Logos Free Book – What is a Healthy Church Member?

Logos-Free-Book-of-the-monthAs they do every month, Logos Bible Software is offering a free book for your Logos library. This month Logos partners with 9Marks to offer you a free copy of Thabiti M. Anyabwile, What Is a Healthy Church Member?   Anyabwile is senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands and a contributor at The Gospel Coalition. And he tweets, @ThabitiAnyabwil.

From the Logos description of the series,

“This remarkable series is a must-read for Christians of all levels. Those who are young in the faith will be propelled forward in their spiritual growth with these accessible guides to important topics and significant doctrines. Mature Christians, students, and pastors will reach new depths in their understanding of Scripture and the Christian life with these succinct, yet profound volumes. This series organically weds theory and practice through clear explanation of key theological themes coupled with practical application in the church and from the pulpit.”

Logos-Free-BookFor $1.99 you can add What Is a Healthy Church? by Mark Dever. Dever is the senior pastor of the Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., and the president of 9Marks. He has published many books on both theology and church practice as well as articles for Ligonier and Tabletalk Magazine.

Both of these books are excellent additions to your Logos library, so make sure to add them to your library before the end of the month.

As always Logos is giving away a set of books related to the free book. This month they are giving an eleven book set from 9Marks, including:

  • Am I Really a Christian?
  • Biblical Theology in the Life of the Church: A Guide for Ministry
  • Church Planting Is for Wimps
  • Finding Faithful Elders and Deacons
  • It Is Well: Expositions on Substitutionary Atonement
  • The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love
  • The Gospel and Personal Evangelism
  • What Does God Want of Us Anyway?: A Quick Overview of the Whole Book
  • What Is a Healthy Church Member?
  • What Is a Healthy Church?
  • What Is the Gospel?

There are several ways to enter the contest, so visit the Logos Free Book of the Month site and enter the contest early and often.

Book Review: Mark A. Seifrid, The Second Letter to the Corinthians

Seifrid, Mark A. The Second Letter to the Corinthians. Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2014. 569 pp. Hb; $50.   Link to Eerdmans

Seifrid’s new commentary on Second Corinthians arrived about the same time as the second edition of Ralph Martin’s classic WBC commentary from Zondervan. Seifrid is known for his work on Pauline theology and more specifically Justification in the Pauline literature. His Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification (IVP 2001) built on the foundation of his Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (Brill, 1992). As one of the editors of Justification and Variegated Nomism (Baker, 2004), Seifrid is also well-known as a defender of the traditional view of Paul over against the New Perspective. This theological background often comes through clearly in his commentary on 2 Corinthians.

Seifrid CorinthiansIn the brief twelve-page introduction to the commentary, Seifrid first discusses the situation both before and after the writing of the second letter to the Corinthian church. Here he traces the sometimes confusing period after the reception of 1 Corinthians, a brief time which included a “painful visit” and later “tearful letter” delivered by Titus.

Second, the introduction examines the various suggestions for the identity of Paul’s opponents in the letter, which naturally leads Seifrid to the purpose of the letter. He advocates a minimal “mirror-reading,” resulting in a Jewish-Christian opponent who appeared in Corinth between the two canonical letters. Since these new arrivals were considered apostles by the Corinthian church, they have made a bad situation worse. But for Seifrid, there is nothing in the letter which can be used to clearly describe a theology of the opponents. They preach another Jesus (2 Cor 11:4) and for Paul, this is the real threat to the church.

Since there are a number of complex theories regarding the composition of 2 Corinthians, the third section of the introduction deals with the integrity of the letter. After a short synopsis of the usual divisions suggested in scholarship, Seifrid concludes the alleged incoherence and inconsistency is “more apparent than real (xxxi). Paul’s defense of his mission “constitutes the thematic unity” for the letter.

Finally, Seifrid offers a few comments on the theology of the letter. Despite the fact 2 Corinthians is a deeply personal letter, Paul’s concern is to lay out clearly the marks of a true apostle. For the Corinthians, there is “jarring contrast between his powerful letters and his pitiful presence” (xxxii). Seifrid sees this as a hermenutical problem, and the whole of Scripture is at stake. For those who are outsiders, a veil covers their face and prevents them from seeing God and his saving work. The opponents have been blinded by the god of this world and are therefore “unbelievers” by definition. Only those who are “in Christ” are free in see the truth of the Gospel as revealed now by Paul, God’s representative.

In my view, Seifrid’s introduction is too brief. While I agree there is little or no merit to many of the partition theories for the letter, I would have liked more engagement with contemporary scholarship on the literary issues, whether in the introduction or the appropriate places in the commentary. While I thought his section on 6:14-7:1 was excellent, there is no hint this section is sometimes seen as a non-Pauline insertion. There is no interaction with Betz’s theory that chapters 8-9 are administrative letters, he simply states that chapters 8-9 are “integral to Paul’s larger purpose in the letter of binding the Corinthians to the other churches and to Christ” (317). Perhaps including a detailed discussion of these literary issues would have distracted from Seifrid’s overall goal of explaining the text of the letter as we have it, but given the strong objections to the unity of the letter in New Testament scholarship, I am surprised the issue is not addressed.

The commentary follows the same pattern the other Pillar commentaries. After a translation of the text, Seifrid briefly introduces the pericope, usually setting the section into the context of the letter as a whole. The commentary proper proceeds verse by verse, commenting primarily on the English text, although occasionally he comments on a transliterated Greek word. Greek and Hebrew untransliterated in the footnotes. There are less exegetical comments on the Greek text than other PNTC commentaries. In fact only rarely does he comment on the text. Comparing this to D. A. Carson’s Matthew or Colin Kruse’s Romans in the same series, there is very little exegetical material indeed.

Seifrid’s comments on 1 Cor 5:21 are an example of the more theological nature of the commentary. For Seifrid, “not reckoning the trespasses of the world” is a “forensic event” and reconciliation and justification refer to the same event, the cross and resurrection (260-261, and note 539). This verse offers Seifrid the opportunity to write more than eight pages on justification from a decidedly Lutheran perspective (citing Luther and Melanchton at length in the notes). His discussion is excellent and the theology presented in this section certainly reflects the “traditional view” of Paul and justification, but there is little discussion of the exegetical details in the text itself. For example, a discussion of the meaning of γενώμεθα in the ἵνα-clause is missing. Nor does Seifrid discuss the potentially rich allusion to Isaiah 53. But this is the style of the commentary and this criticism should not detract from the value of the commentary.

Interaction with other commentaries is minimal in the body of the commentary, but Seifrid is obviously well-informed by a broad spectrum of scholarship. It is not surprising that Luther is one of the most cited commentaries in the notes (according to the index), but only one reference to Ralph Martin’s WBC commentary is strange. (Ironically, Barack Obama is also cited one time as well!) Another difference between this commentary and others in the PNTC series is Seifrid use of German scholarship. Seifrid often cites the work of the Lutheran systematic theologian Oswald Bayer.

There are three excurses embedded in the commentary. For example, after Paul’s reference to himself as a “minister of the New Covenant” in 2 Cor 3:6, Seifrid offers 4 pages on “Paul’s Understanding of ‘Covenant.’” This brief overview of a monograph-worthy topic is a kind of biblical theology of Covenant,” beginning with Galatians and concluding with Hebrews. Seifrid concludes Paul’s contrast between the New and Old Covenants in 3:6 and 3:14 is consistent with both Galatians and Hebrews.

Conclusion. Seifrid’s commentary on 2 Corinthians is another excellent contribution to the study of this oft-neglected letter of Paul. While it is certainly more theological than exegetical, it will nevertheless be a valuable resource for Bible teachers and pastors for many years.

 

NB: Thanks to Eerdmans for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

Logos Free Book – 1 Corinthians by Roy A. Harrisville

HarrisvilleLogos Bible Software is offering Roy Harrisville’s 1 Corinthians commentary in the Augsburg Commentary series for free, and Frederick Danker’s 2 Corinthians in the same series for only 99 cents. Harrisville is a long time professor of New Testament at Luther Theological Seminary. He was one of the editors on the Augsburg Commentary series, wrote the Romans commentary in the same series. He has contributed many articles on theological topics in Lutheran Quarterly and “Before Pistis Christou: The Objective Genitive As Good Greek.” Novum Testamentum 48.4 (2006): 353-358. This 294-page commentary was originally published in 1987, and the series is intended for laypeople, students, and pastors. The commentary is based on the Revised Standard Version and there is very little Greek in the text of the commentary. It is very readable and helpful for pastors and laymen.

Frederick Danker is best known as the D in BDAG. He was the editor and reviser of the third edition of Bauer’s A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. This 221-pages commentary was published in 1989. Like Harrisville, Danker is primarily focused on the English text, although there is more drawn from the Greek in this commentary. Danker has an excellent section on the cultural context of 2 Corinthians (p. 20-25) and these sorts of insights are found throughout the book.

As always Logos is giving away a set of the Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament, a $229 value.

Both of these books are excellent additions to your Logos library, so make sure to add them to your library before the end of the month.

Top Five 2 Corinthians Commentaries

Introduction. Commentaries on Second Corinthians necessarily must deal with the relationship of the letter to First Corinthians, both in terms of the chronology implied by the letter and the somewhat difficult problem of sources. It is possible, for example, to read the books as containing two or three different letters, Bornkamm saw as many as eight smaller letters in the book! The reasons for this are obvious to the reader of the book, it has a somewhat choppy outline and there are several abrupt changes. If there are interpolations in the book commentators then must ask if came from Paul or another early Christian writer. Paul does mention a “severe letter” and there are several implied visits to Corinth (by Paul, Titus or others). Commentaries can be overly distracted by these issues and do not manage to get to the text of 2 Corinthians.

Another problem all 2 Corinthians commentaries must deal with is the opponents implied by the letter. Who are the “super-apostles” described in chapter 11? Are these the Twelve? Does Paul have in mind non-Christian teachers who are claiming apostolic authority? If so, how are they related to Jerusalem and / or the Judaizers mentioned in Galatians?

Murray Harris, 2 Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005). Harris’s commentary is another excellent contribution in the New International Greek Text series by an expert on the second letter to the Corinthians. He also contributed the commentary on 2 Corinthians for the Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Zondervan, 1976). He has a lengthy introduction dealing with the problem of the sources, concluding that “here are fewer difficulties with the hypothesis of the letter’s integrity” than with any of the suggested theories he surveys (p. 51). The introduction also deals at length with the “painful visit” and Paul’s travel plans. Harris also has a lengthy piece on the opponents of Paul in the letter, surveying all the major suggestions and offer what is (to me) a judicious understanding. He states in summary, “although claiming to be Christian, were in reality ‘Judaizers’” (p. 85). I would recommend this 125 page introduction to anyone wishing to study either of the Corinthian letters. The body of the commentary is a detailed exegesis of the Greek text of the letter, treating lexical and syntactical details. I particularly appreciate his tendency to lay out three or four options before setting on his own. Eerdmans published Harris’s “Expanded Paraphrase” of 2 Corinthians, which is simply the text of the letter.

Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC; Waco: Word, 1986). This is something of a classic commentary on the letter and one of the better WBC volumes. Word commentaries excel in giving bibliographies at the beginning of sections, Martin’s commentary provides complete bibliographies on exegetical problems (literature on composition issues other than commentaries, for example, or the section on Paul’s vision in 12:1-10). These are complete through the early 1980s and include German and French articles as well as English. The actual commentary follows the format of the series, giving a bibliography for the section followed by textual notes, form/structure, and then the actual commentary. Martin’s brief “explanations” after the commentary draw out implications of the text for a larger Pauline theology.

Colin Kruse, 2 Corinthians (Tyndale, Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1987). I have not included any from the Tyndale series yet, but this slender volume by Kruse is worth reading. Kruse replaced the commentary by R.V. G. Tasker in the Tyndale series (1963), both are handy although exceptionally short compared to Harris. Kruse does a nice job dealing with the composition questions in just a few pages. His comments are on the English text although they reflect the Greek as much as possible. This is a excellent choice for the busy pastor who wants a brief overview of the main problems of a text for preparing a sermon.

David Garland, 2 Corinthians (NAC; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999). Garland’s introduction to the letter argues for the unity of 2 Corinthians, although the details of that argument is the commentary itself. He finds a great deal more unity in the letter, and shows that the letter is better understood as we have it in the canonical form. The body of the commentary deals with the Greek via the English text (all Greek is transliterated). He does an exceptional job comparing Paul’s rhetorical style with Greco-Roman orators. Garland’s commentary is in dialogue with major commentaries, but the text is readable and useful for pastor or layman.

Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians (AB; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984). This is the only commentary on my list that takes a multiple source seriously, suggesting five separate letters as sources for the compilation of 2 Corinthians, although two of his five sources are now lost, a first letter to Corinth prior to the canonical book and the “tearful letter” (letter C). Chapters 1-9 and 10-13 are two separate letters. Furnish also suggests Galatians and chapters 10-13 are composed and sent about the same time, helping to show that the opponents in 10-13 are the Judaizers of Galatians. But these matters should not distract from the value of the commentary, some of Furnish’s “expanded comments” are excellent and shed a great deal of light on the text. Like all Anchor volumes, Greek appears only in transliteration in a “notes” section.

Conclusion. I was going to only include four commentaries in this list, possibly because I included two by Harris and mentioned both Tyndale commentaries in passing, but thought better of breaking my own rules. Second Corinthians is perhaps the one Pauline book where I have spent the least time.  I usually deal with “The Corinthian Correspondence ” rather than the second book by itself.

What ought I be reading on this very important book?  What commentaries need to be added to this list?

 

Index for the Top Five Commentary Series

 

Introduction to Series on Commentaries

On Using Commentaries 

Matthew        Mark        Luke        John        Acts
Romans        1 Corinthians         2 Corinthians
Galatians         Ephesians        Philippians        Colossians
1-2 Thessalonians        Pastoral Epistles         Philemon
Hebrews        James         1 Peter         2 Peter & Jude 
Letters of John         Revelation

Conclusion:  Last Thoughts on New Testament Commentaries

2 Corinthians and Reconciliation

2 Corinthians 5:20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.

The members of the church are Paul’s co-workers in a “ministry of reconciliation.”  If by “ministry of reconciliation” Paul refers to his missionary efforts, he is therefore including the church in those efforts.

If Paul and the church are not reconciled, then how can they be partners in the ministry of reconciliation? Paul’s appeal in these texts is that he is speaking on behalf of God when he says that the church ought to be reconciled with him.  To some extent reconciliation can occur because the church has dealt with a major problem that was a barrier to the improvement of the relationship between Paul and Corinth (2 Cor 2:6-11).

The issue at Corinth was not a doctrinal problem or a theological dispute, it appears rather than an individual in the church has attacked Paul personally. The double reference in 7:12  “to wrong,” “to treat unjustly,” “to injure”  shows that the issue was a disaffection between fellow Christians.

  • The problems stem from a single individual as the primary reason for the disagreement (2:5, 6, 7, 8, 10; 7:12 all speak of a specific person, most clearly in the last 7:12).
  • The problem was serious enough that Paul changed his travel plans and instead wrote the “tearful letter” (1:23; 2:1, 3, 4; 7:8).
  • The attitude of  this one individual’s opposition to Paul was so serious that it poisoned the life of the entire church (2:5).

Who is this person that opposed Paul so strongly and was put out of the church? The key term here is adikasas in 2 Cor 2, “one who was wrong.”   Most commonly, the man is identified as the incestuous man from 1 Corinthians 5.  In 2:9 and 7:12 Paul refers to the fact that he has already written to the church about the man, and we know from 1 Cor that Paul did in fact recommend that the man be expelled from the congregation.  There is a connection between 1 Cor 5 (hand him over to Satan) and this passage, and it is very appealing to read this as saying that the incestuous man repented and returned to the church a changed man.

A second set of suggestions focus on the situation in chapter 6 of 1 Cor, where people are suing one another in the courts over internal “family” matters.  It may be that an individual has come into the church and disagreed with Paul so strongly that he entered the courts and tried to overturn Paul’s “rulings” that we find in 1 Corinthians.

Perhaps there is a public attack on Paul’s ministry and authority in the background here, so severe that Paul must break off travel plans to the church.  There is some speculation that the attack took place in front of Timothy or Titus, or even that Titus was the object of the attack. Whatever the attack was, it is interpreted by Paul as “an act of flagrant disobedience and revolt.” (C. K. Barrett) This could include the party within the church that supported the incestuous man, or simply an attack on Paul’s authority as an apostle.

Because the church has dealt with the problem, Paul feels that at least one hindrance to reconciliation is out of the way, he can return to Corinth now that the insult to him has been removed from the congregation.