Hermenutics

Book Review: Bruce Waltke, The Psalms as Christian Lament: A Historical Commentary

Waltke, Bruce K., James M. Houston, Erika Moore. The Psalms as Christian Lament: A Historical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2014. 328 pp., Pb., $28.00.  Link to Eerdmans

This book is a follow-up to The Psalms as Christian Worship (Eerdmans, 2010). Like the previous volume, The Psalms as Christian Lament aims to provide “informed historical-theological-pastoral insights into ten lament psalms,” while the others provide a basis for a “theology of lament.” In order to achieve this goal, each chapter begins with a short history of interpretation before turning to an exegetical study of the Psalm. Sometimes, this historical study includes a single scholar; other times, several are included.

Psalms as LamentWhy study these particular Psalms? As the authors point out in their introduction, Christians often struggle with the idea of lament. Our worship tends to be positive and uplifting, but a congregation rarely offers a lament to the Lord as a form of worship. Yet the Psalter includes many worship songs in which the psalmist cries out before the Lord, lamenting their suffering and oppression. According to the introduction, there are forty-two individual laments and another sixteen corporate laments. This means lament is one of the dominating genres in the Psalter.

The book studies ten lament psalms, including six of the seven traditional penitential psalms (Psalm 51 appears in the previous volume). Each chapter begins by listening to the “voice of the church.” In this section, James Houston selects one or more ancient commentaries on the Psalm as an example of how the Psalm was read at various points in church history. By examining the range of ancient and medieval writers on the following list, it seems clear the examples were chosen to provide various kinds of commentary on the Psalms. There is both chronological and theological diversity in the chosen commentators. Houston does not quote the historical commentaries at length, so in this sense, the book is not the same sort of tool as the Ancient Christian Commentaries (InterVarsity Press). After introducing the writer and placing him in a historical context, Houston focuses on how the individual writer drew theological implications from the Psalm under examination.

  • Psalm 5 and Jerome.
  • Psalm 6 and Gregory of Nyssa.
  • Psalm 7 and Chrysostom, Charlemagne, Alcuin and Alfred the Great.
  • Psalm 32 and Augustine.
  • Psalm 38 and Ambrose, Augustine, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cassiodorus and several medieval penitential commentaries.
  • Psalm 39 and Erasmus.
  • Psalm 44 and Origin, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin.
  • Psalm 102 and Catholic vs. Reformed/Evangelical repentance.
  • Psalm 130 and Hilary of Poitiers and John Owen.
  • Psalm 143, Augustine, a few medieval penitential commentaries, and John Calvin.

After this historical section, for nine of the chapters, Bruce Waltke provides a new translation of the psalm with textual notes on syntax and textual variants. Erika Moore provides the translation and exegesis for Psalm 39. After his translation, Waltke sets the literary context of the Psalm by observing canonical links to nearby Psalms. For example, Psalm 32 has a number of lexical and thematic links to Psalm 31, implying the two Psalms could be read together. This juxtaposition in the canon of the Psalter can provide some insights for interpretation. In addition to literary context, Waltke comments briefly on Form Critical approaches to the Psalm. For the most part, this is a short note explaining why the Psalm is a lament or penitential Psalm. Waltke also briefly comments on “Rhetorical Criticism,” by which he means the structure of the Psalm (stanza, strophe, etc.) Sometimes, these are summed up in a single section on “form and structure,” and the headings are inconsistent in the book. In the final section before the commentary, he briefly summarizes the “message of the Psalm.”

In the body of the commentary, Waltke proceeds more or less verse-by-verse based on the structure of the Psalm outlined in his Rhetorical Criticism section. This is a technical, exegetical commentary, and Hebrew appears in the body of the commentary, often untransliterated. I noticed that the Hebrew is always transliterated in Moore’s commentary on Psalm 32. The body of the commentary runs ten-twelve pages on average, a few are longer. Since commentaries on the Psalms are usually sparse in exegetical detail and nuance, I am very pleased with Waltke’s exegesis of the Hebrew Bible.

Conclusion. Like the previous volume, The Psalms as Christian Lament: A Historical Commentary will appeal to many Christians who want to read the Hebrew Bible through the lens of some of the greatest exegetes of the Church. Although it does not provide access to the original commentaries of these ancient writers, the summaries will give most readers a sense of how Christians have approached Psalms of laments at various times in history.

However, I think the organization of the chapters could be improved. I would have preferred to have the historical material after the exegetical section. To my way of thinking, I prefer to have a solid idea of what the Hebrew text actually says before encountering how it was understood later in Church history. Placing the historical section first cannot help by color the reading of the Psalm, perhaps obscuring the meaning of the text as it appears in the Hebrew Bible. To be fair, the book is subtitled A Historical Commentary; any reader who shares my suspicion of Reception Criticism can read the sections in reverse order.

Reading how the later church understood a particular Psalm is important, and I appreciate these sections (especially since church history is not my specialty). This project makes me wonder if a similar book could be written that focuses on the Psalms as Jewish Scripture. I would be very interested in reading a commentary with the same level of exegetical rigor but traces the reception of selected Psalms through the Second Temple Period (including the New Testament), then beyond the Second Temple Period into medieval Jewish exegesis. I know bits and pieces of this exist, but I know of nothing like this single readable volume for Jewish exegesis.

The Psalms as Christian Lament is an excellent contribution to the study of the Psalms if only for Waltke’s exegetical comments. That the Christian history of interpretation is included is a bonus.

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

Book Review: G. K. Beale and Benjamin L. Gladd, Hidden But Now Revealed

Beale, G. K. and Benjamin L. Gladd.  Hidden But Now Revealed: A Biblical Theology of Mystery. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2014. 392 pp. Pb; $27.00.   Link to IVP

Greg Beale is well-known for his work on the Old Testament in the New, including The Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Baker, 2007) and an important monograph on John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation (LNTS; London: T&T Clark, 1999). His commentary on Revelation in the NIGTC series was especially interested in allusions to the Old Testament in the book of Revelation. Ben Gladd published his Wheaton dissertation as Revealing the Mysterion: The Use of Mystery in Daniel and Second Temple Judaism with Its Bearing on First Corinthians (BZNW; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008). Their new book Hidden but Now Revealed is popular presentation of the findings of these more technical works as well as an opportunity for both scholars to revisit the idea of mystery in the New Testament. There are several sections of this book which are dependent on their early published works, especially Beale’s Temple and the Church’s Mission (NSBT 17, 2004).

Beale, HiddenIn the introduction of the book the authors deal with the problem of intertextuality. By this term the authors refer to inner-biblical allusions. The term intertextuality has become “faddish” (22) and is usually not well defined. They do however review Richard Hays’s criteria for detecting allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament. As Beale has said a number of other contexts, recognizing allusions more of an art than an exact science. This is an important issue for Beale and Gladd since the will argue the use of the word “mystery” in the New Testament often alludes to the book of Daniel.

The book begins with a survey of the use of mystery in Daniel. Beale and Gladd argue “the revelation of mystery is not a totally new revelation but the full disclosure of something that was to a significant extent hidden” (33).  Earlier studies on mystery emphasized the complete hiddenness of the revelation. The main proposal of this book is the suggestion a mystery refers to something that was always present but veiled or unknowable in some very real way.

The example the authors use is Nebuchadnezzar’s vision in Daniel 2. Nebuchadnezzar was given a revelation in a dream, but he did not remember it. Daniel reveals the mystery to the king because God has made it known to him. The revelation unveiled by Daniel refers to hidden end time events (34). The second example of a mystery is Daniel’s own visions. He receives a cryptic revelation which must be interpreted by angelic message (for example, 8:19-26). The third example is Daniel’s realization the seventy years of captivity were over while he was reading the book of Jeremiah. God revealed the duration of the exile to Jeremiah and Daniel observes what God revealed to the earlier prophet.

The authors argue the twofold structure of partial hiddenness and fuller revelation is what makes something a “mystery.” A revelation is “mostly hidden” but needs to be interpreted in order for the mystery to be fully known. Throughout the book Beale and Gladd use phrases like “mostly unknown” or “partially hidden.” If the mystery is unknowable until the time of the interpretation is given, I do not see how this is much different from the usual explanation of a mystery as unknowable until it is revealed. In each of the examples from Daniel, the content of the mystery is unknown to the reader until God choose to reveal it to Daniel.

As is expected in a biblical theology, the bulk of the book traces each use of mystery in the New Testament. The authors argue the term is most often used in eschatological contexts often coupled with allusions to Daniel. For example, there are six chapters devoted to the use of mystery in the Pauline letters. The letters are approached canonically rather than chronologically and include Ephesians and Colossians as examples of Pauline letters.

I will cite one example: In Romans 11:25, the mystery describes Gentile salvation and the restoration of Israel. Since this is a reversal of Jewish Old Testament expectations, it is not surprising Paul would label it a mystery. The authors detect an allusion to the book of Deut 32:21 in this passage is since that is the only place in the Old Testament where there is a reversal of the pattern “Gentile first, then the Jew.” For the authors, that Gentiles would be the catalyst of Israel salvation is “largely hidden in the Old Testament” (93). Mystery in Romans 16:25-26 is an allusion to Genesis 49:10. The unanticipated element of the earlier text is the Gentiles would yield themselves voluntarily to the messiah’s reign by the “obedience of faith” (96).

The authors see a twofold pattern in Paul’s use of mystery not present in the Old Testament. There is no clear prediction of a two-stage fulfillment of Jew and Gentile redemption. While there might have been hints, it was unknowable until Paul revealed it in the book of Romans.

I have two main questions about the argument of the book. I am curious about the motivation for the definition of mystery as something “hidden in a text” until revealed by God at a later time. The mystery of Gentile salvation apart from the Law, for example, does not seem to be found in any Old Testament text at all, a fact recognized by Beale and Gladd: “The Gentiles, Paul says, become full members of the covenant community only through faith in Christ (Gal 3:29). This is precisely the teaching Paul deems an unveiled mystery in Ephesians and Colossians and considers to be absolutely central to his ministry” (213).

But this particular use of mystery does not strike me as consistent with the definition drawn from Daniel. Some kind of Gentile salvation is clear from the Hebrew Bible, but their salvation apart from the Law is not even hinted at in the Old Testament. I am more inclined to read this as Paul claiming Gentile salvation apart from the Law was totally hidden prior to his mission and not to be found in the text of the Old Testament.  This mystery is  therefore most like Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, unknown until God revealed it to him and called him to his mission to the Gentiles.

I suspect the motivation for their view of mystery is to enhance the continuity between the Testaments so that the present age (which is called a mystery in Paul) can be seen as part of God’s plan of salvation. In fact, late in this this book Beale and Gladd refer to inaugurated eschatology (already/not yet) which is so pervasive in the New Testament (and NT scholarship) as a mystery (296-7).

My second question is more along the lines of method. Is the use of the word μυστήριον consistent between the various writers of the New Testament? Does Matthew’s plural use of the word (τὰ μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν) have the same nuance of meaning as Paul’s use in Ephesians 3:3? Should the “mystery or godliness” in 1 Tim 3:16 be read as a “hidden in the Old Testament until revealed”?  It seems to me “hidden until unlocked” is forced into 1 Tim 3:16. In Revelation 1:19-20 the “mystery” is not hidden in the Old Testament, unless the reader applies Beale’s “church as the eschatological Temple” view. While there is much in his The Temple and the Church’s Mission I find attractive, it seems forced into Revelation 1:19-20 in order to make mystery always mean “hidden until unlocked.” Likewise the use of mystery in Revelation 17 seems different than the others, especially if the word appears on the head of the Great Whore.

These caveats aside, Hidden But Now Revealed is an excellent example of the practice of biblical theology. Beale and Gladd have assembled a great deal of data which is extremely helpful for understanding the context of each example of μυστήριον in the New Testament. Their conclusions are for the most part drawn from the text of the Bible, although there are some places where I think Beale’s view of the “church as temple” have skewed the data.

This book should set the agenda for discussions of mystery for years to come.

NB: Thanks to InterVarsity Press for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.  I am preparing a longer review-article for a journal and will post a link when it is published.

Book Review: Robert H. Gundry, Peter: False Disciple and Apostate

Gundry, Robert H. Peter: False Disciple and Apostate according to Saint Matthew. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2015. 139 pp. Pb; $20.   Link to Eerdmans

This short study by Robert Gundry makes the somewhat surprising claim that Matthew considered Peter a “false disciple and apostate.” In the introduction to the book Gundry makes his motivations clear. This is not an anti-Catholic book, and he is not interested in subverting any traditions about Peter. Nor is he interested in the “historical Peter,” assuming a history of Peter’s life could be written. Gundry’s project is strictly limited to the presentation of Peter in Matthew’s gospel only.

Gunrdy, PeterIn order to reach this conclusion, Gundry analyzes every appearance of Peter in the Gospel of Matthew. By way of method, Gundry employs redaction criticism in order to show Matthew edited Mark’s narrative to present Peter as an example of a disciple who was very close to Jesus but ultimately failed to follow through on his commitment to Jesus. In the end, Peter is left “outside in the darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Gundry’s use of redaction criticism is well-known from his commentaries on Matthew and Mark. Therefore, many will pre-judge some of his comments based on his method alone.

After a short introductory chapter on method, Gundry’s second chapter surveys all of these texts before the climactic confession of Peter in Matthew 16. Peter is not presented in these texts as a model of faith, in fact, the famous story in Matt 14:22-33 does not demonstrate Peter’s faith, but his lack of faith. The story of Peter’s request to walk on the water is not found in the other Gospels. Matthew, therefore, chose to report the words of Peter, “If you are Jesus (14:28) in similar language to the devil in the Temptation (4:3, 6). The other disciples in the boat confess Jesus as God’s son and worship him, but Peter is not included in that group (12).

In Matthew 16:13-32 Jesus seems to call Peter to be the leader of his church. Gundry, therefore, examines this pericope in detail in Chapter 4. By confessing Jesus is the Messiah, Peter is “playing catch-up” since the other disciples have already done so in 14:33 (16). The real issue in Matt 16 is Jesus calling Peter “the rock.” Gundry argues the “rock” refer to the words of Jesus, recalling Matt 7:24, the wise man builds his house on the rock.”  The bedrock in Matt 7:24 is clearing the words of Jesus (μου τοὺς λόγους τούτους). Peter himself is cannot be the “foundation of the church” since the church will be built on the teaching of Jesus. He is the one teacher (Matt 23:8), and the disciples will be commissioned to disciples the nations by teaching them everything Jesus has taught (Matt 28:20). The “keys to the kingdom” and “binding and loosing” both refer to teaching Jesus’ words, not the words of Peter as the successor of Jesus. The disciples are to convey Jesus’ words, not interpret them (25).

After Peter’s confession, Jesus reveals he will die in Jerusalem (Matt 16:21). Peter rebukes Jesus for this prediction (16:22). The brazenness of this rebuke is often lost in translation, but disciples do not rebuke their masters in the ancient world. Peter not only rebukes, but Matthew uses a double-negation plus a future indicative, the strongest negation in Greek. Jesus calls Peter Satan and a snare. Again, this stinging counter-rebuke is often translated to put Peter in a good light, but Matthew uses σκάνδαλον, a temptation to sin. In Matthew, Jesus has already said anyone who causes others to sin (πάντα τὰ σκάνδαλα) will be thrown into the fiery furnace where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (13:41-42). For Matthew, all “σκάνδαλα belong in hell” (30).

Chapter 4 traces several appearances of Peter in Matt 17-26, from transfiguration to the Garden of Gethsemane. Most of these are examples of “redactionally anti-Petrine moves by Matthew” (40). In Matt 19:27-30, when Peter responds to Jesus’ “camel through the eye of a needle saying, Matthew adds, “what therefore will we have?” (τί ἄρα ἔσται ἡμῖν;). This future expectation of reward is not in the parallel in Mark or Luke. For Gundy, this is evidence Matthew is presenting Peter as “angling for present compensation” (39).

Gundry argues Peter’s denial of Christ is parallel to Judas’s betrayal and suicide (chapter 5). He carefully examines the details of Peter’s denial, demonstrating Matthew’s modifications of Mark show Peter has apostatized. Matthew has redacted Mark in order to demonstrate the gravity of Peter’s denials. Peter swears with an oath (καὶ πάλιν ἠρνήσατο μετὰ ὅρκου, 26:72). In a passage unique to Matthew, Jesus states his disciples should not take oaths. For Gundry, this is flagrant disobedience to the Lord’s commands. By verse 74, Peter begins “to curse and swear,” another redaction by Matthew in order to highlight Peter’s apostasy; Matthew changes Mark’s ἀναθεματίζω to καταθεματίζω and drops “on himself” from Mark 14:71. In Mark, Peter is cursing himself, in Matthew he is cursing others (49-50).

Peter obviously denies his Lord, but most commentators are adamant Peter is restored after the resurrection. His bitter weeping is usually understood as a demonstration of his great remorse in contrast to Judas’s suicide. Gundry lists two dozen statements from various commentaries which try to rehabilitate Peter and offers a short response for each. For Gundry, the “bitter weeping” indicates Peter is an apostate who has moved into the darkness, “where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

In addition, there are a number of places in Matthew where Peter’s name is omitted. Chapter 6 examines these “non-appearances” of Peter and argues they represent Matthew dropping Peter because he is an example of a false disciple. For example, in Mark 16:8, the angels tell the women to go and tell the “disciples and Peter.”

Chapters 7-8 develop two threads Gundry has traced in this book as well in his commentary on Matthew. First, Gundry gathers more than twenty texts in Matthew describing false discipleship and concludes both Peter and Judas are quintessential false disciples (88). Just one example: In the Wedding Banquet parable (Matt 22:1-14), scholars are often perplexed by the unprepared man in the second part of the story. For Gundry, this man is a professing disciple who is marked as a false disciple because of his lack of wedding clothes (79). Like Peter, this man is one of the many who were called but not chosen and will remain outside, where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” The second theme Gundry traces is the flight from persecution in Matthew. He examines (briefly) eight pericopae in which those who flee persecution are condemned.  A false disciple is exposed when there is persecution. Like Peter’s betrayal, the false disciple will publicly show themselves and deny Jesus.

In his final chapter Gundry makes a few suggestions based on the texts surveyed in the book. He speculates a gospel presenting Peter as an apostate could not be written after his martyrdom, so his argument for Peter as a false disciple implies an early date for the writing of Matthew. A corollary he does not mention is dating Matthew to before A.D. 70 pushes the date for Mark/Q perhaps a decade earlier.

A second implication is more speculative. Like many scholars, Gundy associates Matthew with Syrian Antioch. Galatians 2:11-14 describes a face-to-face confrontation between Paul and Peter. Gundry gently suggests Matthew reflects a situation where Paul won his argument with Peter. He recognizes this echoes the old Tübingen school, but it “may call for further investigation” (103).

Conclusion. A book entitled Peter: False Disciple and Apostate will naturally generate a great deal of interest since Peter is beloved as the first leader of the Christian church. This is certainly true in the Catholic tradition, but evangelical pastors love to preach about thick-headed Peter, a simple man used by Jesus to found the Church. Doubtless, many will point to John 21 as a “restoration of Peter,” but that is John’s story and not Matthew’s. Gundry has delimited his topic to only Matthew’s Gospel, so the “restoration” of Peter in the other gospels or traditions does not matter to him.

But it is true the Gospel of Mark also fails to mention a restoration of Peter. Although Luke describes Peter as a leader in the Jerusalem church, people are suspicious of his escape from prison in Acts 12. After this event, Peter is hardly mentioned in Acts and seems to have been supplanted by James, the Lord’s brother. It just might be the case Peter is not as important to the foundational level of the Church as tradition has made him out to be.

Peter: False Disciple and Apostate is a brief but extremely well-researched book that argues a single point in a short 100 pages. Gundry makes his case well, although it is a case many will find jarring. Although I imagine the book will cause much “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” the book will set the agenda for Matthean theology for years to come.

 

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

 

Book Review: Bradley G. Green, Covenant and Commandment

Green, Bradley G. Covenant and Commandment: Works, Obedience and Faithfulness in the Christian Life. NSBT 33; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2014. 208 pp. Pb; $22.   Link to IVP

In this new contribution to the NSBT series, Bradley G. Green (PhD, Theology, Baylor University) explores the role of works as a necessary part of salvation. In his introduction, Green acknowledges most evangelicals recognizes sola fide, salvation is by grace apart from works, but the role of works after salvation is less clear. Green argues in this book that works are necessary for salvation because “part of the newness of the new covenant is actual, grace-induced and grace elicited obedience by true members of the new covenant” (17). Real and meaningful obedience flows from the cross as part of the promised blessings of the new covenant and is “sovereignly and graciously elicited by the God of the Holy Scripture” (19).

Green, CovenantIn order to make this argument, Green first examines the New Testament texts which discuss the reality and necessity of works, obedience and faithfulness (chapter 1). He identifies fourteen key groups of texts and briefly summarizes the categories as a foundation for understanding the way the New Testament uses the Old with respect to works and faithfulness (chapter 2). Green argues there is continuity between the Old and New Covenants with respect to obedience, but the New Covenant includes “Spirit induced, God-caused obedience” (54). For Green the New Covenant foreseen by Jeremiah and Ezekiel is initiated by Jesus at the Cross.

In his third chapter, Green expands on the unity between the Old and New Covenant within the history of redemption. While some forms of Covenant theology assumes continuity and Dispensational theology often assumes discontinuity, Green argues reducing the discussion to either continuity or discontinuity misses the point of historical-redemptive nature of the canon. Following the work of Henri Blocher, Green argues there is real spiritual power in the Old Covenant that can provide an overarching unity between the Old and New Covenants. While all are saved by God’s grace as manifest in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, Green thinks Old Testament saints experience that grace proleptically (59).

This view of Old Testament faith naturally calls into question the classic Reformation dichotomy between Law and Gospel. Here Green follows John Frame by arguing that God saves people by his grace “across the canon of Scripture,” but once people are in a covenant relationship with him, God then gives his people commands and expects those people to obey him (65). But Green has to deal with texts like Galatians 3:10-12, which creates a strong contrast between Law and grace. He argues the problem in Gal 3:12 is not the Law itself, but the approach to the Law advocated by Paul’s opponents. For Paul, true righteousness is by faith and the law was never intended as a “way of justification” before God (71).

In chapter 4 Green describes the relationship between the cross the reality of works, obedience and faithfulness. He surveys a number of New Testament texts and concludes the cross leads to human transformation and sanctification. The leads to the thorny issue of imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer, although Green does not really develop the issue nor does he engage the objections of N. T. Wright to the doctrine of imputation. He concludes the believer receives righteousness (imputation) and is justified by faith alone. Later in the book Green states “we should continue to affirm imputed righteousness vigorously, and that we need an imputed and perfect righteousness that is ours by faith apart from works (101). While I agree with Green’s conclusions here, he needs to interact with both sides of the debate on imputation. Citing a series of Reformed writers in support of imputation does not deal with Wright’s objections to imputation, nor do I find his summary statements compelling. Part of the problem is this is only a brief chapter rather than a monograph on imputation, but some awareness of the larger theological discussion would have been helpful.

For Green, the best way to understand the role of works and salvation is Paul’s emphasis on the believer’s union with Christ (chapter 5). Citing Todd Billings, Green argues union with Christ is “theological shorthand for the gospel itself” (99). There is far more to be said on identification with Christ in Paul, Green can only cover six passages in as many pages. Again, the brevity of this chapter hinders a fuller presentation of the data from Paul. There is reference to Constantine Campbell’s excellent monograph Paul and Union with Christ (Zondervan, 2012), although this may simply a matter of Green completing his book before Campbell’s appeared.

In chapter 6 Green deals with a sometimes problematic issue, justification and future judgment according to works. As he does throughout the book, he briefly surveys seven pertinent texts and then the history of interpretation of the texts. Green discusses John Calvin, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Geerhardus Vos, Richard Gaffin, Simon Gathercole, and Greg Beale and N. T. Wright (curiously labeled an “excursus”), and then concludes the chapter by citing Augustine at length. Green concludes that evangelicals should affirm a future aspect to justification as well as a future judgment according to works (142), but also that our future judgment is based on your union with Christ and our identity as “persons who are ‘in Christ’” (144).

Finally, Green discusses three related topics which touch on the issue of works and salvation (chapter 7). First, he interacts again with Henri Blocher on the headship of Adam and the so-called covenant of works sometimes considered to be essential for the Gospel in Covenant theology. Green suggests by using a “covenant of works” schema, works become a merit system for salvation and something quite different than grace. A second issue in the chapter is the headship of Christ as the obedient one who kept the covenant. We obey because Christ obeyed, Green says (159). In the end, Green concludes inaugurated eschatology is key to understanding the “real but imperfect nature” of the believer’s good works (170).

Conclusion. While role of works for those coming to salvation and in the coming future judgment have often been the topics of discussion of New Testament theology, Green’s book fills a gap by focusing on the role of works in the ongoing life of the believer. His emphasis on the cross and grace-enabled good works in the life of the believer is a helpful correction to sweeping statements concerning the ongoing role of good works in the life of the believer. I find the brevity of the chapters frustrating, especially when exegesis of Scripture is too brief. Occasionally I thought historic and contemporary (usually reformed) theologians dominated the discussion, especially in chapter 6. This is certainly a case of “that’s not the book I would write” and should not distract from the value of Green’s book.

 

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

Book Review: Charles E. Shepherd, Theological Interpretation and Isaiah 53

Shepherd, Charles E. Theological Interpretation and Isaiah 53: A Critical Comparison of Bernhard Duhm, Brevard Childs, and Alec Motyer. The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 598. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014. Hb $112.00.   Link to Bloomsbury

This monograph arises from Shepherd’s Ph.D. work at Durham University in 2012 under the direction of Walter Moberly. He proposes to study a theologically rich passage in the Hebrew Bible through the lens of three significant Isaianic scholars as way to explore the value of classical historical criticism in the light of recent developments in the field of theological interpretation of Scripture. Bernhard Duhm represents historical criticism of the nineteenth century and is well known for the religionsgeschichtliche Schule of Protestant liberalism. Brevard Childs is often associated with canonical criticism and is something of a godfather of recent theological interpretations of Scripture. Alec Motyer represents an evangelical voice who has a strong faith commitment to Scripture. Shepherd describes Motyer as an evangelical who “reads the Old Testament without recourse to critical questions” and is guided by “core theological and doctrinal convictions” (p. 6). In fact, Shepherd considers Motyer’s work on Isa 53 “a true tour de force in evangelical interpretation” that is theologically coherent and exegetically independent (p. 198).

ShepherdAside from their magisterial commentaries on Isaiah, an additional factor in selecting these three scholars is that their hermeneutical approach is a “rhetorical positioning away from a perceived threat” (p.200). Duhm moved away from teleological readings of the prophets which read Isaiah only through the lens of Christ (“Erscheinung Christi”). Childs moved away from Protestant Liberalism’s fascination with “Historie” by emphasizing the connection between the Old and New Testament. Motyer does what Duhm avoided, he reads the prophets as messianic prophecy fulfilled in Christ, although he seeks to set the prophecy in an original eighth century B.C. context as well as applying it to the modern church.

Another contrast between the three scholars studied in this monograph is each has an interlocutor representing a threat which proper exegesis will answer. For Duhm, “supernaturalists” such as Delitzsch and Hengstenberg, although Shepherd points out it is not always clear if Duhm has a specific scholar in mind (p. 233). Childs approach is in dialogue with “anthropocentrists” in contrast to his own “theocentric” hermeneutic. He has in mind the religionsgeschichtliche Schule. Since Motyer is concerned with the unity of the book of Isaiah, he distances himself from the “rationalists,” specifically Eichrodt and Von Rad. Shepherd says “Motyer’s rhetorical shaping suggests that those who are open to traditional source-critical work have no basis on which to wed text with doctrine” (p. 237).

Shepherd devotes two chapters to each scholar. He first sketches the theological hermeneutics represented by the scholar, then he examines the application of those hermeneutical strategies on Isaiah 53. This text was chosen because it is, as Shepherd puts it, an “easy target” (p. 5). More than this, Isa 53 has been located in various ways in history and has been an important text moving from antiquity to the Christian theology. The complexity of the passage is conducive to both historical critical studies and a theological reading. Shepherd is clear that the his study is not interested in the correct reading of Isaiah 53, but rather the moves made by the interpreters as well as the theological and philosophical commitments which inform those exegetical decisions.

Shepherd offers several observations by way of a concluding chapter. Duhm’s comments in Isa 53 demonstrate his work as an interpreter on the “raw materials” of the text, and he does not think the poem refers to the Christ event. Yet Shepherd points out Duhm “felt the need to reflect theologically,” although in a section separated from his exegesis. This “historical distancing” of theology and history is somewhat artificial, Shepherd suggests, but it was “already underway in his prior exegetical moves” (p.203).

Childs consciously approaches the text of Isa 53 as a Christian interpreter and stands with those interpreters who have gone before. Since Childs argues the poem has been “loosed from particular historical settings and relocated to a literary context,” the concrete, original historical context is important only in the sense of “types,” or foreshadowing of how the final writer intended the poem. The placement of the poem in Second Isaiah points to an eschatological theme: “God intervenes to end the exile and to usher in his eschatological reign” (p. 208). Reading the poem as a Christian, Childs stands with virtually all patristic and scholastic interprets by identifying Jesus as the servant. The original context is inaccessible and may even be at odds with a theological reading of the text.

Motyer approaches the text as a divinely inspired revelation from God and therefore emphasizes God’s sovereignty and involvement in history. Yet he is still interested in the facts of history, although these are the facts as they relate to God’s work of redemption. Shepherd considers this a “strange relationship” with modern knowledge. Motyer uses history to avoid “make believe,” but the Bible itself is immune from critical analysis (specifically, Motyer’s reading of Isaiah as the work of a single eighth prophet). Motyer reads Isa 53 as a referring to a servant in history, but the poem “reminds” the Christian reader of the “resurrection, ascension and heavenly exaltedness of the Lord Jesus” (p. 213). Shepherd concludes Motyer collapses the distance between history and Christian theology. Old Testament and New Testament share the same messianic context and theological foundations. As an example of this, Shepherd cites Motyer’s unapologetic reading of Isa 53 that supports penal substitutionary atonement (p. 228). While Childs would be cautious in imposing this kind of theological category, Duhm rejects this kind of theological reading.

In his epilogue Shepherd asks if Historical Criticism is a “Friend, Foe, or Foil.” Shepherd interacts with Francis Watson’s assertion that historical criticism does not really exist since every generation of Christian interpreters have used all of the scholarly tools available to them. In fact, to create a dichotomy between “historical criticism” versus “theological interpretation” assumes the two exist in complete isolation. This is simply not how exegesis works. “The task of the biblical ‘historian’ was likewise bound up with questions of personal commitment” (p. 260).

Conclusion. Shepherd’s study achieves what it proposes to do. He does in fact offer a “sympathetic yet critical” reading of these three diverse scholars. By contrasting Duhm with Moyter, Shepherd appears to be favoring Childs as a “golden mean” between the two extremes, the modernism of nineteenth-century Protestant liberalism and the twentieth-century evangelical (fundamentalism?) reaction to liberalism. But he does not set Duhm or Motyer up as straw men; their ideas and hermeneutical strategies demonstrate Shepherd’s thesis that personal commitment will always color interpretation.

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