I'm becoming more attracted to the NPP (New Perspective on Paul).
Seems to me as if we view "union with Christ" as the centrepiece of Paul's soteriology this is a simpler and more biblical scheme than the classic Lutheran or Reformed one (though it is very close to Calvin's view).
N. T. Wright has taught me a lot in this area.
"In Christ" (en christo) is a key idea in Pauline theology. It is through our union with Christ, through our being in the Messiah that his death and resurrection become ours, so that "what is true of the Messiah is true of his people" as Wright might say.
If "righteous" becomes not regarding someone as having a moral status they don't really deserve, but rather simply as regarding someone who is "in the right" - someone who has received the divine verdict of innocent and hence "made righteous" then imputation starts to be unnecessary.
As Michael Bird and Kevin Vanhoozer have argued (and it looks as if Wright agrees) it is not that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, but rather than we are righteous because we are incorporated into the faithful Messiah, Jesus.
This subject is so interesting and deserves much more thought. I never thought I'd say this, but could it be that Wright is actually right??
Friday, 26 November 2010
A Clarification from N. T. Wright
The ETS meeting was important. N. T. Wright clarified his position that future justication is "in accordance with the whole life lived" rather than "on the basis of the whole life lived."
The difference between the two is huge. Wright's view is now much closer to the historic Protestant position - we are justified by faith alone, but not by the faith that is alone. Saving faith is evidenced by good works.
The Ugley Vicar agrees: A Clarification from Tom Wright http://ow.ly/3h7zF
The difference between the two is huge. Wright's view is now much closer to the historic Protestant position - we are justified by faith alone, but not by the faith that is alone. Saving faith is evidenced by good works.
The Ugley Vicar agrees: A Clarification from Tom Wright http://ow.ly/3h7zF
Monday, 22 November 2010
Simply Christian
Simply Christian
Tom Wright
SPCK 2006
Simply Christian is Tom Wright's straightforward and simple introduction to the Christian faith. As such it is designed to be read by people who have little or no prior knowledge of Christianity and though, as with most Wright books I would have issues with how he treats some subjects, overall I think this book is an excellent introduction and I would not have a problem recommending it to any of my non-Christian friends. The comparison with C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity are obvious and I think self-consciously so in Wright's choice of title and approach to his subject. But whereas Lewis, writing in the 1940s, spends part of his classic book in apologetics territory - arguing for God's existence and so forth - Wright does not really engage in apologetics at all.
Instead, Wright does what I think is quite a clever thing though it leaves him open to some fair criticism. He starts with a treatment about mankind's sinfulness, yet he does it without calling it sin. Now straight away some will object to this as Wright soft peddling on sin. I think that's a bit unfair. Looking on Wright's book more charitably, I think he has decided to not mention 'sin' as such because he did not want to alienate or confuse his 21st century audience before getting an opportunity to explain what sin is actually like. Although he may not use the word, he certainly writes powerfully about the subject. In the first part of the book called "Echoes of a Voice" Wright points out four areas of life where things have gone wrong. They are: (1) our longing for justice and our anger at injustice in the world (that is just isn't right the way things are), (2) our longing for a spiritual element in our lives, (3) our longing for good and loving relationships with other people and (4) our longing and appreciation of beauty in a world marred by so much ugliness.
The problem I would have is not with what he says, but with what he doesn't say. It would have been good I think to have added a final section in the first part dealing with the God-ward aspect of sin - that we have rebelled against and insulted a holy God. This in turn would have naturally led to greater balance later in the book.
Part Two is entitled "Staring at the Sun" and is a well-written and clear presentation of a number of key ideas in biblical theology including God, Israel, Jesus, the Cross and Resurrection and the Holy Spirit. Here Wright outlines what he considers to be "the gospel" according to the New Testament. As Wright has often said "the gospel" in biblical terms is not an ABC guide to "How I get saved and go to heaven" although it has often been reduced to this in evangelical circles. Rather, although Wright recognises individual salvation is one of the key things to flow from the gospel, it is not itself the gospel. The gospel, according to Wright, is that Christ is the true Jewish Messiah and through his resurrection has revealed himself as the King and Lord of all the world. It is here that I think Wright misses out on some of the New Testament's emphasis. Although Wright focuses on Christ as King and the resurrection, this is only half of the Bible's emphasis. The Bible also focuses on Christ as Saviour and the cross. Wright sometimes seems to miss out on this emphasis - and it is here that his downplaying of sin may also be a legitimate criticism. Downplayed sin results in a downplayed Saviour perhaps?
Part Three is called "Reflecting the Image" and in a series of interesting chapters, Wright discusses worship, prayer, Bible reading, the gospel, the Church and the Future. Each of these reflect Wright's distinctive views to some extent, but also contain much that would be uncontroversial. One point of disagreement I have is when he says that it doesn't matter whether we call it the Lord's Supper, Communion, the Eucharist or the Mass. Wright lumps all together. But the fact is that there are significant differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics on this point and we certainly do not all believe the same thing!
Like most of Tom Wright's books, Simply Christian is a mixed bag. Although it is wonderfully written and easy to read, and although he deals with many things in a winsome and accurate way, there are those characteristic issues at the same time. For this reason, no doubt some would question using this book to reach out to non-Christians. I wouldn't go as far as that, but I probably would want to supplement this with something that is not quite so idiosyncratic. It might just be worth pointing out to non-Christians that this is simply Wrightian Christianity (from the New Perspective on Paul viewpoint) and not necessarily what Christians have always believed or all believe now. If there had been more mention of the God-ward aspect of sin and personal guilt as a result and if there had been more said about the cross and Christ as Saviour, I think the book would have been far stronger and Wright would have lost nothing in doing so.
Once again, this is a case of agreeing with Wright in what he affirms, but questioning a lot of what he omits from the book.
Tom Wright
SPCK 2006
Simply Christian is Tom Wright's straightforward and simple introduction to the Christian faith. As such it is designed to be read by people who have little or no prior knowledge of Christianity and though, as with most Wright books I would have issues with how he treats some subjects, overall I think this book is an excellent introduction and I would not have a problem recommending it to any of my non-Christian friends. The comparison with C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity are obvious and I think self-consciously so in Wright's choice of title and approach to his subject. But whereas Lewis, writing in the 1940s, spends part of his classic book in apologetics territory - arguing for God's existence and so forth - Wright does not really engage in apologetics at all.
Instead, Wright does what I think is quite a clever thing though it leaves him open to some fair criticism. He starts with a treatment about mankind's sinfulness, yet he does it without calling it sin. Now straight away some will object to this as Wright soft peddling on sin. I think that's a bit unfair. Looking on Wright's book more charitably, I think he has decided to not mention 'sin' as such because he did not want to alienate or confuse his 21st century audience before getting an opportunity to explain what sin is actually like. Although he may not use the word, he certainly writes powerfully about the subject. In the first part of the book called "Echoes of a Voice" Wright points out four areas of life where things have gone wrong. They are: (1) our longing for justice and our anger at injustice in the world (that is just isn't right the way things are), (2) our longing for a spiritual element in our lives, (3) our longing for good and loving relationships with other people and (4) our longing and appreciation of beauty in a world marred by so much ugliness.
The problem I would have is not with what he says, but with what he doesn't say. It would have been good I think to have added a final section in the first part dealing with the God-ward aspect of sin - that we have rebelled against and insulted a holy God. This in turn would have naturally led to greater balance later in the book.
Part Two is entitled "Staring at the Sun" and is a well-written and clear presentation of a number of key ideas in biblical theology including God, Israel, Jesus, the Cross and Resurrection and the Holy Spirit. Here Wright outlines what he considers to be "the gospel" according to the New Testament. As Wright has often said "the gospel" in biblical terms is not an ABC guide to "How I get saved and go to heaven" although it has often been reduced to this in evangelical circles. Rather, although Wright recognises individual salvation is one of the key things to flow from the gospel, it is not itself the gospel. The gospel, according to Wright, is that Christ is the true Jewish Messiah and through his resurrection has revealed himself as the King and Lord of all the world. It is here that I think Wright misses out on some of the New Testament's emphasis. Although Wright focuses on Christ as King and the resurrection, this is only half of the Bible's emphasis. The Bible also focuses on Christ as Saviour and the cross. Wright sometimes seems to miss out on this emphasis - and it is here that his downplaying of sin may also be a legitimate criticism. Downplayed sin results in a downplayed Saviour perhaps?
Part Three is called "Reflecting the Image" and in a series of interesting chapters, Wright discusses worship, prayer, Bible reading, the gospel, the Church and the Future. Each of these reflect Wright's distinctive views to some extent, but also contain much that would be uncontroversial. One point of disagreement I have is when he says that it doesn't matter whether we call it the Lord's Supper, Communion, the Eucharist or the Mass. Wright lumps all together. But the fact is that there are significant differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics on this point and we certainly do not all believe the same thing!
Like most of Tom Wright's books, Simply Christian is a mixed bag. Although it is wonderfully written and easy to read, and although he deals with many things in a winsome and accurate way, there are those characteristic issues at the same time. For this reason, no doubt some would question using this book to reach out to non-Christians. I wouldn't go as far as that, but I probably would want to supplement this with something that is not quite so idiosyncratic. It might just be worth pointing out to non-Christians that this is simply Wrightian Christianity (from the New Perspective on Paul viewpoint) and not necessarily what Christians have always believed or all believe now. If there had been more mention of the God-ward aspect of sin and personal guilt as a result and if there had been more said about the cross and Christ as Saviour, I think the book would have been far stronger and Wright would have lost nothing in doing so.
Once again, this is a case of agreeing with Wright in what he affirms, but questioning a lot of what he omits from the book.
Peril in Paradise
Peril in Paradise: Theology, Science and the Age of the Earth
Mark S. Whorton
Authentic Media 2005
This is the second book I've read recently advocating an old earth creationist (OEC) position. The author is an engineer who has worked for NASA and is also well-known as a Christian apologist.
Whorton takes a stronger line against Young Earth Creationism (YEC) than Snoke in his book I would say. As well as advocating the day-age view and arguing against YEC on a number of grounds, he spends much of the book contrasting what he calls the "Perfect Paradise Paradigm" (basically YEC) with another theological position he calls the "Perfect Purpose Paradigm". He comes close to saying at some points that the Perfect Paradise Paradigm is actually teaching a sub-biblical view of God, creation and especially evil. For me this part of the book was not a great success.
Other parts of the book are more successful. All in all I think he both hits and misses his targets in the course of the argument. Without doubt, he shows up many of the weaknesses of YEC teaching, and establishes a number of important OEC points. Just occasionally I think he oversteps the mark and gets a bit confused in his thinking. This is especially evident in his treatment of how suffering was (in Whorton's view) always part of the created order and part of the creation God saw was "very good".
In my view Snoke's book is a better constructed argument and succeeds in its aims without resorting to the occasionally odd bit of theology that Whorton allows to creep into his argument.
Mark S. Whorton
Authentic Media 2005
This is the second book I've read recently advocating an old earth creationist (OEC) position. The author is an engineer who has worked for NASA and is also well-known as a Christian apologist.
Whorton takes a stronger line against Young Earth Creationism (YEC) than Snoke in his book I would say. As well as advocating the day-age view and arguing against YEC on a number of grounds, he spends much of the book contrasting what he calls the "Perfect Paradise Paradigm" (basically YEC) with another theological position he calls the "Perfect Purpose Paradigm". He comes close to saying at some points that the Perfect Paradise Paradigm is actually teaching a sub-biblical view of God, creation and especially evil. For me this part of the book was not a great success.
Other parts of the book are more successful. All in all I think he both hits and misses his targets in the course of the argument. Without doubt, he shows up many of the weaknesses of YEC teaching, and establishes a number of important OEC points. Just occasionally I think he oversteps the mark and gets a bit confused in his thinking. This is especially evident in his treatment of how suffering was (in Whorton's view) always part of the created order and part of the creation God saw was "very good".
In my view Snoke's book is a better constructed argument and succeeds in its aims without resorting to the occasionally odd bit of theology that Whorton allows to creep into his argument.
Sunday, 21 November 2010
A Biblical Case for an Old Earth
A Biblical Case for an Old Earth
David Snoke
Baker Books 2006
This book does exactly what is says in the title - it presents a biblical case for an old earth interpretation of Genesis One.
Although the author presents a case in favour of the day-age interpretation, the book is also very useful to any Christian who has concerns about Young Earth Creationism and for whom it would be useful to know that there are alternatives accepted by conservative, Bible-believing Christians. The author is a professor of physics and an elder in the Presbyterian Church of America.
As a proponent of the framework view I would take issue with some of Snoke's exegesis of the key texts where he argues that the days of Genesis One are intended to be understood as long geological ages presented in chronological order. However his critique of the so-called 'creation science' underpinning Young Earth Creationism is uncompromising, and his presentation of the evidence in favour of an old earth is strong and his analysis of the key 'animal death before the fall' issue is also powerful.
He also spends a chapter discussing Noah's flood and considers whether or not the flood required to be truly global or merely global in terms of the world view of the time.
In an important final chapter, Snoke points out a number of key 'non-negotiables' in terms of biblical Old Earth creationism including the historicity of Adam and Noah, the fact that all life was created miraculously by sovereign acts of God, and the fact that one day Christ will return and there will be a new heaven and earth.
This book would be useful valuable to any Christian reader perhaps most to Christian students and scientists and new converts who may be wondering if they really have to swallow Young Earth Creationism in order to believe in Christ as Lord and Saviour.
The value of the book is increased by the inclusion of study questions at the end of each chapter.
David Snoke
Baker Books 2006
This book does exactly what is says in the title - it presents a biblical case for an old earth interpretation of Genesis One.
Although the author presents a case in favour of the day-age interpretation, the book is also very useful to any Christian who has concerns about Young Earth Creationism and for whom it would be useful to know that there are alternatives accepted by conservative, Bible-believing Christians. The author is a professor of physics and an elder in the Presbyterian Church of America.
As a proponent of the framework view I would take issue with some of Snoke's exegesis of the key texts where he argues that the days of Genesis One are intended to be understood as long geological ages presented in chronological order. However his critique of the so-called 'creation science' underpinning Young Earth Creationism is uncompromising, and his presentation of the evidence in favour of an old earth is strong and his analysis of the key 'animal death before the fall' issue is also powerful.
He also spends a chapter discussing Noah's flood and considers whether or not the flood required to be truly global or merely global in terms of the world view of the time.
In an important final chapter, Snoke points out a number of key 'non-negotiables' in terms of biblical Old Earth creationism including the historicity of Adam and Noah, the fact that all life was created miraculously by sovereign acts of God, and the fact that one day Christ will return and there will be a new heaven and earth.
This book would be useful valuable to any Christian reader perhaps most to Christian students and scientists and new converts who may be wondering if they really have to swallow Young Earth Creationism in order to believe in Christ as Lord and Saviour.
The value of the book is increased by the inclusion of study questions at the end of each chapter.
Friday, 5 November 2010
Comparing the NIV 1984, TNIV and NIV 2011
I've said before that there are a number of verses I like to look at as a personal ‘road test’ used to assess an English language Bible translation for textual basis, accuracy, theological bias (conservative or liberal), translation approach (complete equivalence, formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence or paraphrase), and in a few cases, the beauty of the translation. You can read my thinking on the following verses here.
Here are the results for the NIV 1984, TNIV and NIV 2011 on the test verses.
1 Samuel 8:16
All three follow the Greek Septuagint here over the Hebrew text while noting the Hebrew reading in footnotes. (0.5/0.5/0.5 out of 1)
Matthew 10:8
All three follow the NA/UBS critical text in the New Testament. (1.5/1.5/1.5 out of 2)
Genesis 1:2
All three have the "Spirit of God" which I believe is correct. (2.5/2.5/2.5 out of 3)
Genesis 19:24
All three translate accurately. (3.5/3.5/3.5 out of 4)
Ruth 2:20
Here all three translate the key Hebrew term differently. The old NIV has "Kinsman-Redeemer". TNIV has "family guardian" and the new NIV has "guardian-redeemer". For me the old NIV is much to be preferred here. (4.5/3.5/3.5 out of 5)
Psalm 25:14
All three go for "The LORD confides in those" where I prefer "The friendship of the LORD is with..." (4.5/3.5/3.5 out of 6)
Psalm 92:7
All three miss the point of the verse which is not "though the wicked spring up...they will be destroyed" but "when the wicked spring up...it is only that they may be destroyed forevermore." (NASB) (4.5/3.5/3.5 out of 7)
Proverbs 16:4
Here the old NIV is the only one that correctly says that the LORD works out everything for "his ends". The other two weaken this to everything working out for "its end". Very different view of God's sovereignty here. (5.5/3.5/3.5 out of 8)
Isaiah 7:14
All three are correct in translating it as "virgin" here. (6.5/4.5/4.5 out of 9)
Ezekiel 33:11
I would have preferred "does not delight in" here, but all three have "take no pleasure in." (6.5/4.5/4.5 out of 10)
Jonah 3:3
All three interpret the phrase "of three days' journey" as "a visit required three days" (NIV84) and "it took three days to go through it" (TNIV and NIV 2011). It would be better left ambiguous in the translation rather than choose one possible meaning for the reader. (6.5/4.5/4.5 out of 11)
Haggai 2:7
I understand this as a Messianic prophecy. Only the old NIV allows the reader to interpret it correctly. The other two versions change it from "the desired of all nations" (which allows either interpretation) to "what is desired by all nations". (7.5/3.5/3.5 out of 12)
Micah 5:2
All three don't translate this verse as well as they could. They talk about the Messiah's "origins" being from "ancient times". Whereas the eternal Son of God's "goings forth" have been "from everlasting" (KJV). (7.5/4.5/4.5 out of 13)
Matthew 2:10
All three translate well as "overjoyed" but the don't translate that literally here: "rejoiced with exceeding great joy" (KJV) (7.5/4.5/4.5 out of 14)
Matthew 16:18
All three translate well, but have misleading footnotes simply saying "Peter means rock". This indicates that Peter is the rock on which Christ builds the Church. However a different word is used. The footnote could have been much more accurate. Although Peter does mean ‘a rock’, the word means a smallish rock or pebble, whereas the ‘rock’ mentioned is a mass of rock or a huge boulder. (8/5/5 out of 15)
Matthew 19:9
The old NIV had "marital unfaithfulness". Here both the TNIV and new NIV are more accurate with "sexual immorality". (8/6/6 out of 16)
Mark 2:19
All three translated idiomatically which helps the reader understand the meaning of the Jewish idiom. (9/7/7 out of 17)
Luke 4:22
All three have "spoke well of him" but the Greek is more accurately rendered "bore witness to him". Not everyone spoke well of him, but they did speak about him with approval. This may be all that Luke meant. (9/7/7 out of 18)
Luke 10:34
All three are literal here but misleading. They sound as if the bandages are put on first, then oil and wine poured on. Actually the order would be the opposite - oil and wine poured on then bandaged. (9/7/7 out of 19)
John 3:16
All three have "one and only" for monogenes. This is not the best translation, but it is okay. Unfortunately they all also keep the traditional "whoever believes" which is misleading. It should be "everyone who believes." (9.5/7.5/7.5 out of 20)
Acts 5:30
Only the old NIV is literal with "tree" here. The others change this to "cross." All get the wording clear enough so we know Jesus was killed by being hanging him on a tree/cross. (10.5/8/8 out of 21)
Acts 20:28
All three translate this verse correctly. (11.5/9/9 out of 22)
Romans 3:25
All three have "sacrifice of atonement" here rather than propitiation. Only the old NIV has an excellent footnote explaining what propitiation means. The others refer to the mercy seat instead. (12/9/9 out of 23)
Romans 8:28
All three opt for the weaker rendering that God "works for the good" rather than "works all things for good". (12/9/9 out of 24)
Romans 9:5
All three translate this very strongly in favour of Christ's deity. (13/10/10 out of 25)
1 Corinthians 7:1
The Greek literally says it is good for a man "not to touch a woman." Old NIV has "not to marry", the others have "not to have sexual relations". The new translations are better, but it might have been better to leave it ambiguous and let the reader decide. (13/10.5/10.5 out of 26)
1 Corinthians 7:36
All three have "the virgin he is engaged to" but literally the verse says "his virgin". So they are interpretations rather than literal translations (even though I think they are all correct). It would have been better to leave it ambiguous and let the reader or preacher decide what it means. (13/10.5/10.5 out of 27)
2 Corinthians 5:14
None of the three pick up on the fact that the second "all" is "this all" or "all these" so that those for whom Christ died are the same set of people as have died to sin (i.e. Christian believers). (13/10.5/10.5 out of 28)
2 Corinthians 5:16
All three talk about "worldly point of view" rather than the literal "according to the flesh" that Paul actually wrote. This is very interpretative in a translation. (13/10.5/10.5 out of 29)
Ephesians 3:9-10
All three fail this test by punctuating the sentence so that Paul's meaning cannot be that God created all things so that though the church the wisdom of God might be made known, even though this is a legitimate interpretation of the verse. (13/10.5/10.5 out of 30)
Philippians 2:6-7
Here the TNIV and NIV 2011 are much preferable to the original NIV. Their translation that Christ did not consider his equality with God something that he should take advantage of is absolutely excellent. All three have "made himself nothing" rather than "emptied himself" which is so easily misunderstood. I prefer "made himself of no account" but the NIV family version is also good. (13/11.5/11.5 out of 31)
Colossians 2:8
Only the old NIV translates as "the basic principles of the world" where the others have "elemental spiritual forces of this world". The trouble is that I understand Paul's phrase is wider than "spiritual forces". It includes all the principles of this world, not just spiritual ones. (14/11.5/11.5 out of 32)
2 Timothy 3:16
All three have "All Scripture is God-breathed". This is very literal and correct although I prefer "All Scripture is breathed out by God" which is better English as in the ESV. (14.5/12/12 out of 33)
Hebrews 2:9
All three have "tasted death for everyone". Literally it should be "for all" instead. (14.5/12/12 out of 34)
1 Peter 3:3-4
All three translate this verse well and convey the meaning clearly for the reader in English. (15.5/13/13 out of 35)
2 Peter 1:1
All three are accurate here. (16.5/14/14 out of 36)
2 Peter 1:20
All three are acceptable translations here even though they are slightly interpretative. The TNIV and NIV 2011 add "of things" after "interpretation" but this is not significant. (17.5/15/15 out of 37)
1 John 3:9
All three say that no one born again will "continue to sin". This is simply not true - or none of us are born again! Much better is something like the NASB which says we don't "practice sin". It happens but it is not our purpose in life any more. (17.5/15/15 out of 38)
Jude 4
All three miss the point about reprobation in this verse. (17.5/15/15 out of 39)
It would appear from this survey that the new NIV 2011 is very like the TNIV and as far as this albeit unscientific sample of verses is concerned, both are a tiny step backwards from the 1984 NIV, though all three remain very similar translations. Of course a different selection of verses might show something different. There are undoubtedly improvements in some places in the new version over the old one. In Romans for example, the restoration of the more literal "righteousness of God" - a key phrase in Paul's argument - which leaves room for more than one interpretation is preferable to the old NIV's "righteousness from God" which may be correct as an interpretation but not as a translation.
There are other places where the TNIV and NIV 2011 reflect advances or changes in scholarly opinion about certain words and phrases. I also have no problem with gender neutral changes where these are justified by the Hebrew or Greek. In the end there is little to choose between the three versions. As with any translation people will have quibbles here and there. That is the case with the NIV 2011. It was the case with the TNIV and it was the case when the NIV itself first came out.
Because they strike a good balance between readability and accuracy for the most part, the NIV remains a good choice as a person's primary bible, along with more literal translations like the ESV and NRSV and more dynamic versions like the NLT and Good News Bible.
Here are the results for the NIV 1984, TNIV and NIV 2011 on the test verses.
1 Samuel 8:16
All three follow the Greek Septuagint here over the Hebrew text while noting the Hebrew reading in footnotes. (0.5/0.5/0.5 out of 1)
Matthew 10:8
All three follow the NA/UBS critical text in the New Testament. (1.5/1.5/1.5 out of 2)
Genesis 1:2
All three have the "Spirit of God" which I believe is correct. (2.5/2.5/2.5 out of 3)
Genesis 19:24
All three translate accurately. (3.5/3.5/3.5 out of 4)
Ruth 2:20
Here all three translate the key Hebrew term differently. The old NIV has "Kinsman-Redeemer". TNIV has "family guardian" and the new NIV has "guardian-redeemer". For me the old NIV is much to be preferred here. (4.5/3.5/3.5 out of 5)
Psalm 25:14
All three go for "The LORD confides in those" where I prefer "The friendship of the LORD is with..." (4.5/3.5/3.5 out of 6)
Psalm 92:7
All three miss the point of the verse which is not "though the wicked spring up...they will be destroyed" but "when the wicked spring up...it is only that they may be destroyed forevermore." (NASB) (4.5/3.5/3.5 out of 7)
Proverbs 16:4
Here the old NIV is the only one that correctly says that the LORD works out everything for "his ends". The other two weaken this to everything working out for "its end". Very different view of God's sovereignty here. (5.5/3.5/3.5 out of 8)
Isaiah 7:14
All three are correct in translating it as "virgin" here. (6.5/4.5/4.5 out of 9)
Ezekiel 33:11
I would have preferred "does not delight in" here, but all three have "take no pleasure in." (6.5/4.5/4.5 out of 10)
Jonah 3:3
All three interpret the phrase "of three days' journey" as "a visit required three days" (NIV84) and "it took three days to go through it" (TNIV and NIV 2011). It would be better left ambiguous in the translation rather than choose one possible meaning for the reader. (6.5/4.5/4.5 out of 11)
Haggai 2:7
I understand this as a Messianic prophecy. Only the old NIV allows the reader to interpret it correctly. The other two versions change it from "the desired of all nations" (which allows either interpretation) to "what is desired by all nations". (7.5/3.5/3.5 out of 12)
Micah 5:2
All three don't translate this verse as well as they could. They talk about the Messiah's "origins" being from "ancient times". Whereas the eternal Son of God's "goings forth" have been "from everlasting" (KJV). (7.5/4.5/4.5 out of 13)
Matthew 2:10
All three translate well as "overjoyed" but the don't translate that literally here: "rejoiced with exceeding great joy" (KJV) (7.5/4.5/4.5 out of 14)
Matthew 16:18
All three translate well, but have misleading footnotes simply saying "Peter means rock". This indicates that Peter is the rock on which Christ builds the Church. However a different word is used. The footnote could have been much more accurate. Although Peter does mean ‘a rock’, the word means a smallish rock or pebble, whereas the ‘rock’ mentioned is a mass of rock or a huge boulder. (8/5/5 out of 15)
Matthew 19:9
The old NIV had "marital unfaithfulness". Here both the TNIV and new NIV are more accurate with "sexual immorality". (8/6/6 out of 16)
Mark 2:19
All three translated idiomatically which helps the reader understand the meaning of the Jewish idiom. (9/7/7 out of 17)
Luke 4:22
All three have "spoke well of him" but the Greek is more accurately rendered "bore witness to him". Not everyone spoke well of him, but they did speak about him with approval. This may be all that Luke meant. (9/7/7 out of 18)
Luke 10:34
All three are literal here but misleading. They sound as if the bandages are put on first, then oil and wine poured on. Actually the order would be the opposite - oil and wine poured on then bandaged. (9/7/7 out of 19)
John 3:16
All three have "one and only" for monogenes. This is not the best translation, but it is okay. Unfortunately they all also keep the traditional "whoever believes" which is misleading. It should be "everyone who believes." (9.5/7.5/7.5 out of 20)
Acts 5:30
Only the old NIV is literal with "tree" here. The others change this to "cross." All get the wording clear enough so we know Jesus was killed by being hanging him on a tree/cross. (10.5/8/8 out of 21)
Acts 20:28
All three translate this verse correctly. (11.5/9/9 out of 22)
Romans 3:25
All three have "sacrifice of atonement" here rather than propitiation. Only the old NIV has an excellent footnote explaining what propitiation means. The others refer to the mercy seat instead. (12/9/9 out of 23)
Romans 8:28
All three opt for the weaker rendering that God "works for the good" rather than "works all things for good". (12/9/9 out of 24)
Romans 9:5
All three translate this very strongly in favour of Christ's deity. (13/10/10 out of 25)
1 Corinthians 7:1
The Greek literally says it is good for a man "not to touch a woman." Old NIV has "not to marry", the others have "not to have sexual relations". The new translations are better, but it might have been better to leave it ambiguous and let the reader decide. (13/10.5/10.5 out of 26)
1 Corinthians 7:36
All three have "the virgin he is engaged to" but literally the verse says "his virgin". So they are interpretations rather than literal translations (even though I think they are all correct). It would have been better to leave it ambiguous and let the reader or preacher decide what it means. (13/10.5/10.5 out of 27)
2 Corinthians 5:14
None of the three pick up on the fact that the second "all" is "this all" or "all these" so that those for whom Christ died are the same set of people as have died to sin (i.e. Christian believers). (13/10.5/10.5 out of 28)
2 Corinthians 5:16
All three talk about "worldly point of view" rather than the literal "according to the flesh" that Paul actually wrote. This is very interpretative in a translation. (13/10.5/10.5 out of 29)
Ephesians 3:9-10
All three fail this test by punctuating the sentence so that Paul's meaning cannot be that God created all things so that though the church the wisdom of God might be made known, even though this is a legitimate interpretation of the verse. (13/10.5/10.5 out of 30)
Philippians 2:6-7
Here the TNIV and NIV 2011 are much preferable to the original NIV. Their translation that Christ did not consider his equality with God something that he should take advantage of is absolutely excellent. All three have "made himself nothing" rather than "emptied himself" which is so easily misunderstood. I prefer "made himself of no account" but the NIV family version is also good. (13/11.5/11.5 out of 31)
Colossians 2:8
Only the old NIV translates as "the basic principles of the world" where the others have "elemental spiritual forces of this world". The trouble is that I understand Paul's phrase is wider than "spiritual forces". It includes all the principles of this world, not just spiritual ones. (14/11.5/11.5 out of 32)
2 Timothy 3:16
All three have "All Scripture is God-breathed". This is very literal and correct although I prefer "All Scripture is breathed out by God" which is better English as in the ESV. (14.5/12/12 out of 33)
Hebrews 2:9
All three have "tasted death for everyone". Literally it should be "for all" instead. (14.5/12/12 out of 34)
1 Peter 3:3-4
All three translate this verse well and convey the meaning clearly for the reader in English. (15.5/13/13 out of 35)
2 Peter 1:1
All three are accurate here. (16.5/14/14 out of 36)
2 Peter 1:20
All three are acceptable translations here even though they are slightly interpretative. The TNIV and NIV 2011 add "of things" after "interpretation" but this is not significant. (17.5/15/15 out of 37)
1 John 3:9
All three say that no one born again will "continue to sin". This is simply not true - or none of us are born again! Much better is something like the NASB which says we don't "practice sin". It happens but it is not our purpose in life any more. (17.5/15/15 out of 38)
Jude 4
All three miss the point about reprobation in this verse. (17.5/15/15 out of 39)
It would appear from this survey that the new NIV 2011 is very like the TNIV and as far as this albeit unscientific sample of verses is concerned, both are a tiny step backwards from the 1984 NIV, though all three remain very similar translations. Of course a different selection of verses might show something different. There are undoubtedly improvements in some places in the new version over the old one. In Romans for example, the restoration of the more literal "righteousness of God" - a key phrase in Paul's argument - which leaves room for more than one interpretation is preferable to the old NIV's "righteousness from God" which may be correct as an interpretation but not as a translation.
There are other places where the TNIV and NIV 2011 reflect advances or changes in scholarly opinion about certain words and phrases. I also have no problem with gender neutral changes where these are justified by the Hebrew or Greek. In the end there is little to choose between the three versions. As with any translation people will have quibbles here and there. That is the case with the NIV 2011. It was the case with the TNIV and it was the case when the NIV itself first came out.
Because they strike a good balance between readability and accuracy for the most part, the NIV remains a good choice as a person's primary bible, along with more literal translations like the ESV and NRSV and more dynamic versions like the NLT and Good News Bible.
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Darwin on Trial
Darwin on Trial
Phillip E. Johnson
Inter-Varsity Press 1993
This book is an interesting critique of Darwinism written by a professor of law in the early 1990s.
Johnson does not attempt to put forward any particular view of the origin of life - certainly not overtly - and he appears to have little love for Youth Earth Creationism in particular. If anything he appears to argue for a form of theistic evolution and an old earth.
But rather than outlining what he thinks is a better explanation than scientific naturalistic Darwinism, he concentrates on why Darwinism (or rather neo-Darwinism) fails as an acceptable scientific and logical explanation for the origin of life on earth. Johnson takes the philosopher Karl Popper's thoughts - himself no Christian theologian - who pointed out that a theory that purports to "explain everything" actually by definition explains nothing - and applies it to Darwinism.
The trouble is that for so long Darwinism has been accepted as the orthodox scientific view that evidence contradicting or not fitting the theory is ignored or explained away (because the theory must be kept sacrosanct), while evidence in support of evolution - however tenuous, is treated as if it confirms everything the theory claims. Time after time Johnson documents examples of this kind of thing in scientific writings in books and journals like Science in the USA and Nature in Britain.
Johnson notes that, as Popper suggested, one key aspect of any claim that something is scientific truth is it is falsifiable. Indeed this is constantly used by scientists to dismiss creation science as mere "pseudo-science" since the claims of Young Earth Creationism are not falsifiable. Yet, as Johnson shows time and time again, Darwinism itself fails this test, since its proponents start out with a philosophical commitment to naturalism and the theory itself as the only acceptable explanation for how nature works and how life came to exist, including human life. By definition, and by philosophical bias, anything supernatural or theistic is excluded. When proceeding from this basis, nothing is really allowed to challenge the basic foundational presumptions on which the Darwinian edifice is constructed. In this way, Darwinism has more in common with pseudo-sciences like Marxism and Freudianism than it has with sciences like physics or chemistry.
In a succession of chapters that form the heart of the book and Johnson's argument he deals with how each of the following areas contain problems for Darwinism that cannot properly be ignored:
- The key concept of natural selection
- The fact of mutation
- Fossils
- Vertebrate sequence
- Molecular evidence
- Prebiological evolution
He then comes to the conclusion that Darwinism is a philosophy and even a faith itself that comes to conclusions based on its naturalistic assumption rather than on observable facts which would be accepted by the majority of theists too. To give just one example, Johnson accepts that microevolution is an observable fact - that there is descent with change in nature - the famous light and dark moths observations in Victorian England being a documented instance - but he does not accept that such observations prove macroevolution - that all life comes from a common ancestor, that the whale and the bat for example come from a common rodent-like mammalian ancestor. Instead, such a claim is a philosophical belief arrived at because there is no other possible explanation in a naturalistic universe. While such a belief is reasonable given the philosophical underpinnings on which it is made, yet it is no more reasonable than a theistic or even creationist conclusion from the same facts given theism's or creationism's underpinnings.
As someone who has grappled with many of these issues for a long time as a Christian, I found Johnson's book very challenging and interesting reading. Anyone who thinks he can be dismissed as a "fundamentalist" or "young earth creationist" had better read the book - he is neither of these. Those most frequently quoted in the book are Darwinians like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. There is practically no theology or biblical material in the book at all.
In the concluding sentence of the book Johnson says of the battle of philosophies between Darwinism and Creationism (in its widest sense embracing intelligent design or theistic evolution) "in the end reality will win". To me the challenge of the book is to those who unthinkingly accept Darwinism as "the truth" to subject the theory to criticism and see where that takes you. After all, if it is true, what is there to fear from criticism and examination? Or could it be that in reality the atheistic/agnostic cart is before the evolutionary horse and the tail wags the dog?
Phillip E. Johnson
Inter-Varsity Press 1993
This book is an interesting critique of Darwinism written by a professor of law in the early 1990s.
Johnson does not attempt to put forward any particular view of the origin of life - certainly not overtly - and he appears to have little love for Youth Earth Creationism in particular. If anything he appears to argue for a form of theistic evolution and an old earth.
But rather than outlining what he thinks is a better explanation than scientific naturalistic Darwinism, he concentrates on why Darwinism (or rather neo-Darwinism) fails as an acceptable scientific and logical explanation for the origin of life on earth. Johnson takes the philosopher Karl Popper's thoughts - himself no Christian theologian - who pointed out that a theory that purports to "explain everything" actually by definition explains nothing - and applies it to Darwinism.
The trouble is that for so long Darwinism has been accepted as the orthodox scientific view that evidence contradicting or not fitting the theory is ignored or explained away (because the theory must be kept sacrosanct), while evidence in support of evolution - however tenuous, is treated as if it confirms everything the theory claims. Time after time Johnson documents examples of this kind of thing in scientific writings in books and journals like Science in the USA and Nature in Britain.
Johnson notes that, as Popper suggested, one key aspect of any claim that something is scientific truth is it is falsifiable. Indeed this is constantly used by scientists to dismiss creation science as mere "pseudo-science" since the claims of Young Earth Creationism are not falsifiable. Yet, as Johnson shows time and time again, Darwinism itself fails this test, since its proponents start out with a philosophical commitment to naturalism and the theory itself as the only acceptable explanation for how nature works and how life came to exist, including human life. By definition, and by philosophical bias, anything supernatural or theistic is excluded. When proceeding from this basis, nothing is really allowed to challenge the basic foundational presumptions on which the Darwinian edifice is constructed. In this way, Darwinism has more in common with pseudo-sciences like Marxism and Freudianism than it has with sciences like physics or chemistry.
In a succession of chapters that form the heart of the book and Johnson's argument he deals with how each of the following areas contain problems for Darwinism that cannot properly be ignored:
- The key concept of natural selection
- The fact of mutation
- Fossils
- Vertebrate sequence
- Molecular evidence
- Prebiological evolution
He then comes to the conclusion that Darwinism is a philosophy and even a faith itself that comes to conclusions based on its naturalistic assumption rather than on observable facts which would be accepted by the majority of theists too. To give just one example, Johnson accepts that microevolution is an observable fact - that there is descent with change in nature - the famous light and dark moths observations in Victorian England being a documented instance - but he does not accept that such observations prove macroevolution - that all life comes from a common ancestor, that the whale and the bat for example come from a common rodent-like mammalian ancestor. Instead, such a claim is a philosophical belief arrived at because there is no other possible explanation in a naturalistic universe. While such a belief is reasonable given the philosophical underpinnings on which it is made, yet it is no more reasonable than a theistic or even creationist conclusion from the same facts given theism's or creationism's underpinnings.
As someone who has grappled with many of these issues for a long time as a Christian, I found Johnson's book very challenging and interesting reading. Anyone who thinks he can be dismissed as a "fundamentalist" or "young earth creationist" had better read the book - he is neither of these. Those most frequently quoted in the book are Darwinians like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. There is practically no theology or biblical material in the book at all.
In the concluding sentence of the book Johnson says of the battle of philosophies between Darwinism and Creationism (in its widest sense embracing intelligent design or theistic evolution) "in the end reality will win". To me the challenge of the book is to those who unthinkingly accept Darwinism as "the truth" to subject the theory to criticism and see where that takes you. After all, if it is true, what is there to fear from criticism and examination? Or could it be that in reality the atheistic/agnostic cart is before the evolutionary horse and the tail wags the dog?
Thursday, 14 October 2010
Complete in Christ
Complete in Christ: Rediscovering Jesus and Ourselves
Nigel M. de S. Cameron
Marshall & Pickering, 1989
This is a short book of only 113 pages. I've had it on my bookshelves for years but had never got round to reading it until now. I only wish I'd read it years ago because it is worth its weight in gold. I haven't read anything else that manages to excite about a doctrine that is under emphasised in evangelical circles - namely the humanity of Christ - and through that doctrine it corrects, comforts and challenges on what it means to be human and what it means to live life as a Christian.
If that sounds like a lot to pack into a short paperback, that's probably because it is. The treatments of the various subjects dealt with are short and pithy. It is more a theological sketch book than a finished theological tome. Relatively few biblical texts are dealt with in any detail and there is almost no interaction with other theologians.
However, what it lacks in size, it makes up for in power.
The introduction sets the tone. It is entitled: "Are Christians human?" This is by no means a foolish question. Cameron rightly points out that in evangelical churches, we have a tendency to so emphasise the deity of Christ - as we wage apologetic battles against liberal heresies - that we tend to downplay (albeit accidentally) the fact that he really was human with all that entails. In the process, as a by-product, we tend to have such a high view of what a Christian should be that we inadvertently expect Christians to be more superhuman than human. This leads to guilt, fatigue, failure and sometimes despair. Instead, Cameron pleads for "a fresh realism in our Christian living."
Cameron then goes on to address the implications of the fact that God became flesh in the incarnation in chapters 1 and 2. Here he criticises evangelical theology in general for the way that Jesus' humanity and his earthly life and ministry are under examined. Too often, he feels we reduce the incarnation to no more than providing a sinless candidate for the atonement, whereas the incarnation has much more significance than this (though it does also have that significance, Cameron is quick to point out). He accuses the evangelical church of an inadvertent Docetism.
Having cleared the ground that Jesus is fully human and pointing out it matters that he was, Cameron then moves on to discuss how this insight should affect the Christian life.
He deals in chapter 3 with the whole area of the mind and intellect in humanity. This passage was very powerful as Cameron points out that life is not just for doing so-called "religious things". Important though activities like worship and evangelism are, they are not the be all and end all of being a human being. Cameron looks at creation, and man's original role as steward of the world, and claims that redemption does not do away with God's original purpose, but rather gets that original purpose back on track as it were. This reminded me of some of N. T. Wright's insights. The Bible's story is not about getting sinners to heaven and out of this mess of a creation we're in. It is about redeeming the creation and renewing it, for sinners to populate and live full human lives in a new heaven and earth.
Cameron points out that the traditional division between the secular and the sacred in life that we tacitly buy into in the church is unbiblical. At one point he says that to be novelist is every bit as noble a calling for the Christian as it is to be doctor or a teacher or a missionary.
Chapter 4 is an interesting discussion of the will and how we are guided by God. And it is a necessary corrective to the idea that Christians should be largely passive when we make important decisions.
He then discusses the emotions in what is another fine chapter.
Towards the end of the book there is a discussion of just how human (with all that entails) the "heroes of the faith" in the Bible are. Cameron suggests that if we got rid of false ideas of what it is to be "a saint" our Christian lives would be far more useful and peaceful. I think he is on the money where he criticises evangelical churches for denying perfectionism in theory but practically making it a stick to beat one another up with in practice.
His conclusion is simple yet very powerful. He points out that it is precisely when we seek to rise above our humanity as Christians or as human beings - as Adam did when he ate from the tree of good and evil - that we fall below what we should be. Since we are created in the image of God, to be human is to be as high in dignity and worth as we can ever hope to be and it is a great privilege and joy just to be a human being. Being a Christian is not about making ourselves less human, if anything it is about being more human than we could otherwise be. He writes: "[The] high goal of the Christian life does not consist in the suppression of the mind, the will, the heart, the body."
This is a book worth getting hold of and carefully reading. Any Christian would profit from it I would suggest. I would certainly like to read it again, slowly and prayerfully, because there's scarcely a page that doesn't say something challenging, encouraging and interesting.
Nigel M. de S. Cameron
Marshall & Pickering, 1989
This is a short book of only 113 pages. I've had it on my bookshelves for years but had never got round to reading it until now. I only wish I'd read it years ago because it is worth its weight in gold. I haven't read anything else that manages to excite about a doctrine that is under emphasised in evangelical circles - namely the humanity of Christ - and through that doctrine it corrects, comforts and challenges on what it means to be human and what it means to live life as a Christian.
If that sounds like a lot to pack into a short paperback, that's probably because it is. The treatments of the various subjects dealt with are short and pithy. It is more a theological sketch book than a finished theological tome. Relatively few biblical texts are dealt with in any detail and there is almost no interaction with other theologians.
However, what it lacks in size, it makes up for in power.
The introduction sets the tone. It is entitled: "Are Christians human?" This is by no means a foolish question. Cameron rightly points out that in evangelical churches, we have a tendency to so emphasise the deity of Christ - as we wage apologetic battles against liberal heresies - that we tend to downplay (albeit accidentally) the fact that he really was human with all that entails. In the process, as a by-product, we tend to have such a high view of what a Christian should be that we inadvertently expect Christians to be more superhuman than human. This leads to guilt, fatigue, failure and sometimes despair. Instead, Cameron pleads for "a fresh realism in our Christian living."
Cameron then goes on to address the implications of the fact that God became flesh in the incarnation in chapters 1 and 2. Here he criticises evangelical theology in general for the way that Jesus' humanity and his earthly life and ministry are under examined. Too often, he feels we reduce the incarnation to no more than providing a sinless candidate for the atonement, whereas the incarnation has much more significance than this (though it does also have that significance, Cameron is quick to point out). He accuses the evangelical church of an inadvertent Docetism.
Having cleared the ground that Jesus is fully human and pointing out it matters that he was, Cameron then moves on to discuss how this insight should affect the Christian life.
He deals in chapter 3 with the whole area of the mind and intellect in humanity. This passage was very powerful as Cameron points out that life is not just for doing so-called "religious things". Important though activities like worship and evangelism are, they are not the be all and end all of being a human being. Cameron looks at creation, and man's original role as steward of the world, and claims that redemption does not do away with God's original purpose, but rather gets that original purpose back on track as it were. This reminded me of some of N. T. Wright's insights. The Bible's story is not about getting sinners to heaven and out of this mess of a creation we're in. It is about redeeming the creation and renewing it, for sinners to populate and live full human lives in a new heaven and earth.
Cameron points out that the traditional division between the secular and the sacred in life that we tacitly buy into in the church is unbiblical. At one point he says that to be novelist is every bit as noble a calling for the Christian as it is to be doctor or a teacher or a missionary.
Chapter 4 is an interesting discussion of the will and how we are guided by God. And it is a necessary corrective to the idea that Christians should be largely passive when we make important decisions.
He then discusses the emotions in what is another fine chapter.
Towards the end of the book there is a discussion of just how human (with all that entails) the "heroes of the faith" in the Bible are. Cameron suggests that if we got rid of false ideas of what it is to be "a saint" our Christian lives would be far more useful and peaceful. I think he is on the money where he criticises evangelical churches for denying perfectionism in theory but practically making it a stick to beat one another up with in practice.
His conclusion is simple yet very powerful. He points out that it is precisely when we seek to rise above our humanity as Christians or as human beings - as Adam did when he ate from the tree of good and evil - that we fall below what we should be. Since we are created in the image of God, to be human is to be as high in dignity and worth as we can ever hope to be and it is a great privilege and joy just to be a human being. Being a Christian is not about making ourselves less human, if anything it is about being more human than we could otherwise be. He writes: "[The] high goal of the Christian life does not consist in the suppression of the mind, the will, the heart, the body."
This is a book worth getting hold of and carefully reading. Any Christian would profit from it I would suggest. I would certainly like to read it again, slowly and prayerfully, because there's scarcely a page that doesn't say something challenging, encouraging and interesting.
Wednesday, 6 October 2010
A busy summer
It's been a long time since I've posted anything to the blog, but I'm hoping to get back into the habit very soon. The summer was very a busy period for us as it involved the buying of a new house, trying to sell our old one, doing a bit of upgrading to the new one, and finally packing up and then moving in less than a fortnight ago.
Everything is starting to take shape now, and we're very happy in the new house.
I should have broadband up and running in a couple of days and then blogging will become a practical possibility again.
Everything is starting to take shape now, and we're very happy in the new house.
I should have broadband up and running in a couple of days and then blogging will become a practical possibility again.
Thursday, 17 June 2010
Introducing Covenant Theology
Introducing Covenant Theology
Michael Horton
Baker Books
Michael Horton is one of the leading Reformed theologians working today and I have enjoyed reading several of his previous books. This book on covenant theology is no exception - it is tremendous.
The title is slightly misleading if you don't read it carefully. This is certainly not a mere introduction to covenant theology, but rather it does introduce us to fairly high-level current thinking on covenant theology. The book was formerly published with a different title, God of Promise, which I think was better.
For someone coming totally new to this area of theology, I think this book would be very challenging reading, and I would suggest perhaps something else as a first book on covenant theology. You could do a lot worse than reading James Packer's essay on covenant theology that was written as an introduction to Witsius's magnum opus, The Economy of Covenants Between God and Man. You can find Packer's essay here.
I really benefited from reading this book. Its discussion of the similarities and differences between the biblical covenants and the so-called suzerain-vassal treaties of the ancient Near East is excellent. Horton makes it clear that the Bible contains two forms of these treaties or covenants, and neither is what we would understand by a contract or agreement.
For Horton, there are covenants of law - and this includes the covenant of works with Adam before the Fall, and the Mosaic covenant at Sinai - and there covenants of promise - and this includes the covenants with Abraham, Noah, David and the New Covenant. Both are similar to these suzerain-vassal treaties, meaning that all are sovereignly imposed by God, but in the former case, there are obligations put on the people to obey and penalties for disobedience. This is the kind of treaty a conquering king would impose on a defeated nation after war.
But Horton correctly notes that many biblical covenants do not fit this pattern. The archetypal biblical covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, does not fit this pattern, for there no obligations are placed on Abraham - it is all promise, it is all grace. It is a treaty where the only obligations are taken by the king himself (in this case God) and the only potential penalties are self-maledictory ones. This points to the fact that the Covenant of Grace is unconditional in nature as far as we are concerned, though it was conditional as far as Christ was concerned.
There are interesting discussions within the book of such things as common grace, the sacraments, the church, and where our obedience fits into the covenant of grace scheme.
As I said before, this book is excellent and highly recommended, but perhaps don't think of it as a simple or basic introduction. It is actually a significant contribution to current Reformed thinking on covenant theology.
Michael Horton
Baker Books
Michael Horton is one of the leading Reformed theologians working today and I have enjoyed reading several of his previous books. This book on covenant theology is no exception - it is tremendous.
The title is slightly misleading if you don't read it carefully. This is certainly not a mere introduction to covenant theology, but rather it does introduce us to fairly high-level current thinking on covenant theology. The book was formerly published with a different title, God of Promise, which I think was better.
For someone coming totally new to this area of theology, I think this book would be very challenging reading, and I would suggest perhaps something else as a first book on covenant theology. You could do a lot worse than reading James Packer's essay on covenant theology that was written as an introduction to Witsius's magnum opus, The Economy of Covenants Between God and Man. You can find Packer's essay here.
I really benefited from reading this book. Its discussion of the similarities and differences between the biblical covenants and the so-called suzerain-vassal treaties of the ancient Near East is excellent. Horton makes it clear that the Bible contains two forms of these treaties or covenants, and neither is what we would understand by a contract or agreement.
For Horton, there are covenants of law - and this includes the covenant of works with Adam before the Fall, and the Mosaic covenant at Sinai - and there covenants of promise - and this includes the covenants with Abraham, Noah, David and the New Covenant. Both are similar to these suzerain-vassal treaties, meaning that all are sovereignly imposed by God, but in the former case, there are obligations put on the people to obey and penalties for disobedience. This is the kind of treaty a conquering king would impose on a defeated nation after war.
But Horton correctly notes that many biblical covenants do not fit this pattern. The archetypal biblical covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, does not fit this pattern, for there no obligations are placed on Abraham - it is all promise, it is all grace. It is a treaty where the only obligations are taken by the king himself (in this case God) and the only potential penalties are self-maledictory ones. This points to the fact that the Covenant of Grace is unconditional in nature as far as we are concerned, though it was conditional as far as Christ was concerned.
There are interesting discussions within the book of such things as common grace, the sacraments, the church, and where our obedience fits into the covenant of grace scheme.
As I said before, this book is excellent and highly recommended, but perhaps don't think of it as a simple or basic introduction. It is actually a significant contribution to current Reformed thinking on covenant theology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)