In the Beginning God: Creation, Culture, and the Spiritual Life
Marva J. Dawn
Paperback: 124 pages
Publisher: IVP Books
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0830837078
ISBN-13: 978-0830837076
Product Dimensions: 8.1 x 5.4 x 0.4 inches
Buy Here: Amazon.com
Thanks to Adrianna Wright and IVP Press for sending me a copy to review!

Marva J. Dawn, whether you tend to agree with her or not, is always a refreshing read for me. She never fails to point the reader back to worship. Her newest book, In the Beginning, God is no different.
Read the rest of this entry

Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision
N. T. Wright
Hardcover: 279 pages
Publisher: IVP Academic (May 30, 2009)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0830838635
ISBN-13: 978-0830838639
Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.3 x 1.2 inches
Buy Here: Amazon.com

Thanks to Adrianna Wright and IVP Press for sending me a copy to review!

John Piper and N. T. Wright fighting it out is like a reformed theologians dream UFC match-up. Both are masters of the pen and word, who preach and teach in such a way that makes you feel like if you were to hold up their books their excitement would start to ooze of the page. We need more excitement like that. You either love them, or hate them, but when they butt heads everyone wants to watch. That’s what excited me most when Piper’s “The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright” came out. That’s why I was even more excited when I found out that Wright was writing a response: Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision. All that was missing was an octagon.

I love to read and listen to both Piper and Wright. I highly agree with them in some areas, and highly disagree with them in others. Both have been influential to me. Last year, I listed Wright’s “Surprised by Hope” as my favorite book that I read (along with Andy Crouch’s “Culture Making”). Imagine my surprise, then, when I found Wright’s new book to be, well, frustrating. Don’t get me wrong—it’s an excellent read. Wright always challenges me to take another look on my view of Justification in ways that other New Perspective writers don’t. I also, to ruin the end of the review early, recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in the matter. If you were ask me if I were to not recommend it, I would have to echo Paul’s favorite way to say no, “μὴ γένοιτο!” May it never be! I highly recommend the book. It still frustrates me, however.
Read the rest of this entry

As I was translating a bit more out of 2 Corinthians chapter 2 tonight, verse 12 and 13 jumped out at me like a lion on a gazelle (too much?). Here’s the text:

When I reached Troas to preach Christ’s gospel, the Lord gave me an opportunity, but I had no peace of mind because I could not find my brother Titus. So, I left those at Troas, and departed for Macedonia.

The text literally reads “a door was opened to me by the Lord.” So here’s my question- is it ever ok to just walk away from an “open door?” Paul specifically tells us that it was an opportunity (open door, if you will) that was given to him by Jesus himself. Was it a sinful act for Paul to just walk away from it?

There’s something we have to keep in mind- just because the Bible records a historical act does not mean that God gives his stamp of approval. The passage here is simply Paul telling the Corinthians what he did during his travels that had kept him from coming to them as he first expected too. Paul is not giving an ethical judgment on his actions; he is simply stating what he did.

But that’s what makes it so weird for me… Paul is somewhat flippant about it. “Jesus gave me an opportunity to preach the Gospel, but I skipped out on it and went to hang out in Macedonia because I was sad that I couldn’t find Titus.” My opinion is that we shouldn’t miss out on divine opportunities, and that Paul was in the wrong here- but there’s two qualifying remarks I need to make here: 1. This is an opinion that I would give up if I was being persecuted for it. And by that I mean I would recant as soon as I saw them approach. 2. I’m just stuck on the flippancy of the statement.

Also, I get it. Not the point of the passage. If I was preaching this, it would be a sub-sub point. The point Paul is getting at is that he was so worried about finding Titus because it was Titus who was bringing Paul the news of how things were going at Corinth. When we couldn’t find Titus, his worry about the welfare of the Corinthians overwhelmed him. Paul was torn between Troas and Corinth. I really like what David Garland says on verse 13:

“This sad account reveals how interconnected Christians are. We cannot hurt one another without also hurting the work of God in the world. Paul does not discuss whether it was the right thing to do to abandon a place where God had made an opportunity. His uneasiness over the Corinthians, however, made it impossible for him to continue his work there.”¹

Hmm. You know what? My original question doesn’t matter anymore. The question I should have asked first is, “do I have this same heart for those I minister to?” If you want to answer the question posed in this post, go ahead. It’s an important question. But I realized it’s not the most important question. I’m off to pray and ask Paul’s ministerial heart.

Immanuel in our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel’s Worship
Tremper Longman III
Paperback: 228 pages
Publisher: P & R Publishing (August 2001)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0875526519
ISBN-13: 978-0875526515
Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.4 x 0.6 inches
amazon.com

After Jesus had risen from the dead, he met two of his disciples as they were walking on the Emmaus Road. He told them that all of the Scriptures, the Old Testament, pointed to Him as their fulfillment. Since then, Christians have debated exactly to what extent the Old Testament points to Jesus- is it every word? Every part? Certain parts? And in what way? In the book, “Immanuel in our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel’s Worship,” Tremper Longman III seeks to give us an answer to that question– at least in regards to the Israelites’ practices of worship.

The book is part of the “The Gospel According to the Old Testament” series, and is an excellent addition, both to the series and to the Christian’s library. Longman’s writing is theologically penetrating, yet very clear and accessible, and often doxological. He handles the text with great insight, all while keeping a broad audience in view. The book is broken into four units:
Part One: Sacred Space
Part Two: Sacred Acts
Part Three: Sacred People
Part Four: Sacred Time
This review will look at the book according to these units, and not necessarily by chapter.
Read the rest of this entry

Today I was taking a look of the idea of “blessing” in the book of Genesis and found some interesting facts- like the fact that the term is used in Genesis 1 – 11 as an action of God five times, and then used five more times in Genesis 12:1-3. Certainly an interesting literary device to connect the primordial narrative with that of the narrative of the Abrahamic covenant which basically is the rest of the book (as it gets repeated to Isaac and Jacob).

I also stumbled across an interesting discussion in Walter Brueggemann’s INT commentary, in his section on “Blessing Theology.” Brueggemann argues that in God’s blessing of creation, where he proclaims it “Good” and “Very good,” that he is not giving it a moral/ethical value, but an aesthetic value. He says that the word טונ should actually be translated “beautiful” instead of “good.” This is the first I’ve heard anyone mention this that I can remember- unless I just passed over it in skimming a page. Jenni-Westermann¹ lists this within its semantic range, as does TWOT ², though I am unfamiliar with this use in the Old Testament (by this I mean, I don’t know enough to know when this is the word behind my translation). What do you guys think? Anyone else put this forward as their interpretation of the creation account?

We Become What We Worship
G.K. Beale
Paperback: 341 pages
Publisher: IVP Academic (November 2008)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 083082877X
ISBN-13: 978-0830828777
Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6 x 1.2 inches
Amazon.com
Read the rest of this entry

Mark’s Prologue
In the prologue to Mark’s Gospel (1:1-15), the author sheds a lot of light on who he believes Jesus to be. It is loaded with the evangelist’s Christology (belief about the person and nature of Christ), though it can be easy to miss. In this post, I’m going to look at three verses, and four dimensions of how Mark views the identity of Jesus: as the Messiah, as the Son of God, as the God of Israel, and finally as the One through whom we have access to the Father. Due to space, I will not go in depth with these, but touch on them briefly (readers may argue this point, however!).

Verse 1 The Messiah, Son of God.
The opening verse of Mark’s Gospel serves as a type of title to the Gospel as a whole. In this short statement, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God,”¹ we have two very strong statements of Mark’s view of Jesus. The first is commonly looked over today- Jesus the Messiah. The word used by Mark here is Christ², which many people today use as if it were part of Jesus’ name. The term is actually a title, which means “annointed one” or “messiah.” This is the term used in the Septuagint³ to translate the Hebrew term ‏מָשִׁיחַ (mashiach, annointed). Mark’s use of the term implies his understanding of Jesus as the one who is the long-awaited Jewish Messiah. This term appears throughout the four Gospels, but particularly in Mark, it serves as the “hinge” between the two halves of the Gospel in the infamous confession of 8:29- “But who do you say that I am?” and Peter answered, “you are the Messiah (Christ).” At this point in the narrative, Jesus begins his journey to Jerusalem, teaching about his impending death on the cross, and its centrality to discipleship. It is worth noting that there is no mention of title at all between 1:1 and 8:29, yet after Peter’s confession it appears 5 times. The entire Gospel asks the question, “who is this man?” As my friend Brad has commented, he gives us the answer right here in verse 1, and we don’t even realize it. It then resurfaces at Peter’s confession as the narrative focuses on the movement to the cross. Why is this? It is because for Mark, the identity of Jesus is unable to be separated from his work.

The second Christological thrust in this verse comes in the next phrase, “the son of God.” This phrase is one of the most significant titles in the New Testament, and is the most prominent title used in the Gospels. The idea of divine sonship will appear later on in this passage at Jesus’ baptism, where God declares Jesus to be his “beloved son.” The phrase “with whom I am very pleased” (1.11) shows that in this title is understood some role of obedience and submission. This obedience and submission is shown most radically through the crucifixion event, where Jesus prays for the Father’s will to be done hours prior (Mark 14). On the day of crucifixion, Mark records the centurion as saying “Truly, this was the Son of God” (Mark 15:39). This marks the first of two bookend phrases in the prologue that open and close Mark’s Gospel. The term “son of God” also serves the purpose of identifying Jesus as the true Israel. It echoes God’s declaration of Israel as his first-born son to Pharoah in the Exodus⁴ and the “prophecy” of God bringing his son out of Egypt,⁵. As such, the term points to the reality that promises given to Israel, as well as Israel’s mission (particularly to the nations) were fulfilled in, or will be fulfilled in Jesus himself. This idea cannot be separated from the previously made point of obedience however. He is the true Israel precisely in His obedience where Israel the nation had failed. This is presented in stark relief as the very next scene after God’s declaration in verse 11 is the wilderness temptation. Whereas the first generation of Israelites were not able to enter the promised land because of their wilderness experience, Jesus is successfully obedient in his. ⁶

Verse 3 The God of Israel.
The third Christological statement comes in the form of a quote. The interesting thing here is what Mark is saying without saying anything. In fact, the statement comes in what Mark leaves out. Verse three is a quote directly from the Septuagint version of Isaiah 40:3. Here are the verses in parallel:

Notice the differences in bold? Mark’s editorial work on the quote has substituted “his” for “our God’s.” This is not an incidental substitution- it is a deliberate way of showing that Jesus (“his”) is the same as the God of Israel (“our God”). This is an unmistakable allusion to the deity of Jesus. In a paradox that rivals John’s prologue, the Messiah is both the Son of God (v. 1), and also God himself (v. 3). If we continue on in Isaiah, we find this statement in verse 5: “And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.” This is true most primarily in the incarnation, when God himself took on human flesh. Jesus is the fullest revelation of God and his glory⁷, and we await again that revelation at his second advent.

Verse 10 Access to the Father.
The Biblical narrative is one of fractured and broken relationships between God and creation. It moves from the garden where there is unrestricted access between God and people, to the fall and the need to reconciliation, to a city where once again the presence of God is among his people. How does this reconciliation come about? The narrative is clear that sinful people cannot reconcile themselves to God, so how can they? That is what the Gospel answers.

In this verse, Mark describes the scene after Jesus’ baptism. The heavens are “torn open” or “split apart,” the voice of the Father is heard, and the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus. The word Mark uses for “torn open” is σχίζω- the second of the two “bookends” Mark uses to open and close his Gospel. That Mark uses this term instead of the more regular term used ἀνοίγω (to open), and that it serves as a bookend term, points to a purpose behind his vocabulary. The other appearance of the term comes in Mark 15:38- “and the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.”

This event of the tearing of the curtain is found in all three of the synoptic Gospels,⁸ which shows that it is an important event. In the Old Testament, the curtain was used to keep the Israelites from having access to the glory and presence of God because of their sinfulness. This is a picture of the broken relationship between God and people. Only the High Priest could enter in behind the curtain, into the place called the Most Holy Place, and they could only do so once a year. On this day, Yom Kippur, they would make atonement for the sins of the people. The reason the evangelists include this story in their gospels is to show that in Christ, that curtain is no longer needed; we all, through faith, have access to the Father. As the author of Hebrews says, “With his own blood—not the blood of goats and calves—he entered the Most Holy Place once for all time and secured our redemption forever”⁹

As I said, the word that Mark uses for the tearing of the veil, which symbolizes access to God, is the same word that Mark uses here to graphically describe the tearing of the heavens at Jesus’ baptism. It seems to me that in framing the Gospel narrative this way, Mark is using the same symbolism at the beginning of the end. Here in verse 10 and in 15:38 Mark is telling his readers, “Here is the One through whom we have access to God. Not through any other, but this One.”

Conclusion
There is certainly much more that can be pulled out from these verses, but it is astounding what we have seen about Jesus in just these three verses. According to Mark’s prologue, Jesus is the Messiah, the promised one who is to come to save his people. He is also the Son of God- and therefore fulfills the role that Israel failed to do in full obedience. He is not only the Son of God, however, he is also paradoxically the God of Israel himself- which finds explanation only in the mystery of the trinity. Finally, it is this Son of God, who is somehow God himself, who came in the form of a person so that we could be reconciled to God. He did so by willingly and obediently going to the cross, taking on the iniquity and sins of mankind, and offering atonement for those who believe. It seems, then, in Mark’s prologue we do not just get an introduction to the person and work of Jesus- we get the gospel itself.

As most commentators have pointed out, Paul seems to make an allusion in 2 Corinthians 5:12c to 1 Samuel 16:7. As I am translating this section, I bring this up only to take a look of the use of idioms.

The verse in English is:
“So that you might have an answer against those who take pride in appearances and not in what is in the heart.”

Here is the Greek:
ἵνα ἔχητε πρὸς τοὺς ἐν προσώπῳ καυχωμένους καὶ μὴ ἐν καρδίᾳ.
Read the rest of this entry

I’ve recently started writing an exegetical paper on 2 Corinthians 5:1-10, and have become intrigued with David Garland’s interpretation of verse 1 in his NAC commentary. The verse is as follows:

“For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.”

Read the rest of this entry

τὸ γὰρ γράμμα ἀποκτέννει,
τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ

For the letter kills,
but the spirit causes to live.
-2 Corinthians 3:6

The verse quoted above has been the rally-call of Christians against the dangers of legalism- but is this what Paul actually means? I wrote an earlier entry reflecting on Paul’s descriptions of the old and new covenants, and why it is that he says the “ministry of death” is “glorious” (v. 7), where I stated that the Old Covenant is glorious because it brings conviction of sin. I think that verse 6, far from being an abstraction against legalism, simply states this same idea. In this post, I will try and show that meaning from this text.
Read the rest of this entry