually is.  She really seems to desire to implant into our minds that what Scripture seems to be clearly, "obviously" saying might actually be obscure.    She focuses in on individual words and demonstrates that they can have a variety of meanings, and therefore the meaning that is normally fixed upon by most Bible translators is not necessarily the right one. She does the same with texts and passages as a whole: The obvious meaning is not necessarily the right one.  This really seems like a "Has God said?"(Genesis 3) scenario.  Peppiatt's hermeneutic is dangerous.  It can easily be utilized (and probably is used) by those who deny a literal six-day creation, those who view Christ as a mere man and not God incarnate, it could be used by children to justify their disobeying their parents, and could mess with salvation itself by lending to the proclaiming of "another Gospel" (Gal 1:8).

The author of this book has a very clear bias against the "obvious" meaning of Scripture texts that talk about women's  roles in Christ.  She says, "I encourage all Christian married couples to break away from and reject any expectation that the husband should occupy an authoritative role and the wife a submissive one…"    Remember, the Apostle Paul indicates that the husband and wife relationship is a picture of Christ and the church (Ephesians 5), the church is supposed to submit to Christ.  Christ does not submit to the church. We do not tell Him what to do, He tells us, We do not lead Him, He leads us. Husbands and wives mess up the picture when they do not follow their God given roles.  Wives submitting to their husbands, in particular, is emphasized in the Scriptures and treated very seriously. 

I'll sum this all up:  In this book, Peppiatt is doing exactly the opposite of what the Scriptures say older women are to teach young wives, "train the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sober-minded, chaste, workers at home, kind, being in subjection to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed."(Tit 2:4-5 ASV)  Wives are given a particular duty by God: submission to their husbands.  This duty is to be taken VERY seriously so as not to cause the Word of God to be blasphemed, or discredited.

I have particular instructions given to me as a single woman.  I am not given the role of pastor or teacher of the congregation, I am to keep quiet and listen submissively.  Might it be hard to do sometimes? Sure! But again, that's where faith comes in, and faith isn't usually easy. Listening submissively in church is one of the particular good works that Scripture CLEARLY tells me in particular, to do,  therefore I know for sure that it's one of the particular works that God has "ordained" for me to "walk in".   It's not demeaning, it is special, it gives me a special role in the body of Christ, a special work of submission I can do to glorify Him. 

I received a free review copy of this book from InterVarsity Press.  My review did not have to be favorable.

My rating: 1 out of 5 Stars

*  

This book may be purchased at Amazon.com

Not Afraid of AntiChrist - By Michael Brown and Craig S. Keener

My previously pretrib family has recently changed our position on the timing of the rapture (because of studies my dad [a pastor] has done on Matthew 24).  We had been quite staunchly pretribulationalists before, but had always had some doubts and questions about certain implications and assumptions of the position. In our study through the book of Mathew at our church, we were forced to change our position, as it was not biblical.

I was curious at what Brown and Craig had to say about the topic in their book "Not Afraid of Antichrist".  Both authors believed in a pretribulation rapture, and then changed their mind after a closer look at the Scriptures.  They do a pretty good job of showing the unbiblicalness of the position, and demonstrate from various passages of Scripture that 'pretribbers' are connecting dots that should not be connected.  

They explain that there is no significant difference between the various mentions of the coming of the Lord.  They all contain similar details (even if all do not say every single detail every time they are mentioned).  

They also attack the notion that saved Israel is not a part of the Church/body of Christ.  I really appreciated that, as that was one of the things that really held me in the Pre-trib position.  As Brown and Craig point out, ethnic Israelites can be a part of the church and still be used uniquely as an ethnic group, by God, and distinguished from Christians of other ethnicities, within the body of Christ.  

While there were several points that I agreed with that are brought up in the book, there several things that I didn't really like about it.  

Let me go into some detail:  First, one, or both of the author's take's issue with Clarence Larkin's assertion that, Christianity, overall, has failed to keep pace with heathenism, had failed to convert the world and that Larkin assumed that converting the whole world was therefore not God's purpose.  The author writing that chapter seemed to think that that was absurd.  But I don't see how, biblically, that is absurd, because we are told that the way to salvation is narrow, and that few find it, or follow it. And even Christ asked if He would find faith on the earth when He comes (Luke 18:8).    

But here's a weird thought that just occurred to me:  Maybe there will be the greatest amount of saved people, more than any previous era, DURING the Great Tribulation age.  We remember that Revelation 7 talks about a multitude that no one can number, from every tribe, tongue and nation.  That multitude came out of, and apparently passed through, the Great Tribulation.  Sounds like a huge (and I mean, HUGE) number of Gentiles saved during the tribulation. A multitude of saved Gentiles will be on the earth during the tribulation….Which really is another point against the "There's no church mentioned during the tribulation" argument.  Anyway, so perhaps, while there may not be great Evangelistic success before the tribulation…perhaps there will during it? And during the Millennium (It sounds as though whole nations come to Christ then). But I still have a problem with how one's thinking that the majority of people will not come to Christ could be thought an unbiblical idea.

Another problem I had was that one, or both of the authors,  think that the seventieth week of Daniel is not future.  I don't quite understand how they could think that.  "The idea that a whole church age must be inserted between the 69th and 70th week of years is a perfect illustration of how the Pre-Trib reading of Scripture must be imposed on the text rather than read out from the text." Though I agree that there is no evidence of the Scripture dividing the 2nd coming of Christ into two parts (Thus making 3 comings of Christ altogether), I would argue that the passage of Daniel itself divides the 69th and 70th week, and that it doesn't take a lot of juggling to think there might be a gap in there.. The " to the end desolations (or wars?) are decreed" part sort of hints to me at an indeterminate period of time.  Besides, it sounds like the same King who will end the sacrifices and offerings, "exalt himself above every other god" (the abomination - see  (See Daniel 8, 11-12,), and this King, Christ (Matt 24:15-on), and His Apostle Paul (2 Thess 2), both directed us to view as a man yet to come, an abomination yet to happen. And Christ specifically referred back to the books of Daniel.  I don't see why we would divide the Lawless One, the Abomination of desolation into many parts/people even thought their details seem to make them the same person/abomination.  That seems mighty close to what we ex-pretribbers did when we divided the 2nd Coming of Christ even though it appeared to be the same event.  

This book also expresses uncertainty as to whether the Man of Lawlessness, whom Paul speaks of in 2nd Thessalonians, is a historical figure or a future one.  They lean toward him being the future Antichrist.  But I don't know why they have any doubts at all.  Neither Antiochus Epiphanes nor Titus (Or Vespasian, or the Romans standards..etc.)  fit the description of the the Man of Lawlessness/ Abomination of Desolation. I don't remember recorded history saying that they exalted themselves ABOVE EVERY OTHER GOD, nor did they claim to be God(the God of the Old and New Testaments) Himself as the lawless one does (perhaps by declaring himself to be Jesus Christ).  Perhaps they declared themselves as gods over some of the other 'gods', but, if I remember correctly, they still worshiped other gods.   But, regardless of what or who they did or didn't worship, I know for certain that NONE of them were the Abomination/Man of Lawlessness because Paul tells us that that man will be killed by "breath of His (Jesus')mouth" when He comes again (2 Thes 2:8).  The Lawless One has not come and gone because our Lord Jesus Christ has not yet returned to kill him, nor has He gathered us to Himself to meet Him in the air along with our resurrected bretheren (1 Thess 4). The Lawless One is not yet history, he is still yet to come. 

I'm probably rambling on too much.  I'll end with one last point:  One of their main arguments is that tribulation is supposed to be a norm for Christian, something they ought not fear.  Tribulation is something that the church is, pretty much, promised.  So why would we think that "GREAT" tribulation would be something we could not face?  

While I agreed with those arguments, as someone who recently came out of the pretrib rapture position myself, I didn't feel that those arguments would have moved me at all.  I would have said something like, "We don't fear the great tribulation, but we do fear the wrath of God!  We don't want to be on earth while it is being poured out".  Now, the authors do address this later on, but most of their argument seemed to assume that Pre-trib rapture folks fear the AntiChrist (and the tribulation), which is probably why the book was given the name that it has.  That premise/title would probably have made me turn away from the book because I would have thought they were missing my whole point.  But, as Brown and Craig were Pretribbers themselves, they probably know  other Pretribbers who are afraid of the Antichrist and the Great Tribulation, and that may have been how they themselves thought.  

Perhaps I would have found the book more compelling if it were more along the lines of "Not Afraid of the Wrath of God"…but that could give the wrong impression, how about, "Not Destined for Wrath: Why the Church will be on earth during the Great Tribulation".  That would certainly make me look twice!

It was okay, and has several points that would probably give pretribbers pause, but not necessarily a book that I would recommend.

Many thanks to the publisher for sending me a free advanced review copy of this book(therefore, some of the content in the final publication may change)! My review did not have to be favorable.

My Rating:  3 out of 5 Stars

***

This book is not yet released.  It may be preordered at Amazon.com

The Essential Jonathan Edwards

I've read a biography of Jonathan Edwards before, and I've read a small part of his writings, but still have felt as though I don't know Edwards and his works very well.  When I saw that this book, The Essential Jonathan Edwards:  An Introduction to the Life and Teaching of America's Greatest Theologian, by Owen Strachan and Douglas A. Sweeny, was available to request for review, I thought that this would be a good way to introduce myself more fully to Edwards.

The book is divided into five parts.  Part one gives a high level biography of Edwards with quotations from his works interspersed throughout.  The other sections are more topical,  with chapters dealing with Edwards' thoughts on "Beauty" (having chapters such as The Beauty of God, The Beauty of Creation etc.),  the other sections are "The Good Life", "True Christianity" and "Heaven and Hell".  All of these parts contain summaries of Edwards writings on various subjects along with many  quotations from his writings.

Do I feel like I know more about Edwards writings more?  I suppose so.  Does it make me want to delve into his writings? Sadly, no.  This is probably going to sound awful, but I found this book very boring. I stopped when I was about half way through and just skimmed the rest (the book is over four-hundred pages).  

Perhaps a lot of my boredom came from Edwards' writing style, he seemed kind of mystical or something, in my opinion.  It just grates me the wrong way. It seemed more like some of his thoughts were floating in the air of unlimited conjecture without a firm grounding in exegesis of biblical texts.

Let me give you an example,

"the Old Testament church was as Christ's mother, but the New Testament church is his wife, whom he is joined to and whom he treats with far greater endearment and intimacy.  He forsook his mother also in this respect. Vis.  As he made a sacrifice of that flesh and blood, and laid down that mortal life which he had from his mother, the Virgin Mary.  'That which [is] born of flesh is flesh,' though he did not derive flesh from his mother in the sense in which it is spoken of, John 3:6, viz.  Corrupt sinful nature, and therefore did not forsake his mother for the church in the same sense wherein the church is advised to forsake her father's house for Christ's sake…..Yet Christ derived flesh from his mother, viz. the animal nature and human nature, with the corruption that is the fruit of sin, viz. with frailty and mortality.  This Christ forsook, and yielded to be crucified for the sake of the church."  Huh? That is really confusing. The editors of this book comment, "The doctrine of the church developed here is quite unique.  Old Testament followers of God represent 'Christ's mother, while New Testament believers are 'his wife.'"  It certainly does seem like a unique thought, and I don't see its biblical basis…

Edwards seemed to use a lot of typology, and was too….I'm not sure how to term it, scholarly? For my taste. Especially when he makes typological connections that are not given as such in the Bible.  Also, at times he seemed to be trying to work up emotions or something with his descriptions of the loveliness of God, of Christ.  Can one over 'describe the loveliness of Christ, of God? I think one can if one's descriptions savor more of the imagination than of solid basis in God's revelation of Himself.  Don’t we think that one cannot rival God's own descriptions of Himself in His Word?  Even Edwards? I'd understand more if he seemed to be exceeding texts, which I suppose he could have been doing, but then my opinion would probably be that he used too many illustrations.  I don't know, I'm still thinking about it, It's still rather hard for me to pin down why I don't like his writings, I've read other long dead authors whom I've liked.

I'm sorry if I'm misreading Edwards, but right now, this is my impression.  I'm not rating this book only two stars because I thought the authors did a bad job of putting this together.  I actually think that they probably did an excellent job.  I simply find that I don't particularly like Edwards as an author. 

Many thanks to the folks at Moody Publishers (MPNewsroom) for sending me a free review copy of this book (My review did not have to be favorable)

My Rating: Two out of Five Stars

**

This book may be purchased at Christianbook.com and Amazon.com

CSB Worldview Study Bible

The Worldview Study Bible seeks to remind Christians that the Bible is not just a book that we read to feel more religious, we are changed by it, our thinking, our worldview, our perspective of everything is changed when we use it to renew our mind.

This Bible has many articles in it, scattered throughout and dealing with various 'worldview' topics, articles like: "Biblical Models for Business", "Engaging LGBT Advocates", "Emperor and King Worship in Biblical Times", "Animal Rights" , "A Biblical Assessment of Abortion", and so on.  Some of the articles are quite interesting and helpful.  Others, I had some trouble with some of the content.  For instance, in the article on "Biblical Formation",  dealing with various ways one can utilize the Scriptures, it says, "Praying through the Bible flows naturally from Scripture meditation.  Giants of the faith, such as Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, and especially George Mueller, made a habit of praying through Scripture…..Praying the Scriptures helps to assure that one's prayers are biblically sound and pleasing to God."

 I think that if praying through the Scriptures was a way to pray correctly, then Christ would have told the disciples to grab some copies of portions of the Old Testament and pray them. He could have demonstrated by quoting one of the Psalms, or a passage of Isaiah.  But instead he gave them a model prayer.  How does one pray through the book of Leviticus? Or Judges? Should we pray the imprecatory songs, while thinking of a particular person who hates us when we are told in the New Testament to "Love our enemies"?  How would we know that the Scripture we are praying is the right scripture for us to be praying at that moment?  The Apostle Paul shows us that it is already assumed that we will have trouble praying biblically sound prayers, that we do not know how to pray correctly, but that's where the Holy Spirit comes in, "And in like manner the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity: for we know not how to pray as we ought; but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered;"(Rom 8:26) The Spirit wouldn't need to intercede for us if we already knew how to pray as we ought, and the Bible doesn’t say that we ever will get to a point where we know how to pray correctly, this side of eternity.  That's where our Helper comes in. 

And then, there is an article that seems to downplay the validity of Christian young earth creationists arguing with Christian old earth creationists, as if they should focus on arguing their common enemy (atheistic evolutionists) rather than debate the validity of each other's hermeneutic. But don't we remember that bad doctrine will most likely come from within the "church"?  Aren't we to look out for our brethren and correct them in a fault? Aren't we judging those within the church, see 1 Cor 5:12 (I know, that passage is dealing with practical moral sins, not necessarily bad viewpoints, but its implications may apply here as well), aren't we critiquing the viewpoints of those within our midst, making sure that we all have an accurate view of God's Word? We don't expect the world to listen to us, we don't expect the world to ever have a correct viewpoint, but we do want to help our brethren, fellow Christians, stay away from dangerous hermeneutics.  We are our brother's keeper.      

This Bible also has a good deal of commentary.  A lot of it seems pretty useful, and using a literal grammatical historical hermeneutic.  For instance, in the commentary on Jeremiah 29:11 it says, ""While it is true that from an eternal perspective God has good plans for believers (Ps 84:11; Rm 828), this of cited verse should be understood first with respect to its addressees; exiles who would have to wait an extended time for God to restore them…"  But the hermeneutic seems to change in spots, like in Revelation, where it speaks of the 144,000, "The number 144,000, with multiples of twelve and multiples of ten (completeness), is symbolic of the entire people of God.  That the tribe of Dan is missing while Joseph as well as Manassah (Joseph's son) are listed further supports the symbolic nature of the list."  Huh? How do those things clue us in to this section's not being literal?  The context would seem to indicate that it should most certainly be taken literally. After the description of these tribes, the VERY NEXT verse says,  "After this I looked, and there was a vast multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language, which no one could number".  Differentiating this group of many peoples from the sealed of the twelve tribes of Israel.  How much clearer, could it be?  It differentiates between those in Christ who were sealed from Israel, and points out a more inclusive group later on, encompassing all peoples?  How much clearer could John get in describing what he saw? Does he have to go through each tribe and say, "And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel: 12,000 from the tribe of Judah were sealed, Judah was the son of Jacob (also called Israel), the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, born in the year such and such.  The tribe of Judah was made up of all of the living descendants of Judah.  The first descendant's name was George, the second, Robert…..the 12,000th, Charles.  And I also saw that their physical features resembled Judah's.  12,000 from the tribe of Reuben were sealed, Reuben was the son of Jacob (also called Israel), the son of Isaac…." Would that make it more likely to be literal?  I suspect that some would think that the more detailed it gets, the more figurative it is.  Omissions and replacements of tribes does not mean that this is not to be taken literally, it probably should be taken VERY literally and the omission of Dan might be significant in some way, taken as such.  We shouldn't assume that the omission of one of the original tribes indicates that this is not Israel.  Why would God HAVE to choose men from the tribe of Dan to be sealed in order for this to be literal, ethnic Israel? Do we not remember what Paul tells us in Romans 9?  Not all Israel is Israel, and that God has the right to choose whomever He wishes within Israel (even individual tribes).     

This "Worldview" Bible has a lot of good notes, and some interesting essays, I just don't like some of the concepts in the essays, nor do I like the inconsistency in the hermeneutics.  Also, the essays scattered throughout seem a bit too distracting.  I think that if you are going to put multiple essays in a Bible it would be better to put them at the end of the book, and then you can just look up the page number in the index if you want to read a particular article, instead of it breaking up the text.  

This particular study Bible is okay but not great.            

Many thanks to the folks at B&H publishers for sending me a free review copy of this Bible! My review did not have to be favorable.    

My Rating: 3 out of 5 Stars

***

This Bible may be purchased at Christianbook.com and at Amazon.com