G.K. Beale’s Newest – A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New

I just got G.K. Beale’s A New Testament Biblical Theology in the mail and began doing some skimming.  I won’t be able to delve in until late December, but I was thrilled to spend a few minutes spot-reading.

So far I’m quite pleased.  I was anxious as I awaited this book since I’ve been so disappointed by his last two books.  (Readers of this blog will remember that we’ve expressed some hesitation/critique of Beale’s Inerrancy and Idolatry books – use the blog’s search widget and you’ll see those posts.)

While I felt some of his introductory chapter raised some of the same methodological concerns that his Idolatry book raised, once the book got rolling, it was nice, familiar territory – just like the good old days of The Temple and the Church’s Mission and The Book of Revelation!

Here are a few things I’ve enjoyed thus far.

Beale’s discussion of “escalated blessings” that awaited even pre-fall Adam was quite rich.  I just preached on Rom 1.1-7, and was struck that even here, Paul contrasts Adam’s sinless/unglorified state with Christ’s sinless/glorified state.  Beale’s discussion on pages 33-46 was quite fine.

While discussing whether Adam would have eaten from the Tree of Life prior to the fall, Beale makes a contribution that I hadn’t considered.  I’ve tended to follow M.G. Kline’s view that Adam had not eaten of the tree, but have recognized the philological problems of this view and struggled with it. Beale suggests another possibility:

Whether or not Adam was able to eat of the tree of life before his sin, it is likely that there is reference in Gen. 3:22 to what might be termed a “consummative eating.”  The word “also” is the first indication that this was a decisive “onetime” act of eating: “And now, lest he stretch out his hand and take also [gam] from the tree of life, and eat …” …. Thus, even if Adam had been eating previously of the tree of life, this was to be a more decisive act of eating of that tree than had ever occurred…. Adam’s exclusion from the garden and from partaking of the tree indicates that he would be prohibited from decisively eating of the tree of life and enjoying the consequent escalated blessing of eternal life.”

Pgs. 38-39.

This notion of decisive or consummative eating is intriguing.  I’ll look forward to thinking more about this!

A chapter that will likely draw interesting attention to those interested in the recent justification debates is chap. 15 “The Inaugurated Latter-Day Justification.”  I haven’t read enough of it to evaluate how he parses out the “future” aspect to justification, though from what I’ve read so far, it sounds more Gaffin-esque than N.T. Wright-esque.  I was pleased to see him boldly affirm the imputation of Christ’s active obedience (pgs. 471-80).

A few quotes:

Four texts traditionally adduced to support [the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active obedience] are Rom. 5:15-19; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9.  All, in my view, support the concept of Christ’s righteousness being passed on representatively to those who believe in him.  Here my purpose is to review briefly what I think are viable texts supporting the notion of the attribution of Christ’s righteousness to saints.

Pgs. 471-72.

The notion of Christ doing what Adam should have done and achieving the glorious blessed position that Adam should have inherited and then having believers identified with this glorious position is close conceptually to and suggestive of the idea of attributing Christ’s positive obedience to believers.

Pg. 480.

Whereas many biblical scholars exaggerate the difference between biblical terminology and systematic-theological terminology, especially the later quote by Beale is a solid way of noting that one can still robustly affirm traditional doctrinal formulations while noting that the biblical writers themselves use a different set of terms in explaining those concepts.

All this to say, I’m excited to have this volume in my hands.  Though I suspect that I’ll find myself rubbing up against some positivistic/fundamentalistic strands that characterize Beale’s writing, what I’ve read so far is delightful!  Spend the money, get the book!  From what I can tell so far, it is not going to disappoint!

__________________
Andrew

A Review of Tim Chester’s “A Meal With Jesus”

  One of Tim Chester’s newest books is called A Meal with Jesus (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011).  Since I’ve benefited from some of Chester’s other works (including You Can Change and Total Church), I picked up this newer book.  FYI, the subtitle of A Meal with Jesus is “Discovering Grace, Community, and Mission around the Table.”

The book is a discussion of the meals found mostly in Luke’s gospel.  In six chapters, Chester discusses Luke 5, 7, 9, 14, 22, and 24.  All of those chapters of Luke have stories of Jesus eating a meal or talking about food.  Chester does a good job of explaining the OT background, the redemptive historical aspect of meals, and how Jesus feeding and eating with sinners is a picture of the gospel of grace.  I appreciate the book because it has lots of Bible discussion and is gospel centered.

However, I also have to say I don’t recommend this book.  Here are a few reasons why.

First, I can’t stand the trendiness of it.  Chester uses the terms “mission” and “community” far too much.  He talks about Jesus being a “party animal” whose “mission strategy” was a “long meal stretching into the evening” (p. 13).  Chester also uses words like “reshaping community,” “enacted community,” “Christ incognito” and “enacting mission.”  Those terms aren’t necessarily wrong, but they are somewhat ambiguous because of their trendiness.  What is an enacted community?  Can I enact community?  These buzzwords annoyed me already after I finished the first chapter.

Second, I think Chester far overstates the importance of meals in the Bible.  I do agree that the Bible has much to say about meals, and that they are significant to some extent.  However, it seemed like the theme of meals is the lens by which Chester approached the Bible, which made him overstate the case quite often.  Here’s one example of an overstatement: “Meals…embody God’s grace and so give form to community and mission” (p. 15).  Here’s another example: “If you routinely share meals and you have a passion for Jesus, then you’ll be doing mission” (p. 89).   I love the fact that Jesus ate with sinners, but there are tons of other threads in the Bible to which we must pay attention if we want to remain balanced.  Chester doesn’t really talk about verses like Rom. 14.17 (the kingdom is not a matter of eating and drinking) or other similar texts (i.e. 1 Cor. 6.13 and 8.8).  I didn’t like this book because it made too much of one small biblical thread.  Perhaps it would have been better as a short 50 page booklet.

Third, I strongly disagree with this sacramental (mystical) theology that Chester espouses: “Our life at the table, no matter how mundane, is sacramental – a means through which we encounter the mystery of God” (p. 10).  Later he says, “Hospitality can be a kind of sacrament of forgiveness” (p. 48).  This too was pretty bad: “Meals enact mission.  But they enact mission because they enact grace” (p. 88).  The list goes on.  To view regular meals as sacramental is unbiblical.  I don’t have the space to give a description of the Lord’s Supper here, but it certainly is not me, my family, and a neighbor eating left over pizza on Friday night before a baseball game.  Holy Communion has to with the church publicly gathering together to partake of bread and wine after hearing the word of Christ and self-examination (1 Cor. 11).  If Chester allows regular meals to be sacramental, why not snacks in the afternoon?

Fourth, the book was far too romantic for me.  By that I mean all the meals Chester describes are quaint and charming.  He talks about long parties, kebabs, music, Bengali cookbooks, laughter, homemade curry, and people talking for hours over different cuts of meat.  Some of those things are great - but many are very culturally conditioned.  I’m not sure a three-hour meal is possible in all cultures (especially when you have to work at 5AM and kids to put to bed at 8PM!).  As I read, I often thought, “Who has meals like that?”  A great meal setting in one culture is not necessarily the same in another.

In summary (no surprise here!), I don’t think this is Chester’s best book. In fact, I’d say don’t bother getting it.  If you’ve read other RE:LIT books, you won’t need to get this one since it re:states (pun intended!) a lot of the same “missional” and “community” themes that all the RE:LIT books talk about.  I suppose I’m old-school, but I prefer the Reformation teaching that the only means of grace are the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments.  I love meals with Christian friends, but they do not feed my soul like the bread and wine of Holy Communion.

shane lems

Trembling Before the Word

 Here’s a great section of Jerry Bridges’ commentary on the fruit of the Spirit and other Christian virtues.  Here he talks about one aspect of Christian humility.

“The person who is truly humble before God is also humble before God’s Word.  God says he esteems the person who is humble and contrite in spirit and who trembles at his Word.  …[We] must develop this kind of humility toward the Bible.  As we search the Scriptures, we must allow them to search us, to sit in judgment upon our character and conduct.  We must treat the Scriptures not only as a source of knowledge about God but also as the expression of his will for our daily lives.  As the familiar statement goes, ‘The Bible was given not just to increase our knowledge, but to guide our conduct.’  Far too often it seems we approach the Bible just to increase our spiritual knowledge of the facts of the Bible.  We do need to increase our spiritual knowledge, but it should be for the purpose of obeying God’s will.  Paul prayed that God would fill the Colossian Christians with the knowledge of his will so that they might live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way” (p. 50-51).

That’s the great balance of the Bible.  Christians, like Paul, should want to know Christ but also how to live a life worthy of the calling to which we’ve been called.  Or, as James so aptly put it, we should not just be hearers of the word, but doers as well.

Jerry Bridges, The Fruitful Life (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2006).

shane lems

No More Promises To God

  Luther didn’t come to his conclusions on justification sola fide by by himself.  They were obviously rooted in prayer and a deep study of Scripture.  But they also had much to do with one of his teachers in the Augustinian monastic order, Johann von Staupitz.  Here’s one example where we can clearly see that Staupitz influenced Luther quite a bit (and it is an awesome quote).  This is what Staupitz told Luther at one time when Luther was struggling with sin and moral failure.

“I have promised God a thousand times that I would become a better man, but I never kept my promise. From now on I am not going to make any more vows. Experience has taught me that I cannot keep them. Unless God is merciful to me for Christ’s sake and grants unto me a blessed departure, I shall not be able to stand before Him.”

Thankfully our justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification are not based upon or grounded in our promises to God, but his to us (which are yes and amen in Christ).  Staupitz knew it and he preached it to a monk named Martin Luther (and he just preached it to me!).

This great quote is found in Luther’s Commentary on Galatians 5:17 (For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh.  They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. [NIV2011]).

shane lems

The Sweetness of Tears

 Sometimes Christians forget the sweetness that can exist along with the bitterness of tears.  Because we live in a culture that focuses on entertainment, instant amusement, glamor, fame, and popularity, it is easy for us to jump on the bandwagon by doing our best to avoid tears, pain, and sorrow.  Everyone is searching for happiness and trying to get rid of tears.  So we turn to pills, personal trainers, makeovers, religion, sex, drink, and drugs (the list goes on) to try to attain happiness.  Of course there is a longing in every human heart for happiness because sin (in us and “out there”) has left humans an unhappy bunch.  What about tears?  Should we avoid them at all costs?  Why did Jesus say, Blessed are those who mourn and Blessed are you who weep now?  Below are some points made by Thomas Watson in The Beatitudes, as he discussed Matthew 5.4.

“1) Sin must have tears.  While we carry the fire of sin about us, we must carry the water of tears to quench it (Ezek. 7.16).  We have in  our hearts the seed of the unpardonable sin.  And shall we not mourn?  He that does not mourn has surely lost the use of his reason.

2) Gospel-mourning [the weeping of repentance] is spontaneous and free (it is not forced).  It is spiritual, that is, we mourn for sin more than suffering. 

3) Gospel-mourning sends the soul to God.  Evangelical mourning is a spur to prayer.  Gospel tears must drop from the eye of faith.  Our disease must make us mourn, but when we look up to our Physician, who has made a plaister of his own blood, we must not mourn without hope.  Believing tears are precious.  When the clouds of sorrow have over-cast the soul, some sunshine of faith must break forth.  Though our tears drop to the earth, our faith must reach heaven.

4) Gospel-mourning is joined with self-loathing.  The sinner admires himself.  The penitent lathes himself (Ezek. 20:43).  Gospel-mourning must be purifying.  We must not only mourn but turn.  ‘Turn to Me with weeping’ (Joel 2.12).  We must not only abstain from sin and weep over it, we must also abhor it.

5) Tears cannot be put to a better use.  The brinish water of repenting tears will help to kil that worm of sin which should gnaw the conscience.  Gospel-mourning is an evidence of grace.  Weeping for sin is a sign of the new birth.

6) Repentant tears are precious.  Tears dropping from a mournful, penitent eye, are like water dropping from the roses, very sweet and precious to God.  That heart is most delightful to God which has a fountain of sorrow running in it.  ‘Mary stood at Christ’s feet weeping’ (Lk 7.38).  Her tears were more fragrant than her ointment.  God delights much in tears, else he would not keep a bottle and a book for them (Ps 56.8).  Tears, though they are silent, yet have a voice (Ps 6.8).  David who was the greatest mourner in Israel was the sweet swinger in Israel.  My tears were my food (Ps 42.3).  Ambrose gives this gloss: ‘No food so sweet as tears!’  Bernard says ‘The tears of the repentant are sweeter than all worldly joy.’

7) Tears line the road to the New Jerusalem.  Perhaps a man may think, ‘If I cannot mourn for sin, I will get to heaven some other way.  I will go to church, I will give alms, I will lead a civil life.’  No, but I tell you there is but one way to blessedness, and that is through the Valley of Tears.  ‘I tell you, except you repent, you shall all likewise perish’ (Lk 13.3).

8) Christian tears will eventually end.  It is only a while that we shall weep.  After a few showers fall from our eyes, we shall have perpetual sunshine.  God shall wipe away all tears (Rev. 7.17).  When sin shall cease, tears shall cease.  ‘Weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning’ (Ps. 30.5).”

There are other reasons why Christians weep, to be sure.  I appreciate Watson’s perspective here because he gives us a good biblical way to view tears of repentance.  They don’t save us nor do they wash away our sins, but they do have a place in our pilgrimage.  So Christian weeping truly is bittersweet: bitter because it has to do with sin and sweet because it has to do with faith in Jesus the Savior.

The above quotes are slightly edited and abbreviated.  You can find the full discussion in chapters 6-10 of Thomas Watson’s The Beatitudes.

shane lems